The 14th amendment clearly has not received the attention it deserves. The insurrection clause, the national debt clause...who knows what other treaures this amendment contains? Thank goodness Democrats are willing to find out!
Thank you for explaining it. I'm sure a lot of people, like me, didn't realize that we are not looking to borrow more money, just to pay what we owe. Let's hope the WH looks into the 14th amendment and hammers the deadbeat debt home.
Jay, here’s my question: Why does Congress even get to vote on the debt ceiling? They’ve incurred the debt. The 14th Amendment requires that it be paid. So…why doesn’t it just get paid automatically? What’s the point of voting on the debt ceiling at all?
I agree. It is not the refusal to raise the debt ceiling that should be at issue. It is the law that produced a debt ceiling in the first place that is unconstitutional.
Thank you! I've been wondering about this since Obama. I seems open-and-shut even if it goes to this particular Supreme Court. So sick of GOP posturing on this. How'd that work out for them last time? As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
I do NOT want to live in a deadbeat nation. I also do NOT want to negotiate with bullies, terrorists, and traitors, which is the assumed identity of the current House GOP.
This article clearly explains what so many do not understand. We owe the payments. Suck it up Buttercup.
If the GOP want the USA to spend less money, I suggest they start in their own districts and states. Note: many red states are “taker states” meaning they receive more federal dollars than they send. So that bridge you negotiated in KY? Gone. Etc.
I’m not an economist, but I don’t understand why the treasury secretary can’t mint a couple trillion dollar platinum coins, as suggested by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (and described in detail on a Radiolab podcast titled, “More Money Less Problems” link: https://radiolab.org/episodes/more-money-less-problems )
There is a fallacy to that - and that is why I wish I had paid more attention in my Econ classes. I do remember going over that very thing in an Econ class and laughing with my Econ professor about a Saturday Night Live skit where President Carter is showing Amy about the excess money in circulation and that all we have to do is burn it up. But for the life of me, I cannot remember what the fallacy is. I guess I’ll have to get out my old Econ book. Macro Economics.
Deadbeat Ceiling is MUCH better and REALLY gets the point across, succinctly, smartly. Which means you very likely won't see the Dems use it anywhere. I'd love nothing more to be proven wrong.
In any event, I'm going to share this everywhere I can and lets get that hashtag going! #deadbeatceiling
It would be preferable if Congress and the President molded legislation to fit within the then existing debt ceiling. America has a serious spending and debt problem which ultimately will cause a fiscal crisis and deep recession. As our previous generation was the Greatest Generation, sacrificing for the welfare of the nation, the current Baby Boomer generation and those just older are the Selfish Generation, hoping to live in part on borrowed monies and leave the huge bills for our children and grandchildren.
The Boomers paid for 40/50 years into Social Security and that money has been borrowed for the Vietnam, Iraq, & Afghanistan Wars. Bush took a big bit out in 9/11 & a lot went into grifting ask Haliburton. The debt Congress doesn't want to pay is to Social Security which they are still trying to crash and loot.
That's a common meme, but really misleading. You can't stash the surplus we had for many years in Social Security trust fund into a savings account. Nor can you invest it in the stock market. By law, it must be stored in the safest investment there is: Treasury Bills. Treasury Bills is really just another name for "a loan to the federal government". So while it is true that the federal government borrowed the money, that was driven by the legally mandated investment in exceptionally safe securities.
Thorley "older" folks are not trying to "live" on SSA but, I am sure they're many especially the female cohort that are that dependent on SSA. Good News. "Baby Boomers" raised by hard working parents from the Greatest Generation were taught that going to college was just a part of the next step in life.
With those degrees many professionals, (md's, phd's, jd's) entered the work force in the 1970 's & 1980's with their incomes (here is the important part) their RISING incomes subject to SSA taxes ever INCREASING taxes tracking their rise in professional income.
Wait! Aren't those taxes capped? Yes, they are or ... 'er .... or were. That upwardly mobile 'cap' tracked the upwardly professionals work life funding SSA. No worries "the Boomers won't even notice it". The 'cap' is up,to $137,500.00 last time I looked. In short, the Greatest Generation's children ended up as the Greatest SSA Contributors. The Ultra Rich as you may have noticed by now, absolutely love the cap to protect their income for those tough later tears, er ... I mean YEARS.
I’m tired of hearing Boomers say they paid into SSA and so they are just getting what they deserve. SSA was designed with a life expectancy of 58 to 62 years. Life expectancy is now is 74 to 80. So I’m taught to maximize my 401k and IRA contributions because I shouldn’t expect social security to be around when I retire. Sounds fair.
Don't worry. Due to the horrible medical control exerted by insurance companies looking to make a profit over your body, and the toxic environment created by elimination of regulations life expectancy has been rapidly dropping to below the age to collect Social Security. And your 401K looks good to the Banksters who are currently lusting after Social Security.
Could you clarify for me....who do you consider a Boomer? I was born in 1946, part of the Boomer generation and find it hard to classify my generation as selfish. Now, my children's generation could be called that, imho..
Selfish is definitely inappropriate. Thanks to Republican cutting, there is one benefit this generation did have compared to the next generation. "Boomers" were expected to care for children, and maybe pay for college (if it wasn't still free as it used to be), while later generations are expected to care for both children and parents, with exorbitantly higher college and healthcare costs. They are sometimes called "sandwich generation". Assigning blame based on date of birth is of course fundamentally wrong.
Carole, I think 1944 qualifies, the age of my older sister. In 1944 the progress of WW2 looked much better especially afterJune 6, 1944 not that there was not much more work to do. My older sister still a history teacher is still contibuting to her own & entirely seprate state retirement program. NO SSA benefits despite many, many quarterly contributions before her teaching years. Free continutions to SSA ---- no "graduated benefits", zip, nada, zero. She was a 1944 first of the 'Boomers.' She paid in early & often but NO Benefits.
Another example: undocumented non-citizens also pay into SSA, but never receive benefits from it. According to a New York Times article a few years ago, they contribute around $7 billion annually. Same thing with many, but not all, temporary guest workers (sometimes called "visa workers").
Kevin, that is my understanding as well; absent an audit, the "undocumented" provide essential agricultural & other labor but, do not get any benefits from these contributions. It appears to be a fact pattern ripe for an unfair busiess practice lawsuit and/or class action with carefully chosen Class representatives.
I don't think this is going to work. One could argue that hiring anybody without work authorization (whether undocumented, tourist etc.) is an unfair business practice, but it would be hard to find somebody with standing. The workers themselves certainly wouldn't have a case. Federal law mandates that FICA taxes be paid regardless of legal status of the person. Complying with tax laws can't be an unfair business practice, and a class action against the Social Security Administration is also likely going to go nowhere fast.
Understand your points all of which are good ones. I was thinking of California Law, B&P Code Section 17200 et seq. The unfair part could never be the paying of taxes as you point out. The unfair part is payng the taxes but not getting any benefits with the full knowledge of the employer & state taxing authorities which in CA would be the FTB. Franchise Tax Board. CA has a number of pro-worker wage/ labor laws as well. But, alas, I am retired.
The 14th amendment clearly has not received the attention it deserves. The insurrection clause, the national debt clause...who knows what other treaures this amendment contains? Thank goodness Democrats are willing to find out!
Haven't you heard? The Constitution doesn't have a fourteenth Amendment. Or a first or third or ... There is only one Amendment, the second.
That is not quite true Kevin... there is also the 5th, but it only applies to Republicans
I agree, deadbeat ceiling is a much better term. 🤬gop
Thank you for explaining it. I'm sure a lot of people, like me, didn't realize that we are not looking to borrow more money, just to pay what we owe. Let's hope the WH looks into the 14th amendment and hammers the deadbeat debt home.
Jay, here’s my question: Why does Congress even get to vote on the debt ceiling? They’ve incurred the debt. The 14th Amendment requires that it be paid. So…why doesn’t it just get paid automatically? What’s the point of voting on the debt ceiling at all?
It’s a long weird history relating to Woodrow Wilson and World War I financing, but the details escape me…
I think Heather Cox Richardson addressed the history of the debt ceiling once, but I don't recall exactly when. No doubt her posts could be searched.
I agree. It is not the refusal to raise the debt ceiling that should be at issue. It is the law that produced a debt ceiling in the first place that is unconstitutional.
I was wondering the same
Thank you! I've been wondering about this since Obama. I seems open-and-shut even if it goes to this particular Supreme Court. So sick of GOP posturing on this. How'd that work out for them last time? As they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
I do NOT want to live in a deadbeat nation. I also do NOT want to negotiate with bullies, terrorists, and traitors, which is the assumed identity of the current House GOP.
This article clearly explains what so many do not understand. We owe the payments. Suck it up Buttercup.
If the GOP want the USA to spend less money, I suggest they start in their own districts and states. Note: many red states are “taker states” meaning they receive more federal dollars than they send. So that bridge you negotiated in KY? Gone. Etc.
Excellent analysis, Jay. I worry that the SC will create some new rule and find otherwise if we come to this.
Excellent analysis of the situation, thank you!
Really appreciate your crystal clear explanations. Thank you!
Thank you for your clear explanation. I learn so much from reading and rereading your words.
Thank you for such simplistic clarity!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You ease my worries and I'm very grateful.
How fitting to use the Constitution to thumb our nose at the Federalists in the Republican party.
I’m not an economist, but I don’t understand why the treasury secretary can’t mint a couple trillion dollar platinum coins, as suggested by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (and described in detail on a Radiolab podcast titled, “More Money Less Problems” link: https://radiolab.org/episodes/more-money-less-problems )
See, Professor Paul Krugman or read him or about a dozen other Macroeconomists.
The more I read about the trillion dollar platinum coin, the more legit it sounds. There’s a whole Wikipedia dedicated to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin
There is a fallacy to that - and that is why I wish I had paid more attention in my Econ classes. I do remember going over that very thing in an Econ class and laughing with my Econ professor about a Saturday Night Live skit where President Carter is showing Amy about the excess money in circulation and that all we have to do is burn it up. But for the life of me, I cannot remember what the fallacy is. I guess I’ll have to get out my old Econ book. Macro Economics.
See, Professor Paul Paul Krugman. Open visiting Hours.
Deadbeat Ceiling is MUCH better and REALLY gets the point across, succinctly, smartly. Which means you very likely won't see the Dems use it anywhere. I'd love nothing more to be proven wrong.
In any event, I'm going to share this everywhere I can and lets get that hashtag going! #deadbeatceiling
It would be preferable if Congress and the President molded legislation to fit within the then existing debt ceiling. America has a serious spending and debt problem which ultimately will cause a fiscal crisis and deep recession. As our previous generation was the Greatest Generation, sacrificing for the welfare of the nation, the current Baby Boomer generation and those just older are the Selfish Generation, hoping to live in part on borrowed monies and leave the huge bills for our children and grandchildren.
The Boomers paid for 40/50 years into Social Security and that money has been borrowed for the Vietnam, Iraq, & Afghanistan Wars. Bush took a big bit out in 9/11 & a lot went into grifting ask Haliburton. The debt Congress doesn't want to pay is to Social Security which they are still trying to crash and loot.
That's a common meme, but really misleading. You can't stash the surplus we had for many years in Social Security trust fund into a savings account. Nor can you invest it in the stock market. By law, it must be stored in the safest investment there is: Treasury Bills. Treasury Bills is really just another name for "a loan to the federal government". So while it is true that the federal government borrowed the money, that was driven by the legally mandated investment in exceptionally safe securities.
Thorley "older" folks are not trying to "live" on SSA but, I am sure they're many especially the female cohort that are that dependent on SSA. Good News. "Baby Boomers" raised by hard working parents from the Greatest Generation were taught that going to college was just a part of the next step in life.
With those degrees many professionals, (md's, phd's, jd's) entered the work force in the 1970 's & 1980's with their incomes (here is the important part) their RISING incomes subject to SSA taxes ever INCREASING taxes tracking their rise in professional income.
Wait! Aren't those taxes capped? Yes, they are or ... 'er .... or were. That upwardly mobile 'cap' tracked the upwardly professionals work life funding SSA. No worries "the Boomers won't even notice it". The 'cap' is up,to $137,500.00 last time I looked. In short, the Greatest Generation's children ended up as the Greatest SSA Contributors. The Ultra Rich as you may have noticed by now, absolutely love the cap to protect their income for those tough later tears, er ... I mean YEARS.
I’m tired of hearing Boomers say they paid into SSA and so they are just getting what they deserve. SSA was designed with a life expectancy of 58 to 62 years. Life expectancy is now is 74 to 80. So I’m taught to maximize my 401k and IRA contributions because I shouldn’t expect social security to be around when I retire. Sounds fair.
Don't worry. Due to the horrible medical control exerted by insurance companies looking to make a profit over your body, and the toxic environment created by elimination of regulations life expectancy has been rapidly dropping to below the age to collect Social Security. And your 401K looks good to the Banksters who are currently lusting after Social Security.
Could you clarify for me....who do you consider a Boomer? I was born in 1946, part of the Boomer generation and find it hard to classify my generation as selfish. Now, my children's generation could be called that, imho..
Selfish is definitely inappropriate. Thanks to Republican cutting, there is one benefit this generation did have compared to the next generation. "Boomers" were expected to care for children, and maybe pay for college (if it wasn't still free as it used to be), while later generations are expected to care for both children and parents, with exorbitantly higher college and healthcare costs. They are sometimes called "sandwich generation". Assigning blame based on date of birth is of course fundamentally wrong.
Carole, I think 1944 qualifies, the age of my older sister. In 1944 the progress of WW2 looked much better especially afterJune 6, 1944 not that there was not much more work to do. My older sister still a history teacher is still contibuting to her own & entirely seprate state retirement program. NO SSA benefits despite many, many quarterly contributions before her teaching years. Free continutions to SSA ---- no "graduated benefits", zip, nada, zero. She was a 1944 first of the 'Boomers.' She paid in early & often but NO Benefits.
Another example: undocumented non-citizens also pay into SSA, but never receive benefits from it. According to a New York Times article a few years ago, they contribute around $7 billion annually. Same thing with many, but not all, temporary guest workers (sometimes called "visa workers").
Kevin, that is my understanding as well; absent an audit, the "undocumented" provide essential agricultural & other labor but, do not get any benefits from these contributions. It appears to be a fact pattern ripe for an unfair busiess practice lawsuit and/or class action with carefully chosen Class representatives.
I don't think this is going to work. One could argue that hiring anybody without work authorization (whether undocumented, tourist etc.) is an unfair business practice, but it would be hard to find somebody with standing. The workers themselves certainly wouldn't have a case. Federal law mandates that FICA taxes be paid regardless of legal status of the person. Complying with tax laws can't be an unfair business practice, and a class action against the Social Security Administration is also likely going to go nowhere fast.
Understand your points all of which are good ones. I was thinking of California Law, B&P Code Section 17200 et seq. The unfair part could never be the paying of taxes as you point out. The unfair part is payng the taxes but not getting any benefits with the full knowledge of the employer & state taxing authorities which in CA would be the FTB. Franchise Tax Board. CA has a number of pro-worker wage/ labor laws as well. But, alas, I am retired.