The fine GOP House majority

kmgilroy89 said:
Do you have a source? You’re arguing against what’s on a government website. I remember 2011 very well. If we don’t pay the interest on our bonds that’s a default. While that interest has priority, the Treasury needs to print money to do that.
More...
Interest doesn't just have priority, rather it is mandated to be paid by The Constitution. Treasury has plenty of money from tax revenue to service the debt. What the Treasury needs more money for is to fund Congreffional spending. --Debt payments are not Congreffional spending.
 
By the way, the debt ceiling should not be raised anymore and we need to live within our means. That being said----if spending were controlled and the debt ceiling not raised, you would initially see the mother of all stock crashes. In the long term, this would be a good thing for The US.
 
gwb-trading said:
What is the "nuclear option" you ask? Well it involves changing the rules to vote for speaker from requiring a majority to simply requiring the most votes. This would pressure the 30 Republicans who oppose McCarthy to vote for him --- otherwise the Democrat Hakeem Jeffries will get elected House Speaker.

Sources say House Republicans discuss 'nuclear option': Lower vote threshold to be speaker
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...eat-in-gop-house-speaker-standoff/ar-AA15VfvF

As McCarthy's quest to become speaker of the House continues to fall short, some of his allies are exploring a radical idea: lowering the threshold needed to be elected.

Under current House rules, a candidate needs an outright majority of all members voting to be elected speaker. With 433 members voting so far -- and one member voting "present," which doesn't affect the total -- that means McCarthy has repeatedly fallen far short of the 217 currently needed to win a majority.

The rules, however, can be changed: With a simple majority vote, the House could decide to allow a speaker to be elected with a plurality, or whoever has the most votes when no one has a majority. This has happened before, but very rarely.

It's called the "nuclear option" because it would force anti-McCarthy voters to face a stark choice: vote for him or watch Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries get elected instead. After all, Jeffries has received 212 votes in every single round so far and the most McCarthy has received has been 203.

But would those 20 renegade Republicans continue to vote against McCarthy if doing so would result in electing a Democrat as speaker? Advocates of the option say the change would call the critics' bluff and force them to vote for McCarthy or take the blame for ceding control of the House to Democrats.

According to two McCarthy allies in the House, the idea is being discussed among House Republicans. They believe Democrats would support the rules change.

One influential Republican voice, however, told ABC News he opposes the idea.

"I know it is an idea that has been floating around," incoming House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said. "I'd be opposed it."

He added: "I know Hakeem would like, but I don't."
More...

I dunno. I discussed that a bit yesterday.

There are constitutional issues there. The constitution provides for unsworn members to vote for the purpose of electing a Speaker. And it is a given that they can vote on procedural issues such as whether to adjourn and convene and all of that. But changing what constitutes a majority or plurality etc is a substantive change. It is true that the House can and has made very quick rule changes, but those were by sworn members.

Probably the House Parliamentarian would weigh in on that too.

Not going to argue the case here. Just sayin it may have constitutional issues.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
By the way, the debt ceiling should not be raised anymore and we need to live within our means. That being said----if spending were controlled and the debt ceiling not raised, you would initially see the mother of all stock crashes. In the long term, this would be a good thing for The US.
More...

And what would happen to the US and global economy if the creation of dollars ground to zero and the US no longer issued debt?

The concept of “means” doesn’t even apply to our economic system. I don’t know what you mean by in the long term it would be a good thing for the US. Our current long term prospects are wonderful right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top