• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

no, but this hyperventilating and complaining that the idea that he would have to negotiate is unprecedented just demonstrates his lack of previous experience.

Just the opposite. Obama tried to negotiate with the GOP during the Bush Meltdown. He even traveled to the House to meet exclusively with GOP house members. They stabbed him in the back, voting before the meeting, to reject his stimulus plan before he even proposed it.

There is no purpose to negotiating with the freaks that make up Tea Party Occupied Congress. They need to be whipped and chastized and humiliated. That's the only semantics they understand. And finally, Obama get it.
 
From CNN:

Toomey's proposal would require that revenue going to Treasury first be used to pay interest on U.S. debt, Social Security benefits and active-duty military pay.

If there's not enough revenue available to cover those payments when they're due, the bill would also give limited authority to Treasury to raise the debt ceiling just enough to borrow the difference between revenue on hand and what's owed on the priority payments.


Debt ceiling stop-gap: GOP would pay some bills over others - Jan. 18, 2013

IMO, this is not a responsible proposal for a number of reasons:

1. It does not assure "full faith and credit" as the legislation would fail to honor a large number of obligations to which policy makers have agreed.

2. If this is their idea of fiscal reform, there is a stunning lack of courage. Under such a scenario, its proponents would seek to eliminate a large portion of federal programs, including but not limited to Medicare, without explicitly acknowledging what they are doing. If Senator Toomey wishes to eliminate Medicare immediately with no transition, he should have the courage to say so. Much more likely, Toomey and other proponents of such legislation haven't thought through the consequences of their proposal. Nevertheless, refusing to fund Medicare would impact seniors' access to health care, especially if funding delays are prolonged.

3. Once achieved, there is no indication that these Members would then demonstrate flexibility to reach a pragmatic compromise.

4. With respect to point #3, none of those members offered a corresponding piece of fiscal consolidation legislation to supplant what amounts to backdoor partial default. How would they reform the mandatory spending programs? Simply paying Social Security as is and not paying Medicare is not a serious reform proposal.

5. Numerous basic services related to public safety ranging from the FAA to National Weather Service would not be funded.

IMO, this legislation should be rejected and, if it passes the House, the Senate should not even consider it. It is not a serious fiscal consolidation package (allowing the sequester to take hold is a more realistic approach and given Congress's recent thinking, it might be the best option available at present). In fact, it might actually create obstacles to fiscal consolidation by making the consequences of intransigence less costly and, thereby, undermining incentives to reach agreement on a fiscal consolidation program.

Partial default is a bad option. Toomey's packaging doesn't change that reality.
 
From CNN:

Toomey's proposal would require that revenue going to Treasury first be used to pay interest on U.S. debt, Social Security benefits and active-duty military pay.

If there's not enough revenue available to cover those payments when they're due, the bill would also give limited authority to Treasury to raise the debt ceiling just enough to borrow the difference between revenue on hand and what's owed on the priority payments.


Debt ceiling stop-gap: GOP would pay some bills over others - Jan. 18, 2013

IMO, this is not a responsible proposal for a number of reasons:

1. It does not assure "full faith and credit" as the legislation would fail to honor a large number of obligations to which policy makers have agreed.

2. If this is their idea of fiscal reform, there is a stunning lack of courage. Under such a scenario, its proponents would seek to eliminate a large portion of federal programs, including but not limited to Medicare, without explicitly acknowledging what they are doing. If Senator Toomey wishes to eliminate Medicare immediately with no transition, he should have the courage to say so. Much more likely, Toomey and other proponents of such legislation haven't thought through the consequences of their proposal. Nevertheless, refusing to fund Medicare would impact seniors' access to health care, especially if funding delays are prolonged.

3. Once achieved, there is no indication that these Members would then demonstrate flexibility to reach a pragmatic compromise.

4. With respect to point #3, none of those members offered a corresponding piece of fiscal consolidation legislation to supplant what amounts to backdoor partial default. How would they reform the mandatory spending programs? Simply paying Social Security as is and not paying Medicare is not a serious reform proposal.

5. Numerous basic services related to public safety ranging from the FAA to National Weather Service would not be funded.

IMO, this legislation should be rejected and, if it passes the House, the Senate should not even consider it. It is not a serious fiscal consolidation package (allowing the sequester to take hold is a more realistic approach and given Congress's recent thinking, it might be the best option available at present). In fact, it might actually create obstacles to fiscal consolidation by making the consequences of intransigence less costly and, thereby, undermining incentives to reach agreement on a fiscal consolidation program.

Partial default is a bad option. Toomey's packaging doesn't change that reality.

Well, the democrats could always propose to raise taxes or cut spending if they dont like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom