• 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!

GOP official: House to vote to lift debt limit

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,334
Reaction score
27,000
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GOP official: House to vote to lift debt limit - Yahoo! News

The Republican-controlled House will vote next week to permit the government to borrow more money to meet its obligations, a move aimed at heading off a market-rattling confrontation with President Barack Obama over the so-called debt limit.

Full details aren't settled yet, but the measure would give the government about three more months of borrowing authority beyond a deadline expected to hit as early as mid-February, No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia said Friday.


The legislation wouldn't require immediate spending cuts as earlier promised by GOP leaders like Speaker John Boehner of Ohio. Instead, it's aimed at forcing the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House in debating the federal budget. It would try to do so by conditioning pay for members of Congress on passing a congressional budget measure.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one am actually shocked. Why do news like this only get released at night? Also, heads should roll for this. The debt needs to be paid down eventually and we on both just keep avoiding the issue to debate nonsense like gun control and abortions.
 
It's actually a good move, helps to stop making them look like the villains and might give them more cred in the budgeting process then otherwise.
 
Obama has been so effective at putting the blame on them for every single thing that has happened that may possibly be viewed in a negative light at all that they're only real choice is to give him what he wants before he asks for it and hope that their initiative will give him the incentive to reward them with treats.

Or something. I don't know.
 
So the republicans caved again, but made sure the topic could come up in another 3 months for them to have another opportunity to hold the economy ransom and cause more damage to their name. 3 months is really going to help a lot. Given this time to negotiate congress can now take a 2 month vacation and come back to the end of the world again.
 
The key phrase presented is the last sentence: "Instead, it's aimed at forcing the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House in debating the federal budget. It would try to do so by conditioning pay for members of Congress on passing a congressional budget measure."

The Senate so far has been the entity responsible for the lack of a budget the last four years. Good on the Republicans for finally manning up and serving it up to those responsible in a proactive way for once.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The key phrase presented is the last sentence: "Instead, it's aimed at forcing the Democratic-controlled Senate to join the House in debating the federal budget. It would try to do so by conditioning pay for members of Congress on passing a congressional budget measure."

The Senate so far has been the entity responsible for the lack of a budget the last four years. Good on the Republicans for finally manning up and serving it up to those responsible in a proactive way for once.
Click to expand...

The problem is not the Senate, but the house.. and has been for the last 4 years... well since 2010. Every piece of legislation coming out of the house is basically useless, so why should the Senate even attempt to negotiate with a bunch of radical wankers that act like spoiled children.
 
PeteEU said:
The problem is not the Senate, but the house.. and has been for the last 4 years... well since 2010. Every piece of legislation coming out of the house is basically useless, so why should the Senate even attempt to negotiate with a bunch of radical wankers that act like spoiled children.
Click to expand...
Because it is their job, and your characterization of the House is childish and ignorant. The reason Senate democrats refuse to pass a budget is because they dont want to be constrained by a budget and they dont want to make any tough choices. They are just fine with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Actually addressing the countrys financial mess would require them to make unpopular political decisions. Their unwillingness to do that is what is childish and totally self-serving.
 
PeteEU said:
The problem is not the Senate, but the house.. and has been for the last 4 years... well since 2010. Every piece of legislation coming out of the house is basically useless, so why should the Senate even attempt to negotiate with a bunch of radical wankers that act like spoiled children.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because the US senate has done such a good job. Such maturity on their part... not even passing a budget in 3 years. Seriously, both parties are to blame and all Congress is performing poorly. The only bilateral agreements they had was on naming federal buildings after war heroes. Those were their proudest moments. And this includes the time when the democrats were in control of both chambers.
 
Rainman05 said:
Oh yeah, because the US senate has done such a good job. Such maturity on their part... not even passing a budget in 3 years. Seriously, both parties are to blame and all Congress is performing poorly. The only bilateral agreements they had was on naming federal buildings after war heroes. Those were their proudest moments. And this includes the time when the democrats were in control of both chambers.
Click to expand...

Actually the US senate has been quite mature relative to the House of GOP. But it is all relative of course.
 
Fletch said:
Because it is their job, and your characterization of the House is childish and ignorant. The reason Senate democrats refuse to pass a budget is because they dont want to be constrained by a budget and they dont want to make any tough choices. They are just fine with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Actually addressing the countrys financial mess would require them to make unpopular political decisions. Their unwillingness to do that is what is childish and totally self-serving.
Click to expand...

It is their job to be childish?

You can put on your partisan blinders and blame the Democrats for all the ills you want, but the facts are not in your favor.

Yes the Dems in the Senate should have put forward a budget and let it get shot down and expose the GOP.. of course they dont have the balls to do that. And even if they by some sort of miracle did put up a budget, the chances are it will never ever make it to the floor because of GOP obstructionism and if it did make it past the GOP obstructionism in the Senate, it would surely fail in the house if there was one tax rise or the military budget was cut. So what is the freaking point in wasting resources and energy in even trying? Just look at the fiscal cliff... do you really think that any sort of sane budget would get past the Tea Party fanatics in the house?

The main problem is the Tea Party fanatics, followed by the GOP in general and then Democrats in general. I suspect if there was no Tea Party, then the GOP and Dems could much easier figure things out.
 
Every penny this country spends is specifically authorized by Congress. The debt ceiling shouldn't even exist, let alone be a negotiating point, because Congress has already authorized that spending.
 
Deuce said:
Every penny this country spends is specifically authorized by Congress. The debt ceiling shouldn't even exist, let alone be a negotiating point, because Congress has already authorized that spending.
Click to expand...

It as made into a law specifically in order to raise the debate about public debt every time it comes up. That it was voted on an passed automatically as a matter of course since the law existed, whatever. It is interesting to find out how Democrats felt about it when Republicans held all the cards, though. Obama himself back in '06 said it was irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling. And now his position is "give me all the power".
 
Hatuey said:
The debt needs to be paid down eventually and we on both just keep avoiding the issue to debate nonsense like gun control and abortions.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. What is important is reducing the "rate of change" of net issuance. For the U.S. to get moving toward a sustainable fiscal path, Congress has to find ways to reduce spending (year over year) in a way that is the least harmful to economic growth. Certain aspects of defense spending (troop size, i.e. payroll, the European theater), the war on drugs, international aid, etc.... Consistent economic growth in and of itself will do wonders to lower the deficit.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
It as made into a law specifically in order to raise the debate about public debt every time it comes up. That it was voted on an passed automatically as a matter of course since the law existed, whatever. It is interesting to find out how Democrats felt about it when Republicans held all the cards, though. Obama himself back in '06 said it was irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling. And now his position is "give me all the power".
Click to expand...

Yes, this flips back and forth every time the white house changes parties. When a Republican is in the white house, Democrats speak out against raising it. When a Democrat is in the white house, Republicans speak out against raising it. Been this way for decades.
 
Hatuey said:
GOP official: House to vote to lift debt limit - Yahoo! News
Well, I for one am actually shocked. Why do news like this only get released at night? Also, heads should roll for this. The debt needs to be paid down eventually and we on both just keep avoiding the issue to debate nonsense like gun control and abortions.
Click to expand...
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.
Click to expand...

A looming debt ceiling is not an appropriate place to have that discussion. Our credit was already downgraded specifically because of the Tea Party brinksmanship on that subject.

The debt ceiling isn't authorization to spend more. It's authorization to pay back debts already incurred.
 
Deuce said:
A looming debt ceiling is not an appropriate place to have that discussion. Our credit was already downgraded specifically because of the Tea Party brinksmanship on that subject.

The debt ceiling isn't authorization to spend more. It's authorization to pay back debts already incurred.
Click to expand...

By increasing the ceiling instead of dropping from the basement. I understand what it is bro.
When is it a good time then? That's all we ever here from Dems and Pres Obama. It's never a "good time" to talk about spending cuts. That's readily apparent over the past 8 years.
 
MarineTpartier said:
By increasing the ceiling instead of dropping from the basement. I understand what it is bro.
When is it a good time then? That's all we ever here from Dems and Pres Obama. It's never a "good time" to talk about spending cuts. That's readily apparent over the past 8 years.
Click to expand...

Every time spending cuts are brought up, the GOP's response is "can't cut defense one dollar."
 
Deuce said:
Every time spending cuts are brought up, the GOP's response is "can't cut defense one dollar."
Click to expand...
And they are dead wrong for that.
 
Kushinator said:
Not exactly. What is important is reducing the "rate of change" of net issuance. For the U.S. to get moving toward a sustainable fiscal path, Congress has to find ways to reduce spending (year over year) in a way that is the least harmful to economic growth. Certain aspects of defense spending (troop size, i.e. payroll, the European theater), the war on drugs, international aid, etc.... Consistent economic growth in and of itself will do wonders to lower the deficit.
Click to expand...

A spending freeze would also help

Keep spending at 2013 levels for 10 years and the budget, assuming 2-3% GDP growth on average would most likely dissappear in 10 years
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
A spending freeze would also help

Keep spending at 2013 levels for 10 years and the budget, assuming 2-3% GDP growth on average would most likely dissappear in 10 years
Click to expand...

You can't freeze about 2/3 of the "budget" as it is means tested entitlements. What will happen when you freeze granny's SS/Medicare? Do her rent, utilitiy, food and medicine costs get frozen, or must she choose the "important" things and do without the others?
 
Deuce said:
Every time spending cuts are brought up, the GOP's response is "can't cut defense one dollar."
Click to expand...

Every time ANY federal spending cuts are brought up, Obama's response is that they must be "balanced" by tax increases on "the rich".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You can't freeze about 2/3 of the "budget" as it is means tested entitlements. What will happen when you freeze granny's SS/Medicare? Do her rent, utilitiy, food and medicine costs get frozen, or must she choose the "important" things and do without the others?
Click to expand...

It is a freeze on spending, which does not mean how it is spent is frozen.


Means testing could ensure those that need assistance would get it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Totally agree bro. I don't understand why both sides can't just sit down and figure out a way to lower costs instead of raise the spending level. Blows me away. Personally, I think the right should give on immigration and the left give on spending. That would be a good compromise IMO.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's self defeating: high levels of low-income immigration + social safety net = higher spending.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is a freeze on spending, which does not mean how it is spent is frozen.


Means testing could ensure those that need assistance would get it.
Click to expand...

Bingo. There is no reason for low income workers to be subsidizing the retirements of high-income workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom