• 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!

Is it Fair Play to Hold the Debt Ceiling Hostage?

Is it Fair Play to Hold the Debt Ceiling Hostage?


  • Total voters
    75
I know that many of my my posts are powerful threadstoppers but my intent is not to have everybody run away because of the uncomfortable truth. I thought the purpose of debating politics was to identify problems and discuss solutions. What I'm seeing here is that when a problem is identified, everybody scatters. Pointless.

Then again, maybe there's nothing to discuss. After all, what other solution could there be other than replace obama with someone who won't insist on buckling the economy? 400 BILLION dollars..... That's 400,000 X 1,000,000 !!!

Why are you replying to yourself?
 
It is hard to rest that which has not been made. When did the determination to live within our means become and intent to destroy our government?:peace

those who see the every expanding malignant government as their Goddess Mother are offended when we say that hog needs to go on a diet
 
Threatening to vote against increasing the debt ceiling is not a very effective negotiating strategy. Everybody knows that the Republicans will never go through with it. I think the Republicans should support increasing the debt limit unanimously and leave the government shutdown for 4 or 5 more months. You can't cry wolf too many times. Everybody will giggle at you and pinch your cute little cheeks.

There is certainly nothing wrong with refusing to increase the debt ceiling but saying you will do it and then backing out is bad strategy.

vasuderatorrent
 
Of course it does. That's the only reason the Tea Party exists.

I'm afraid that applies only to the T's founder and chief contributor since they control the Teaparty with their purse strings. The Koch bros are very good at living within their means. The others owe to the hilt like most of us. Without credit cards this countries economy would collapse in weeks. It's a stupid "saying" and quite appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Threatening to vote against increasing the debt ceiling is not a very effective negotiating strategy. Everybody knows that the Republicans will never go through with it. I think the Republicans should support increasing the debt limit unanimously and leave the government shutdown for 4 or 5 more months. You can't cry wolf too many times. Everybody will giggle at you and pinch your cute little cheeks.

There is certainly nothing wrong with refusing to increase the debt ceiling but saying you will do it and then backing out is bad strategy.

vasuderatorrent

"You don't take hostages you can't shoot" is the way I heard it phrased. The problem is it sort of worked in 2011, when Obama "gave in" to the Sequester. No more Mr. Nice guy this time though the bluff has been called.
 
Last edited:
I think it's funnier to suggest that they will get pinched on their cute little cheeks. The shooting hostages metaphor makes things sound more serious than they really are. The sky is not falling. Nobody is being a terrorist. The government is just functioning exactly the way it is intended to function. I try to refrain from using metaphors of violence. Such language just feeds the crazies who love to pretend the world is coming to an end.

Sometimes I wish the freedom of speech didn't apply to people suffering from mental illness but it applies to everyone. What can you do?

vasuderatorrent
 
Last edited:
Why are you replying to yourself?

Just tryin' to spur some debate, discuss issues, and prevent economic collapse before it happens so that we don't have to risk our lives in a civil war. Nothing major though... go back to sleep.
 
I'm afraid that applies only to the T's founder and chief contributor since they control the Teaparty with their purse strings. The Koch bros are very good at living within their means. The others owe to the hilt like most of us. Without credit cards this countries economy would collapse in weeks. It's a stupid "saying" and quite appropriate.

The Tea Party is the most genuinely grass roots phenomenon in American politics.
 
Here's a rather frightening article about the repercussions of a credit default:

Wall Street to GOP: Are you nuts? - Ben White - POLITICO.com

"A brief shutdown would have some negative economic effects and could create political blowback on the GOP. But it would cause far less long-term damage than a default, which would likely send interest rates sky-rocketing, crush the stock market, devastate business and consumer confidence, and probably send the nation’s economy hurtling back into recession if not depression."

Let's say you and your brother go out for dinner. Your brother's behind the wheel. He wants Mexican, and you want Italian. You can't convince him and he can't convince you along the way. As you near a sharp curve, he keeps his foot on the gas and demands you give in to Mexican or he'll drive you both off the road.

All bias aside, is this not what House Republicans are doing? They had two years in the last Congress to push their ideas. They failed to pass their agenda through the Senate and signed into law by the President. They lost seats in the election. They've had another 9 months to argue their ideas, with even less to show for it. Now that there is no time for debate, they are demanding their ideas be enacted or they will allow a catastrophic default on the US Government's debt.

Is it out of bounds to demand this when you have not been able to convince your fellow Congressmen to support your ideas when there was time to debate them? Or is using the threat of disaster a legitimate political tool?
I don't believe in making threats. The debt celing should not be "held hostage", as you say.

The debt celing should be shot dead. Do not rais it ever again. Stop borrowing money. Pay back what we owe and then live on less than what we make for the rest of eternity.
 
Just tryin' to spur some debate, discuss issues, and prevent economic collapse before it happens so that we don't have to risk our lives in a civil war. Nothing major though... go back to sleep.
No one on this forum can cause or prevent anything.
 
I just took a look in the GOP dictionary.

Guess what? Fair play isn't in there, they don't know what that means.

But the American voters are going to explain it to them, wait and see.

Before this kerfuffle is totally over with some (Not all.) people in the GOP are going to wake up.

Because the voters are going to wake them up. Wait and see.
 
Just tryin' to spur some debate, discuss issues, and prevent economic collapse before it happens so that we don't have to risk our lives in a civil war. Nothing major though... go back to sleep.

Oh okay. You have a unique style. :)
 
hell no..... you make our money weak and may affect our credit ratings inthe world...but if you dont mind paying a higer interest rate so be it not me......we allagree on how much will be spent only,,,,you do not cut/attached programs in the debt limit.... you do that in congress ..the debt limit concerns overall monies for everything not somethings.
 
Here's a rather frightening article about the repercussions of a credit default:

Wall Street to GOP: Are you nuts? - Ben White - POLITICO.com

"A brief shutdown would have some negative economic effects and could create political blowback on the GOP. But it would cause far less long-term damage than a default, which would likely send interest rates sky-rocketing, crush the stock market, devastate business and consumer confidence, and probably send the nation’s economy hurtling back into recession if not depression."

Let's say you and your brother go out for dinner. Your brother's behind the wheel. He wants Mexican, and you want Italian. You can't convince him and he can't convince you along the way. As you near a sharp curve, he keeps his foot on the gas and demands you give in to Mexican or he'll drive you both off the road.

All bias aside, is this not what House Republicans are doing? They had two years in the last Congress to push their ideas. They failed to pass their agenda through the Senate and signed into law by the President. They lost seats in the election. They've had another 9 months to argue their ideas, with even less to show for it. Now that there is no time for debate, they are demanding their ideas be enacted or they will allow a catastrophic default on the US Government's debt.

Is it out of bounds to demand this when you have not been able to convince your fellow Congressmen to support your ideas when there was time to debate them? Or is using the threat of disaster a legitimate political tool?

It is the universal lie that if Republicans won't give Democrats 100% of everything they want, then it is the Republicans shutting everything down. That is a lie. It is the Democrats shutting everything down. Republicans are only shutting down what they won't pay for.

It seems clear there is now a universal media cry to essentially abolish Congress and make it an inferior department of the Executive branch of government, basically to create an elected monarchy.
 
The Tea Party is the most genuinely grass roots phenomenon in American politics.

Now that one is a steaming pile of Hooey. I mean unless you are speaking to the 18th century.
 
It is the universal lie that if Republicans won't give Democrats 100% of everything they want, then it is the Republicans shutting everything down. That is a lie. It is the Democrats shutting everything down. Republicans are only shutting down what they won't pay for.

It seems clear there is now a universal media cry to essentially abolish Congress and make it an inferior department of the Executive branch of government, basically to create an elected monarchy.

Just because you think it doesn't make it so.
 
Back
Top Bottom