• 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
But wide body jets serve another purpose. Transporting people and things from point A to point B. What is the point of the debt ceiling? Why does it exist? What other purpose does it have, other than a negotiation tool?

Terrorism are actions that attempt to injure innocent people to get what the terrorist wants. How is this any different?
Why did the constitution give the "power of the purse" to the House? Maybe they thought their constituents would keep them from wrecking the economy. They didn't know about redistricting back them though.
 
WRONG. Baucus never said the bill was a "train wreck."



He was referring to the implementation of the law, in the context of how HHS could educate people as to the vagaries of the new and complex law after the implementation budget was basically gutted in April.

The Secret History of Max Baucus' "Train Wreck" Quote

Yet another lie, courtesy of the GOP spin machine. In before the inevitable bitching about the source.

Oh, and by the way, Baucus walked back his concerns over implementation about two weeks ago.

Sen. Baucus says he no longer fears 'train wreck' when ObamaCare begins - The Hill's Healthwatch

Fact is Baucus did make a quote claiming it was a train wreck for crying out loud whether it be for purposes of implementation is irrelevant. It's a friggen mess! Back to April of this year.

Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions - The Hill's Healthwatch
 
Terrorism is a war tactic that throughout history governments and other groups have used on a regular basis. It's a bit stupid to think that our forefathers couldn't foresee it.

They stupidly though that the fear of the electorate would keep them from destroying the economy this way I guess. Little did they know that a political group would arise with no fear of voters, only primary challenges. Subverting the Constitution is not only for lefties it seems. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice my ass.
 
Terrorism are actions that attempt to injure innocent people to get what the terrorist wants. How is this any different?
Why did the constitution give the "power of the purse" to the House? Maybe they thought their constituents would keep them from wrecking the economy. They didn't know about redistricting back them though.

Why did they create the house? Answer that question and you will have your answer.
 
All negotiations have some basic components. One component is leverage. No good negotiator removes the leverage he holds from the debate until a satisfactory compromise has been met.

And yet, this kind of leverage should be considered bad form by the voters, nevertheless.
 
They stupidly though that the fear of the electorate would keep them from destroying the economy this way I guess. Little did they know that a political group would arise with no fear of voters, only primary challenges. Subverting the Constitution is not only for lefties it seems. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice my ass.

Yeah? Tell me, what part of the Constitution are the house republicans subverting? Is it the part where they're supposed to kiss the senates ass? That seems to be what Reid and Obama are telling people.
 
Did they know about redistricting? That is my question. I think not.

Oh please, is that the excuse liberals have for only holding crime pots and broke ass states?
 
Yeah? Tell me, what part of the Constitution are the house republicans subverting? Is it the part where they're supposed to kiss the senates ass? That seems to be what Reid and Obama are telling people.

The part where they fear the wrath of voters if they screw up. Redistricting and soft money has ended that for many Republicans.
 
And yet, this kind of leverage should be considered bad form by the voters, nevertheless.

If we didn't have excessive government waste and overspending to the tune of $17,000,000,000,000, I might agree with you, but alas, we do.
 
The Senate passed a budget in March of this year and the House refused to take it up. Just like last Nov., you are sadly going to be disappointed again when the exchanges open as scheduled and millions get insurance that they never had before. I do see why you are so franticly trying to stop the inevitable but you will fall so hard when you fail. Please strap a pillow to your butt.

Any taxpayer would have to strap a pillow to their butt with the budget the Democrat Senate passed in March. It had a TRILLION DOLLAR INCREASE IN TAXES!!!!

What part do you not get that we are broke? Do you operate your own house budget the same way?

Senate passes budget with $1 trillion tax hike - NBC Politics

The previous budget Obama submitted couldn't even muster one vote from his own party.
BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0 - Guy Benson
 
Last edited:
Poll: Is it Fair Play to Hold the Debt Ceiling Hostage?

If you can't pay what you already owe, it makes no sense to take on new debt.

Actually, if you can't pay what you already owe, AND you have a sovereign currency, you experience hyperinflation.

That's not an issue with the US. At all, really.
 
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
 
Since when is Baucus the great soothsayer? Maybe you believed him only because he said what you wanted to hear.

Have you conveniently forgotten that Baucus was one of the chief authors of Obamacare? And if he thinks it is a train wreck, then Hell, it's worse than what the Republicans are claiming!
 
The part where they fear the wrath of voters if they screw up. Redistricting and soft money has ended that for many Republicans.

The house republicans are doing the will of their constituents. Btw, are you really going to talk of money when this entire issue revolves around a law that is filled with corporatism? Really?
 
Last edited:
If we didn't have excessive government waste and overspending to the tune of $17,000,000,000,000, I might agree with you, but alas, we do.

Sorry, you still don't get to use catastrophe as leverage, whatever your opinion of the functioning of the government. What if Democrats did the same with, say... doubling the minimum wage? I feel very strongly about that, too. Do we get to hold everyone hostage, or is it only Republicans who get to do that?
 
Sorry, you still don't get to use catastrophe as leverage, whatever your opinion of the functioning of the government. What if Democrats did the same with, say... doubling the minimum wage? I feel very strongly about that, too. Do we get to hold everyone hostage, or is it only Republicans who get to do that?

You guys passed a law that the majority of the country was and still is against. Hell, you did the same thing with every part of the safety net you guys are responsible for. What is the difference?
 
You guys passed a law that the majority of the country was and still is against. Hell, you did the same thing with every part of the safety net you guys are responsible for. What is the difference?

The difference is that they were elected to do so as representatives in a Republic. What part of that don't you get? The country could have handed the other side a majority and the executive in order to do away with it, but they didn't. So, no, you don't get to use catastrophe to get your way. If the country had wanted a change in policy that desperately, you would have the votes you need. The threat of catastrophe should lose you votes, and it will.
 
Sorry, you still don't get to use catastrophe as leverage, whatever your opinion of the functioning of the government. What if Democrats did the same with, say... doubling the minimum wage? I feel very strongly about that, too. Do we get to hold everyone hostage, or is it only Republicans who get to do that?


under the constitution the congress holds the purse strings.

and the house is one who holds the greater position for a budget, because the senate cannot pass one if it includes any tax increase.

if the house is not doing its job, them it is up to the voters to decide their fate in 2014.

if such a situation is taking place, then democrats should rejoice prepare for next year.
 
The house republicans are doing the will of their constituents. Btw, are you really going to talk of money when this entire issue revolves around a law that is filled with corporatism? Really?


But...but.. I thought the law was designed to put insurance companies out of business and make us switch to single payer? Which is it?
So you think their constituents want another recession so they can lose their job? LOL
 
Any taxpayer would have to strap a pillow to their butt with the budget the Democrat Senate passed in March. It had a TRILLION DOLLAR INCREASE IN TAXES!!!!

What part do you not get that we are broke? Do you operate your own house budget the same way?

Senate passes budget with $1 trillion tax hike - NBC Politics

The previous budget Obama submitted couldn't even muster one vote from his own party.
BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0 - Guy Benson

Your candidate Romney said he wanted to close loopholes on the wealthy but when Dems actually do it, you scream. LOL If we are so broke how come we don't need that extra trillion, the wealthy sure don't. They have amassed 40 trillion in assets, a trillion is a drop in the bucket. But I guess we don't need the money THAT bad.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that they were elected to do so as representatives in a Republic.

So the democrats were elected to ignore the people, and better yet, force them into commerce. Somehow I doubt it.

What part of that don't you get?

The part where the people elect representatives so that they can have someone to tell them to go **** themselves.

The country could have handed the other side a majority and the executive in order to do away with it, but they didn't. So, no, you don't get to use catastrophe to get your way. If the country had wanted a change in policy that desperately, you would have the votes you need. The threat of catastrophe should lose you votes, and it will.

Yeah, except the republicans can't help but to nominate Romney of all people. ****!
 
Last edited:
The GOP has already stated that Social Security is next, then Medicare, then Medicaid. This is just the beginning of their hostage taking.

Pretty big allegations, you got some links for that?
 
Have you conveniently forgotten that Baucus was one of the chief authors of Obamacare? And if he thinks it is a train wreck, then Hell, it's worse than what the Republicans are claiming!

Actually he has taken back that comment so by your measure the AHC act is a sure fire winner. Baucus is the all knowing one.
 
Back
Top Bottom