• 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
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha! In a moment of honesty he said something that he has been forced through party pressure to backtrack on. DUH
 
Keeping the country from paying its debts (like, people's salaries) destabilizes and weakens the nation. It hurts the economy. It puts people out of work. It hurts the working classes. If one party wants to hurt the country for their own political gain... Well, that tells you where their loyalty really lies.
 
iguanaman said:
The cats out of the bag I'm afraid and you can't put it back in. I know you would like to.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that people that are not liberals are against the things liberals find to be accomplishments. I wouldn't have guessed that.
 
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Iquanaman, nothing wrong with closing loopholes but what you fail to recognize is that when doing so it is important to have fair taxation for businesses/ corporations to encourage economic growth. Without it, we have no jobs growth. We continue to have people signing up for welfare benefits. This can not be sustained.
 
vesper said:
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
Click to expand...

"Enacting the provisions" is not the same as claiming the entire bill is a "train wreck." Learn to read. Implementation of the law and the law itself, especially a law this complex are two different things, and especially since APRIL was when the GOP HOR defunded the implementation budget. I realize nuance is something most conservatives don't get, but show a shred of intellectual honesty, please.
 
Kobie said:
Yes, it is two separate things. They are two different pieces of legislation.

The "funding the government" bill authorizes future expenditures. Raises the debt ceiling authorizes borrowing to pay current expenditures.
Click to expand...

Again they are not separate.They are related.Raising the debt ceiling is asking to borrow more money to fund the government.
 
jamesrage said:
Again they are not separate.They are related.Raising the debt ceiling is asking to borrow more money to fund the government.
Click to expand...

Again, you're wrong. They are two completely different pieces of legislation, and two entirely separate things.
 
No, it isn't. It's basically blackmail writ large.

The republicans aren't entirely to blame though, since Congress refuses to pass a budget that would avoid this for a longer amount of time.
 
disneydude said:
Will the repubs never learn? They will continue to will themselves into oblivion by engaging in silly political games. The American people aren't buying their gamesmanship....
Click to expand...

Well, they pretty much damaged the party for good when they showed us how they really operate prior to the election. That display of childishness and dishonesty was their defining moment. Even if you don't like Ron Paul, you cannot ignore their mockery of the election process. They obviously carry that same behavior right into the oval office if elected. Zero integrity.
 
sKiTzo said:
Well, they pretty much damaged the party for good when they showed us how they really operate prior to the election. That display of childishness and dishonesty was their defining moment. Even if you don't like Ron Paul, you cannot ignore their mockery of the election process. They obviously carry that same behavior right into the oval office if elected. Zero integrity.
Click to expand...

Paul didn't have the delgates to win the nomination, and to be frank I really don't have much use for Ron Paul. That said, you're absolutely right regarding how the GOP treated him at the convention. Like him or not, he is a guy who (outside of becoming a Republican in the first place, since that was the only way he could ever get elected) stuck by his principles and had the balls to tell the GOP establishment how wrong they were on a number of issues, and they made a public spectacle of attempting to put him "in his place," so to speak. The GOP lost a lot of young voters by sticking it to Paul the way they did.
 
aberrant85 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you are of the belief that the debt ceiling is an issue that threatens this country, our way of life, standard of living, or whatever. Its fair game and it accomplishes a few thing. One, it advocates your point of view that this is an issue, gets it on the news, gets people talking and thinking about it. Second, you might get something you consider important accomplished.

I would say for those with that point of view, this is a critical issue for them and using it as a political tool is not at all cynical, but a smart play.
 
molten_dragon said:
No, it isn't. It's basically blackmail writ large.

The republicans aren't entirely to blame though, since Congress refuses to pass a budget that would avoid this for a longer amount of time.
Click to expand...

I prefer the term "Extortion," but yeah, "blackmail" works too.
 
All's fair in Love and War. We all know that. When it comes to dealing with the Leftists in this nation, it should always be treated as a WAR. It's that simple.

I have no problem with the Republicans doing this. In fact I have more problems with the supposed conservatives who will not support this. I'd rather see this nation turn into a third world cesspool than the Liberal/Socialist state that it has been becoming for the last century.
 
jamesrage said:
Again they are not separate.They are related.Raising the debt ceiling is asking to borrow more money to fund the government.
Click to expand...

No raising the debt ceiling is about defining the maximum amount of that can be borrowed, it does not itself borrow money which is why raising the debt ceiling does not raise the national debt
 
Wiseone said:
No raising the debt ceiling is about defining the maximum amount of that can be borrowed, it does not itself borrow money which is why raising the debt ceiling does not raise the national debt
Click to expand...

Alright. Then what is the alternative means by which the minority party ensures that the majority party cannot continue spending like drunken sailors, other than cutting off their ability to borrow more money by capping what can be borrowed?

At what point does the Govenrment of the United States have to actually act in a fiscally responsible manner, in your mind?
 
Tigger said:
Alright. Then what is the alternative means by which the minority party ensures that the majority party cannot continue spending like drunken sailors, other than cutting off their ability to borrow more money by capping what can be borrowed?

At what point does the Govenrment of the United States have to actually act in a fiscally responsible manner, in your mind?
Click to expand...

Firstly, the minority party spends like just drunken sailors just as bad as the majority party.

Secondly, the government should start actually fiscally responsible right now which requires reasonable behavior from both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Lastly, being in debt for a nation state is not fiscally irresponsible in and of itself, sovereign debt is a major source of market stability as well as a means for a country to invest in itself. That's not to say a country can borrow, borrow, borrow without any regard to its ability to repay but some borrowing is good and desirable, the issue comes when you become like Greece where they borrowed so much money that their required GDP growth would have to have been in the double digits in order for enough government revenue to be generated from taxes for the government to pay its debts. Then of course the recession hit which made it even worse, the US is not anywhere near that point it has every economic means to repay its debts so long as the government is willing to honor them.

Even if you want the government to lower its debts, which I do as well, the solution is not to simply stop paying them. You wouldn't advise someone who's in debt that simply stopping to pay his bills is a smart way to get out of debt would you? The US government must honor the debt's its made while reducing its future creation of debts
 
aberrant85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A catastrophic default cannot result from the debt ceiling not being raised alone. The government must also decide to not spend money it still has on paying the interest.

As for overall justification for refusal to vote for raising debt ceiling, I think one Senator Barack Obama had summed it up quite well, back in 2006:

"Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise
today to talk about America’s debt
problem.
The fact that we are here today to
debate raising America’s debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign
that the U.S. Government can’t pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend
on ongoing financial assistance
from foreign countries to finance our
Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal
debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to
$8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a
‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed
from the Social Security trust
fund, borrowed from China and Japan,
borrowed from American taxpayers.
And over the next 5 years, between now
and 2011, the President’s budget will increase
the debt by almost another $3.5
trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes
hard to understand. Some people may
wonder why they matter. Here is why:
This year, the Federal Government will
spend $220 billion on interestThat is
more money to pay interest on our national
debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid
and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program. That is more
money to pay interest on our debt this
year than we will spend on education,
homeland security, transportation, and
veterans benefits combined. It is more
money in one year than we are likely
to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf
coast in a way that honors the best of
America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the
fastest growing expenses in the Federal
budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic
enemy, robbing our cities and
States of critical investments in infrastructure
like bridges, ports, and levees;
robbing our families and our children
of critical investments in education
and health care reform; robbing
our seniors of the retirement and
health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a
dollar that is not going to investment
in America’s priorities. Instead, interest
payments are a significant tax on
all Americans—a debt tax that Washington
doesn’t want to talk about. If
Washington were serious about honest
tax relief in this country, we would see
an effort to reduce our national debt by
returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite
repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD
and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to
reject a return to the commonsense
Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously,
Pay-go rules applied both to
increases in mandatory spending and
to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by
the commonsense budgeting principle
of balancing expenses and revenues.
Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned,
and now the demands of budget
discipline apply only to spending.
As a result, tax breaks have not been
paid for by reductions in Federal
spending, and thus the only way to pay
for them has been to increase our deficit
to historically high levels and borrow
more and more money. Now we
have to pay for those tax breaks plus
the cost of borrowing for them. Instead
of reducing the deficit, as some people
claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration
and its allies in Congress
will add more than $600 million in debt
for each of the next 5 years. That is
why I will once again cosponsor the
Pay-go amendment and continue to
hope that my colleagues will return to
a smart rule that has worked in the
past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally.
My friend, the ranking member of
the Senate Budget Committee, likes to
remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224
years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-
held debt. This administration did
more than that in just 5 years. Now,
there is nothing wrong with borrowing
from foreign countries. But we must
remember that the more we depend on
foreign nations to lend us money, the
more our economic security is tied to
the whims of foreign leaders whose interests
might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America’s debt weakens
us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops
here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting
the burden of bad choices today onto
the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans
deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort
to increase America’s debt limit.
(March 16, 2006).

From: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf

(Oh, and don't even try to say: That was a symbolic protest vote and a bit of excusable posturing. The roll call in Senate was close, 52-48. Not a single Democrat voted Yea, and 3 Republicans had switched sides. Three more - and the debt ceiling would not be raised:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054)
 
Last edited:
The GOP will pay a price for this.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.

This is a stupid thing for them to do. There is no upside for them with this stupidity.

They will pay a price for this.
 
Cyrylek said:
A catastrophic default cannot result from the debt ceiling not being raised alone. The government must also decide to not to spend money it still has on paying the interest.

As for overall justification for refusal to vote for raising debt ceiling, I think one Senator Barack Obama had summed it up quite well, back in 2006:

"Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise
today to talk about America’s debt
problem.
The fact that we are here today to
debate raising America’s debt limit is a
sign of leadership failure. It is a sign
that the U.S. Government can’t pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend
on ongoing financial assistance
from foreign countries to finance our
Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal
debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to
$8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a
‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed
from the Social Security trust
fund, borrowed from China and Japan,
borrowed from American taxpayers.
And over the next 5 years, between now
and 2011, the President’s budget will increase
the debt by almost another $3.5
trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes
hard to understand. Some people may
wonder why they matter. Here is why:
This year, the Federal Government will
spend $220 billion on interestThat is
more money to pay interest on our national
debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid
and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program. That is more
money to pay interest on our debt this
year than we will spend on education,
homeland security, transportation, and
veterans benefits combined. It is more
money in one year than we are likely
to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf
coast in a way that honors the best of
America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the
fastest growing expenses in the Federal
budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic
enemy, robbing our cities and
States of critical investments in infrastructure
like bridges, ports, and levees;
robbing our families and our children
of critical investments in education
and health care reform; robbing
our seniors of the retirement and
health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a
dollar that is not going to investment
in America’s priorities. Instead, interest
payments are a significant tax on
all Americans—a debt tax that Washington
doesn’t want to talk about. If
Washington were serious about honest
tax relief in this country, we would see
an effort to reduce our national debt by
returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite
repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD
and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to
reject a return to the commonsense
Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously,
Pay-go rules applied both to
increases in mandatory spending and
to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by
the commonsense budgeting principle
of balancing expenses and revenues.
Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned,
and now the demands of budget
discipline apply only to spending.
As a result, tax breaks have not been
paid for by reductions in Federal
spending, and thus the only way to pay
for them has been to increase our deficit
to historically high levels and borrow
more and more money. Now we
have to pay for those tax breaks plus
the cost of borrowing for them. Instead
of reducing the deficit, as some people
claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration
and its allies in Congress
will add more than $600 million in debt
for each of the next 5 years. That is
why I will once again cosponsor the
Pay-go amendment and continue to
hope that my colleagues will return to
a smart rule that has worked in the
past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally.
My friend, the ranking member of
the Senate Budget Committee, likes to
remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224
years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-
held debt. This administration did
more than that in just 5 years. Now,
there is nothing wrong with borrowing
from foreign countries. But we must
remember that the more we depend on
foreign nations to lend us money, the
more our economic security is tied to
the whims of foreign leaders whose interests
might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America’s debt weakens
us domestically and internationally.
Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops
here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting
the burden of bad choices today onto
the backs of our children and grandchildren.
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans
deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort
to increase America’s debt limit.
(March 16, 2006).

From: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-03-16/pdf/CREC-2006-03-16-pt1-PgS2236.pdf
Click to expand...

Yep, and Obama was wrong.
 
Whatever.

That was then, this is now.

Let's all wait and see how this works out for the GOP.

I predict that they won't like the results of their own stupidity.
 
Kobie said:
Yep, and Obama was wrong.
Click to expand...

Or, he was right then, and he is wrong now - considering that the problem he had described with his usual eloquence is still with us, only multiplied by an unpleasantly large factor.
 
Kobie said:
Paul didn't have the delgates to win the nomination, and to be frank I really don't have much use for Ron Paul. That said, you're absolutely right regarding how the GOP treated him at the convention. Like him or not, he is a guy who (outside of becoming a Republican in the first place, since that was the only way he could ever get elected) stuck by his principles and had the balls to tell the GOP establishment how wrong they were on a number of issues, and they made a public spectacle of attempting to put him "in his place," so to speak. The GOP lost a lot of young voters by sticking it to Paul the way they did.
Click to expand...

Without going too far off topic, I must say you are one of the few who even acknowledge how dirty they did Ron Paul, but we have to realize that by doing what they did, they did the whole system dirty, not just Ron Paul. He DID have the delegates and they scandalously unseated and replaced them all.
 
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. And all budgets involve negotiation. The Administration wants to avoid that by refusing to have a budget. Too Bad, So Sad. Negotiate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom