• 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
joko104 said:
The Whig Party became the Republican Party with the former Whig Abraham Lincoln. Currently, the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives and a majority of state governments.
So all in all the Whig Party is doing fairly well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Keep believing whatever makes you happy.
 
I wouldn't call Bob Woodward a conservative would you? Yet Bob Woodward criticized Obama for not being willing to negotiate with the Republicans. Now if Woodward sees Obama as being unreasonable, what makes some of you so convinced that the majority of Americans, conservative or not don't see him and the Democrats as being unreasonable?

Woodward: If Obama Won't Negotiate, Any Resulting Crisis is "On His Head" - Guy Benson
 
jonny5 said:
Thats a different bill. We're talking about the budget and appropriations bills that the House passed and the Senate ignored. Months ago. No CR needed if the Senate had done its job. And its been that way for 4 YEARS NOW. The Senate wont consider a single appropriations bill.
Click to expand...

Right. Because the GOP won't give them anything better in terms of negotiations.

Maybe you don't get the concept of negotiation...where one side gives up something and gets something in return.
 
johndylan1 said:
If the electorate holds the only party that has actually passed a budget and put forward compromise legislation, only to have one man, namely Harry Reid, refuse to allow senate deliberation on the compromise position. I'd say the electorate is either deceived, ignorant or stupid.
Click to expand...

This last March the Dems passed a budget in the Senate which Boner refused to allow deliberation on in the House. Your move.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. Because the GOP won't give them anything better in terms of negotiations.

Maybe you don't get the concept of negotiation...where one side gives up something and gets something in return.
Click to expand...

What are the democrats giving up?
 
jonny5 said:
What are the democrats giving up?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure they are giving up a bunch in just passing CRs. There is directed funding and earmarks galore that they would want to act on, there is adustments in all kinds of stuff that they want to be sure. But the alternative is the House sitting in a corner refusing to give anything up that they want.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the democrats are not asking for anything but a clean continuing resolution bill.
Click to expand...

So I suppose that is why liberals want the republicans to negotiate away their gun rights when trying to pass gun control or how they wanted republicans to negotiate with them on healthcare reform.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. Because the GOP won't give them anything better in terms of negotiations.

Maybe you don't get the concept of negotiation...where one side gives up something and gets something in return.
Click to expand...

They already did compromise.
 
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...
So asking to raise the amount of money you can borrow so that you can shortly thereafter borrow that money doesn't raise our national debt? Perhaps I should try what you are smoking.
 
Kobie said:
Again, you're wrong. They are two completely different pieces of legislation, and two entirely separate things.
Click to expand...

They are not completely different things. It is asking to borrow more money to fund the government. It doesn't matter if its current or future spending.So no they are not separate things.
 
It depends. If you're just negotiation numbers, and you're close, but one side won't compromise, then maybe. But maybe not. But if you're threatening to hurt the country and millions of Americans if you don't get your pony, which was legally given to someone else years ago...that is immoral and not what an ethical politician would do.
 
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...

The debt ceiling has always been a political football, at least since Reagan and actually before him. Eisenhower tried like all get out to balance the budget and succeeded three times I think. But who votes for raising the debt ceiling and who votes against, recently has been decided by who holds the presidency. Which party the president belongs to, if the president is of your party, you are all for raising it, if the president is of the opposite party, you are against it. Below shows you how the senate voted on the debt ceiling, during Bush the 2nd tenure, Democrats on the whole were adamantly against raising it, Republicans for raising the debt ceiling. Now exit Bush the 2nd and enter Obama, each party has done a 180, all of a sudden the Democrats are all for it, the Republicans against it. See below
BUSH THE 2ND TENURE
Year Democrats for Democrats against Republicans for Republicans against
2003 3 45 50 1
2004 2 46 50 1
2006 0 44 52 3 *

*It is interest to note in 2006 President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and made a speech stating it was unpatriotic to do so.
OBAMA PRESIDENCY
2009 59 0 1 40
2010 60 0 0 40
2012 52 3 1 45

So one can see that neither party has any core beliefs when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. It all depends on whom or from which party the president is from.
 
Dezaad said:
They are being irresponsible, and next year should be punished as such.
Click to expand...

they are only being irresponsible, becuase you feel that way. other people do not support your position.

as to them being punished, that is why they are given only 2 years terms, to keep them closer to the people, if your correct they will be out of office, if your not they will retain their seats.
 
Perotista said:
The debt ceiling has always been a political football, at least since Reagan and actually before him. Eisenhower tried like all get out to balance the budget and succeeded three times I think. But who votes for raising the debt ceiling and who votes against, recently has been decided by who holds the presidency. Which party the president belongs to, if the president is of your party, you are all for raising it, if the president is of the opposite party, you are against it. Below shows you how the senate voted on the debt ceiling, during Bush the 2nd tenure, Democrats on the whole were adamantly against raising it, Republicans for raising the debt ceiling. Now exit Bush the 2nd and enter Obama, each party has done a 180, all of a sudden the Democrats are all for it, the Republicans against it. See below
BUSH THE 2ND TENURE
Year Democrats for Democrats against Republicans for Republicans against
2003 3 45 50 1
2004 2 46 50 1
2006 0 44 52 3 *

*It is interest to note in 2006 President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and made a speech stating it was unpatriotic to do so.
OBAMA PRESIDENCY
2009 59 0 1 40
2010 60 0 0 40
2012 52 3 1 45

So one can see that neither party has any core beliefs when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. It all depends on whom or from which party the president is from.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

From what I see, neither party has any core beliefs...period! If they did, they would be working on the many problems facing this Country instead of playing their partisan games that solve nothing! It's almost as if the become confused and forget why they are there, which is to serve the voters who sent them there...not the other way around! Sheesh! :2mad:
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

From what I see, neither party has any core beliefs...period! If they did, they would be working on the many problems facing this Country instead of playing their partisan games that solve nothing! It's almost as if the become confused and forget why they are there, which is to serve the voters who sent them there...not the other way around! Sheesh! :2mad:
Click to expand...

Yeah, Washington operates in their own little world. They think us voters are just a necessary evil. Both parties manipulate the voters, districts and everything else to get people to vote for them. Then they do their own thing, their own party thing regardless of what the people think who sent them there in the first place. But then the problem is the people has the power to change things, but they don't. It seems to me the people love being stepped on and manipulated, I suppose that makes them feel good.
 
How many debt ceiling votes have their been? And how many times did the Dems just argue "pass a spending resolution and do as we say" to the Republican House?

They should hold it hostage, they should arm twist and force submission, they should not pass another essentially blanket spending bill to allow this to continue on.
 
jamesrage said:
They are not completely different things. It is asking to borrow more money to fund the government. It doesn't matter if its current or future spending.So no they are not separate things.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. Sorry, but you're fractally wrong on this.
 
digsbe said:
They should hold it hostage, they should arm twist and force submission, they should not pass another essentially blanket spending bill to allow this to continue on.
Click to expand...

Playing with the debt ceiling is just too risky.

The world isn't that black and white.

Holding it hostage puts at risk the full faith and credit of the United States, putting in jeopardy not only your economy, but the global one.

I know people are pissed about spending and how much debt you're in.

But holding the entire global economy hostage to fix the US deficit is like trying to fight a fire by pouring alcohol on the flames.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah, Washington operates in their own little world. They think us voters are just a necessary evil. Both parties manipulate the voters, districts and everything else to get people to vote for them. Then they do their own thing, their own party thing regardless of what the people think who sent them there in the first place. But then the problem is the people has the power to change things, but they don't. It seems to me the people love being stepped on and manipulated, I suppose that makes them feel good.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero.:2wave: I worry about the long term effect on our citizens of the relentless, near universal display of irresponsibility by our political class.:peace
 
vesper said:
The only one being intellectually dishonest is you. Baucus made the claim it was a train wreck. Why else give out exemptions and one year extensions to "special groups"? But hey when the truth isn't on your side, resort to petty insults.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. Baucus NEVER said the bill itself was a "train wreck." You're lying.
 
Jack Hays said:
Greetings, Pero.:2wave: I worry about the long term effect on our citizens of the relentless, near universal display of irresponsibility by our political class.:peace
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. I think Washington has forgotten how to govern completely. Washington is nothing more than party politics instead of governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom