• 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!

House rejects debt ceiling increase

While I am sure that defense sepnding can be cut to some degree, given how much entitlement spending exceeds defense spending (as demonstrated), the only way to effectively address spending is to slash entiltements.

Well gee thanks captain obvious, i totally was against that in my op :roll:
 
Sometimes you have to roll the hard six.
Long term, one of the best things that can happen is for the US to not take on any more debt.

Long term, one of the worst things that could happen is for us to default on our debt and increase the interest rate on the debt that exists, thus making the situation even worse than it already is.
 
Long term, one of the worst things that could happen is for us to default on our debt and increase the interest rate on the debt that exists, thus making the situation even worse than it already is.
That's short term.
 
Wow, that's kind of cool. What's the point of having a debt ceiling if you are gonna raise it at will?

This is such a good question, no wonder nobody has tried to answer it.
 
So do we use our Visa card to pay down the Mastercard, so we can use the Mastercard to pay the minimum payment on the Amex card.

That's really what this is about.
 
It's not like we don't have revenue available to pay the interest on our debt.
:shrug:
 
Long term, one of the worst things that could happen is for us to default on our debt and increase the interest rate on the debt that exists, thus making the situation even worse than it already is.

with all due respect, tell it to 44% of nancy's caucus
 
increase the ceiling = to cuts in spending
how novel a concept

balance the books makes no sense to the left..

and we wonder how we got here
 
The ‘default’ argument stands only when one presumes the status quo must remain unchanged.
Federal revenues exceed payment on the debt by better than an order of magnitude -- there's no way to argue that not being able to borrow more money necessitates default on the debt.
 
So, if the markets continue to tank due to this vote, do you still think it will more negatively affect Democrats instead of Republicans?

So far, we're down 220 points - and analysts are going to say it's because of default concerns over the vote not to raise the debt ceiling. It does have to do with other numbers, but it's still dangerous.

They demanded the damned vote.
 
Democrats own this fiasco, no argument there, just stop it
they backed thierselves into a corner

they wanted to play political football, the GOP said, ok, lets play

America is not stupid... dems have been in charge for 5 years....hard to blame anyone else
 
Democrats own this fiasco, no argument there, just stop it
they backed thierselves into a corner

they wanted to play political football, the GOP said, ok, lets play

America is not stupid... dems have been in charge for 5 years....hard to blame anyone else
How exactly did Democrats back themselves into a corner on this issue? If anything the Republicans backed themselves into a corner by waiting so long to present their reform plans that it did not give Congress enough time to properly debate the issue. Since it will be raised one way or the other all Democrats have to do is wait.

By the way, what programs do you want to see cut in the short term to, in essence, balance the federal budget? Medicare? Social Security? The military?

Just for fun, courtesy of FrumForum:
In the spirit of bipartisanship, here’s some unsolicited advice for the Obama administration: send apologetic letters to all Social Security recipients in congressional districts of Republican freshmen. Tell the seniors that now that the government has reached the debt ceiling, the Social Security Trust Fund is currently unable to redeem special Treasury bonds that it holds and that therefore no new Social Security checks will be sent until the debt ceiling is increased. If the recipients wonder when that might happen, they can call their Representative and ask.
It will be easy for President Obama to say that he wants the debt ceiling raised so that it will give more time to Congress to work on reforms while avoiding a short term collapse. It will be the Republicans that will have to answer their constituents why they are so insistent on not raising the debt ceiling.
 
How exactly did Democrats back themselves into a corner on this issue? If anything the Republicans backed themselves into a corner by waiting so long to present their reform plans that it did not give Congress enough time to properly debate the issue. Since it will be raised one way or the other all Democrats have to do is wait.

By the way, what programs do you want to see cut in the short term to, in essence, balance the federal budget? Medicare? Social Security? The military?

Just for fun, courtesy of FrumForum:

It will be easy for President Obama to say that he wants the debt ceiling raised so that it will give more time to Congress to work on reforms while avoiding a short term collapse. It will be the Republicans that will have to answer their constituents why they are so insistent on not raising the debt ceiling.

How much more time is needed? This pressure has existed prior to Obama's election. His agenda took center stage, along with record breaking spending, largely on the backs of democrat legislators. And now that republicans can throw in on the fight and redirect the agenda the dems just sit around with their thumbs up their asses?
 
The idea that this is the fault of either one party or the other is just ludicrous. Like, the idea that it could be both just doesn't occur to people.
 
If anything the Republicans backed themselves into a corner by waiting so long to present their reform plans

republicans passed hr1 on the day boehner was sworn in

republicans passed ryan on april 14

it's been two years since the party in power in the united states senate has even proposed a budget

except for the obama production published in february which reid's roundhouse routed, 97 to 0, last week

finance chair baucus has intimated that budget chair conrad will not likely write one up this year either

hurryup harry reid has adopted an openly "minimalist agenda"

there are reasons the party can't put its preferences on paper

all Democrats have to do is wait

ok, but wait for what?

ask senators mccaskill, manchin, nelson, nelson, webb, pryor, landrieu, tester...

ask the 44% of nancy's caucus who sided with boehner
 
republicans passed hr1 on the day boehner was sworn in

republicans passed ryan on april 14

it's been two years since the party in power in the united states senate has even proposed a budget

except for the obama production published in february which reid's roundhouse routed, 97 to 0, last week

finance chair baucus has intimated that budget chair conrad will not likely write one up this year either

hurryup harry reid has adopted an openly "minimalist agenda"

there are reasons the party can't put its preferences on paper



ok, but wait for what?

ask senators mccaskill, manchin, nelson, nelson, webb, pryor, landrieu, tester...

ask the 44% of nancy's caucus who sided with boehner

Budget proposals originate in the House, dude.
 

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

So it was voted down because they came up with a different plan. Scandalous.

No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail.
 
the only plan is a campaign speech

today:

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion," Reid told the Los Angeles Times recently. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage." Instead, Reid wants to wait and see if the deficit-reduction meetings led by Vice President Biden bear any fruit. Before that, Reid wanted to wait for the Gang of Six -- now nearly defunct -- to come up with something.

Reid isn't alone. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, is also happy not to produce a budget. Not long ago, he told reporters that he planned to "defer" work on a 2012 budget indefinitely.

Dems lack budget leadership

grow up
 
Just for fun, courtesy of FrumForum:
In the spirit of bipartisanship, here’s some unsolicited advice for the Obama administration: send apologetic letters to all Social Security recipients in congressional districts of Republican freshmen. Tell the seniors that now that the government has reached the debt ceiling, the Social Security Trust Fund is currently unable to redeem special Treasury bonds that it holds and that therefore no new Social Security checks will be sent until the debt ceiling is increased. If the recipients wonder when that might happen, they can call their Representative and ask.
Except that this isn't true.

The redemption of the SSIOUs can be financed by tax revenue; Federal revenue is 4-5x that of SS outlays.
In fact, by taking the FICA taxes allocated to SS and then adding a small amount of general revenue recipts, there's no need to 'redeem' an of the SSOIUs.

And so, to make this claim would be to lie. Interesting that you would have The Obama lie to people just to gain partisan political power.
 
Democrats own this fiasco, no argument there, just stop it
they backed thierselves into a corner

they wanted to play political football, the GOP said, ok, lets play

America is not stupid... dems have been in charge for 5 years....hard to blame anyone else

So it was Democrats who inherited the surplus in 2001 and turned it into a deficit through tax cuts, more Medicare, and two unfunded wars?
 
So it was Democrats who inherited the surplus in 2001 and turned it into a deficit through tax cuts, more Medicare, and two unfunded wars?
Love the spin. The recession, the economic impact of 9/11 and the surge in entitlements had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
How much more time is needed?
Let's see, President Obama's health plan took over a year to pass in full. I see no reason why Congressman Ryan's plan should not be given the same amount of time so that it can be properly debated and looked over to see what its passage means for the future of Medicare and health care in the United States. Or are you okay with a bill, one the American public largely does not support, being jammed down this country's throat since it is coming from your side?

This pressure has existed prior to Obama's election. His agenda took center stage, along with record breaking spending, largely on the backs of democrat legislators. And now that republicans can throw in on the fight and redirect the agenda the dems just sit around with their thumbs up their asses?
Welcome to politics. The Republicans, since President Obama's inauguration, made it clear that they would do everything in their power to obstruct his agenda from becoming law.

Now it seems the tables are turned. Again Congressman Ryan is an example of that. Republicans tried to demagogue President Obama's health plan by calling it socialized medicine and that death panels will kill Granny. Now, Ryan and Republicans are whining about President Obama and other Democrats for doing the same things they did during the last round of health care debates. It seems like they can demagogue with the best of them; they just can't take it.

Maybe Republicans ought to have thought of the consequences of the path they chartered, but it is too late for that. They will have to deal the repercussions that come their way.
 
the ryan plan is dead, where ya been

Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40 - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

there is no plan

the party in power in upper parliament, their prerogative, expired the republican blueprint

the party in power has put up bupkis in response

again, their purview

but if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally reform our budgets, then our big 3 federal social programs (as well as state pensions) will plainly cease to exist as we know them

leadership, anyone?
 
Back
Top Bottom