Breaking: John Boehner Yanks Debt Ceiling Bill, House Vote Postponed

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Some more experienced posters might be able to give a reasonable response, but it certainly isn't going to be the likes of you. As one can tell from your weightless response, you have nothing of any merit to contribute.

Click to expand...

a fellow liberal called out on her false rhetoric? You have one of three options 1. cry me a river 2. repeat the slogans "republicans are racist/terrorists/sexist/any-ists u want to add", or 3. do both.

There are larger truths here that are being ignored by... well, everyone in the country. It's theater, no matter what side of the aisle you're sitting on.

ACT I

The debt ceiling... gawd this is a freaking joke, isn't it? Currently it's viewed as a debt ceiling beyond which we will not borrow any more money.... Yet we will consistently overspend those limits, and just as consistently raise those limits. WHAT IS THE POINT OF WASTING TIME VOTING ON THIS WHEN IT HAS NO PURPOSE TO BEGIN WITH? If it does not serve as an impedance to spending, or even a guideline, it serves no useful purpose. Abolish it or change it.

This was a law enacted in 1917 to perform an end run around budget restrictions that could hamper our efforts in the Great War, and to allow for more "flexible" borrowing by congress. It was then a justification for a fundamental change in how congress borrowed, and is now just a formality. It was replaced by laws passed in 1939 and 1941, and finally aggregated into a single piece of legislation.


ACT II

Congress, by it's own rules, began automatically raising the ceiling when passing a new budget in 1979, no vote required, simply the passage of a new budget. Any past purpose it might have had (and it had none) died that day. It should have been abolished or repealed. Of course, getting rid of it would remove the extremely thin veil of responsibility our public servants project by admitting they really don't care how much they spend, or these days, how fast. However, it was at this time, and every time after 1979 that we'd missed the opportunity to have the debate that is happening now, during such highly charged and dangerous situations, created by the very people who are asking us to trust them, they can fix this.

ACT III

The Tea Party - On the one hand, it's a debate that has been long coming, and the TP should be credited for making all of us take a look at something that has not served the people well outside of two world wars, and which we have been completely ignorant of until now. But if you all miss the larger, more important underlying issues, what will have been the point?

On the other, this minority movement (20%) of the flailing and faltering republican party, is holding America hostage. They have used this very crucial time, not just to make a point, but to hold hostage what remains of personal wealth among the average citizen, and further threatening to wreak havoc on the entire world if we default on something that should have been discussed during the last budget, and the one before that, and the one... you get the idea. The rest of the republican party and the rest of the nation should be exerting considerable pressure on them to back the hell down and take up this debate as part of the election platform, and we'll see what merit it has.

ACT IV

Default - Not gonna happen. If it did, we would deserve more scorn heaped on us as a people by the citizens of the world than we experienced with Bush. If we default, we affect the world economy, if we don't, but still see a downgrading in our securities rating, that only largely affects us. And we deserve it.

With an administration so heavily invested in Wall St appointees, there is little chance that a default is in the realm of possibilities... unless it benefits them to do so. If a default happens, I would be very skeptical as to the reasons why.

We can all spend our lives pointing fingers at this political party or that, to this law maker or that, all while collectively scratching our heads (or asses) wondering how we got here (more likely not wondering at all, see scratching ass). The fault with all of this lies with us, the People. We are the rulers of this country. We have failed to demand accountability of our elected public servants. We have allowed ourselves to be divided from our first responsibility, remain skeptical and vigilant of our government, and when it stops working for the People, change it.

ACT V

The drama over the 14th Amendment. Using the constitution, requiring some manner of interpretation where specifics are absent, is always dangerous when setting precedent. I advise against it, and it is unnecessary. The President can accomplish the same thing using an Executive Order to raise the debt ceiling to avoid crisis and returning the power to congress when and if they get their act together.

Executive Orders are generally used "as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government"

The debt ceiling would certainly fall within this description without having to mess about with the constitution and setting dangerous precedents.

DarkWizard12 said:

except, the "woman" in question, speaks nonsense and offers no real content or dialogue of value. "The republicans are terrorists" mantra gets old after a while...

Click to expand...

Fact: This is being held up as a Tea Party power play. It's timing is not in the best interest of this country and that alone makes it a political, not an accountable issue. Further more, they are beating the drums threatening all those receiving entitlements (both those who deserve them like those on Social Security, and those that are abusing the system) with not receiving their income. They are threatening the world with a second round of financial meltdown to that they can flex their muscle. They are threatening employment. They are threatening growth and security. They are threatening the already besieged middle class and what savings and retirement they have left.... and for what? A law that serves no purpose at all, and has been an automatic vote since 1979...

That is, in fact... political terrorism against the citizens of this country.

Not saying that it's all republicans... just one faction wishing to make a name for itself at our expense. Though I have to say Republicans in general seem to be bending over for the Tea Partiers.

So yes... she did have a point, and a correct one.

And she seems very passionate about it.

Occam's Razor said:

Fact: This is being held up as a Tea Party power play. It's timing is not in the best interest of this country and that alone makes it a political, not an accountable issue. Further more, they are beating the drums threatening all those receiving entitlements (both those who deserve them like those on Social Security, and those that are abusing the system) with not receiving their income. They are threatening the world with a second round of financial meltdown to that they can flex their muscle. They are threatening employment. They are threatening growth and security. They are threatening the already besieged middle class and what savings and retirement they have left.... and for what? A law that serves no purpose at all, and has been an automatic vote since 1979...

That is, in fact... political terrorism against the citizens of this country.

Not saying that it's all republicans... just one faction wishing to make a name for itself at our expense. Though I have to say Republicans in general seem to be bending over for the Tea Partiers.

So yes... she did have a point, and a correct one.

And she seems very passionate about it.

Click to expand...

Fact? I beg to differ, more like opinion. I can do the same thing to FACT: Republicans are defending the interests of the people and the only thing being hostage is Obama's and the democrat's political delusion of some false "utopia" where we can spend money and debt on things we can't afford.

btw FACT: Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Poll: Voters Don't Want Debt Ceiling Hike Voters do not want the debt ceiling raised.

And look at that, a post with less sentences and more substance than either of you. Who is calling who a terrorist now? Perhaps both of you will learn to cool it with the hyperbole. We know you are passionate, but you don't need to make up BS.

upsideguy said:

True, so why do we not have an emphasis on job creation? Cutting expenditures will just exasperate the situation.

Click to expand...

Do you mean exacerbate? If so, in other words you're saying that government spending creates job growth opportunities? The government has spent the US into the greatest debt that has ever been accumulated. Remember Obama's stimulus package? If that's the case then why is unemployment at over 9% in the USA?
 

So if we can't cut with everything on the line, when can we?
Out another way, if raising the debt limit is truly that important, why can't democrats make some compromises on future spending to get it done?
Please, dont hit me with the taxes argument, government has shown that all it knows how to do with more money is spend it, so why should they get any more at all?

Thats exactly the point that is being made, and the miniscule cuts being made now are almost nothing compared to what needs to be done in the future. 24% of GDP is unsustainable. The borrowing is unsustainable. The entitlement programs are unsustainable. So what do we do?

OpportunityCost said:

CBO scores Boehner’s new bill: $22 billion in savings this year, $917 billion over 10 years « Hot Air

CBO Scoring of Boehner's new bill. The hyperventilating on this thread is laughable. It does not save enough.
The tea party may not be in charge but wanting more than 90billion in cuts a year is admirable.

By the by, where is the democrat plan? Or maybe Obama's?

Click to expand...

CBO: Democrats’ debt bill tops GOP’s in spending cuts

"The Senate Democratic debt-limit bill would cut future spending by $2.2 trillion over 10 years — much deeper than the House GOP alternative, according to figures Congress‘ chief scorekeeper released early Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would raise the government’s borrowing limit by $2.7 trillion, and cut $2.2 trillion from future spending, chiefly by limiting the amount of money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Speaker John A. Boehner’s plan, meanwhile, would produce just $850 billion in savings, versus $900 billion in new debt authority, according to a CBO analysis released late Tuesday. That sent the Ohio Republican back to the drawing board to rewrite his bill to try to meet his own pledge of topping any debt increase dollar-for-dollar with new spending cuts."

Dion said:

True DM ... yet if an agreement is not reached and congress abidcated their responsibilities he must be CIC and protect our country.

Yes ... there will be hell to pay and possibly a lost election in 2012 ... yet it is his duty to protect from terrorists ... be it jihadists hoping for virgins or republicans playing a wicked economic game for special interests and corporate personhood.

Click to expand...

Oh.. I agree.. The tricky part will be making sure the back lash is against the republicans where it belongs and not the democrats.. It is a catch 22 no matter how you look at it..

Right now, the polls I have seen are leaning against the republicans.. Nobody wants medicaid, medicare, or SS to be messed with.. Everyone wants the Tax cuts for the rich to expire.. What I don't want is for budget crisis to suddenly become an issue about democrats.. They didn't create this issue.. Republicans are completely to blame for this.. Their biggest issue is failure to handle the tea party issue.. As they are starting to see.. Last election wasn't a republican take over of the house.. It was the fracturing of the republican party.. And now the tea party is driving them into a ditch and destroying the nation and the future of republicans at the same time.. They just need to stop kissing the butts of the rich and powerful tea party elite and start becoming conservatives again working for the good of the people..

Catawba said:

CBO: Democrats’ debt bill tops GOP’s in spending cuts

"The Senate Democratic debt-limit bill would cut future spending by $2.2 trillion over 10 years — much deeper than the House GOP alternative, according to figures Congress‘ chief scorekeeper released early Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office said the plan by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would raise the government’s borrowing limit by $2.7 trillion, and cut $2.2 trillion from future spending, chiefly by limiting the amount of money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Speaker John A. Boehner’s plan, meanwhile, would produce just $850 billion in savings, versus $900 billion in new debt authority, according to a CBO analysis released late Tuesday. That sent the Ohio Republican back to the drawing board to rewrite his bill to try to meet his own pledge of topping any debt increase dollar-for-dollar with new spending cuts."

Click to expand...

Pardon me, but counting drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings is a gimick. They are going to happen whether Reid passes a bill on it or not.

OpportunityCost said:

Pardon me, but counting drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings is a gimick. They are going to happen whether Reid passes a bill on it or not.

Click to expand...

Spending on unnecessary wars is our most wasteful spending. Funny the GOP didn't think to include the most wasteful spending before going after our seniors. Especially since much of the trillions the wars cost was taken from our senior's SS trust funds! :sun

DarkWizard12 said:

Fact? I beg to differ, more like opinion. I can do the same thing to FACT: Republicans are defending the interests of the people and the only thing being hostage is Obama's and the democrat's political delusion of some false "utopia" where we can spend money and debt on things we can't afford.

btw FACT: Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Poll: Voters Don't Want Debt Ceiling Hike Voters do not want the debt ceiling raised.

And look at that, a post with less sentences and more substance than either of you. Who is calling who a terrorist now? Perhaps both of you will learn to cool it with the hyperbole. We know you are passionate, but you don't need to make up BS.

Click to expand...

LMAO... so... republicans have never engaged in spending money we can't afford? Cheney never said "deficits don't matter?" The reason I'm laughing is because of the lack of honesty, morals and ethics by members of both party followers to examine their own failings first, correct these failings, take the high-ground and then point fingers.

The proper response is to refute the following, not play discredit by labeling and using silly examples.... So which of the following is not true?

They (the tea partiers) are beating the drums threatening all those receiving entitlements (both those who deserve them like those on Social Security, and those that are abusing the system) with not receiving their income.
They are threatening the world with a second round of financial meltdown to that they can flex their muscle.
They are threatening employment.
They are threatening growth and security.
They are threatening the already besieged middle class and what savings and retirement they have left.... and for what? A law that serves no purpose at all, and has been an automatic vote since 1979...

As I have said, I agree that this issue needs the attention of the American people in a "country first" not "party before country" manner. However, now is not the time to do so. There have been countless opportunities to address this in the past. Doing it now and not waiting until after the debt ceiling is raised serves only one purpose... a power play by a minority faction of one party. If they truly had Our best interest in mind and not a power play... the ceiling would have been raised weeks ago.

DarkWizard12 said:

a fellow liberal called out on her false rhetoric? You have one of three options 1. cry me a river 2. repeat the slogans "republicans are racist/terrorists/sexist/any-ists u want to add", or 3. do both.

Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't call her out on anything. You couldn't intelligently dispute anything she said. You couldn't prove her wrong. You just attacked her. It appears that you've taken the only path that a partisan hack like yourself knows - ignore the facts, attack the post. And now you want to talk about crying and racism? Sounds like you're the one doing the crying. And the racism - 90% of the time I see somebody pull the race card, it's a rightie. Congrats, at least you're in the majority on something.

OpportunityCost said:

So if we can't cut with everything on the line, when can we?
Out another way, if raising the debt limit is truly that important, why can't democrats make some compromises on future spending to get it done?
Please, dont hit me with the taxes argument, government has shown that all it knows how to do with more money is spend it, so why should they get any more at all?

Thats exactly the point that is being made, and the miniscule cuts being made now are almost nothing compared to what needs to be done in the future. 24% of GDP is unsustainable. The borrowing is unsustainable. The entitlement programs are unsustainable. So what do we do?

Click to expand...

The economic collapse of 2008 resulted in an annual revenue shrinkage of $400B and in increase in unemployment spending of $100B. That is one-third of the problem. Raise taxes on the persons that are actually prospering on this economy. It is ultimately has the least negative impact on the economy and places pain on a group that is in the best position to absorb that pain. You are not serious about the deficit if you are not willing to raise taxes.

Then again, this whole thing is not now, nor has it ever been, about deficit reduction.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059697613 said:

Do you mean exacerbate? If so, in other words you're saying that government spending creates job growth opportunities? The government has spent the US into the greatest debt that has ever been accumulated. Remember Obama's stimulus package? If that's the case then why is unemployment at over 9% in the USA?
 

Click to expand...

Government spending does put money directly into the economy and jobs are created. The problem with the stimulus of 2008 was that is was only $500B of spending (the rest was tax cuts) and way too small to overcome such in incredible slowing of the economy. We do not really know how many jobs were saved from the stimulus, but a pretty good measure of that can be the number of state and local government jobs that have been lost this year after the stimulus ran out.

Government Expenditure effect on the economy:

Let's say the government contracts a building maintenance service. It pays the service $1000 for a month's work. Let's say the owner makes a 20% pre-tax on the business and the rest is paid to the workers that actually do the cleaning (we will leave supplies out here for simplicity)... The owner has a $200 profit. It is taxed at 30%... $60 back to the government. The worker earns $800. Payroll taxes on that are $62 to the worker and $62 to the employer... we are now up to $184 back to the government. The worker has a $800 income... after deductions, lets call it $700. That at 30% is $210.... now the government has $390 of its $1000 back. The worker, as a lower wager earner, saves nothing and consumes everything (the remaining $590 is spent).... if they paid $100 to a plumber, he pays $30 in taxes. They buy groceries with the other $494... that store has a 20% pre-tax profit, so another $30 to the government....plus the store has workers and supplies.... so the $1000 paid by the government is a $1000 in revenue to the cleaning company, $100 in revenue to the plumber, $490 in revenue to the grocery store.... and $454 (45%) in tax receipts. This is just a two tier look, it assumes everyone pays 30% to the federal government and does not consider other state and local taxes... but it is the way the system works. it is why stimulus spending works. Of course, you need an economy to continue to move money through it.

Spending money does not fix the deficit other than it stimulates the revenue flow to the government... that will fix the deficit. $400B of revenue disappeared because the economy headed south. As my example shows you, cutting the $1000 from the government cleaning bill will have revenue consequences. it is not a $1000 saved. Should the choose to cut its cleaning services, than all of this contracts... starting with the loss of the maintenance workers job. Since the economy isn't producing jobs, he goes from being a tax payer to a guy collecting unemployment... so tax revenues go down and government expenditure goes up.

As an Australian, can you guys hurry up and sort this out? This situation is not just bad for you, it's bad for the entire world. If you default, there will almost certainly be another global recession. One that your congress DELIBERATELY inflicted. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. I really thought you would have sorted this out weeks/months ago. Why in the hell are you leaving this until there is only 3 days left? Your credit rating is almost certainly going to be downgraded now, which is going to cost you big time. All because your congressmen are too childish to negotiate. Seriously, wtf are you guys doing? The entire lot of you should be marching on the WH demanding a deal by this point. If you guys default (which I'm still hoping you won't, but I might be underestimating just how stupid some of your politicians are) it will screw your country, my country and the world. The whole thing is just so irresponsible, why did you vote for these idiots?!

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Actually, you didn't call her out on anything. You couldn't intelligently dispute anything she said. You couldn't prove her wrong. You just attacked her. It appears that you've taken the only path that a partisan hack like yourself knows - ignore the facts, attack the post. And now you want to talk about crying and racism? Sounds like you're the one doing the crying. And the racism - 90% of the time I see somebody pull the race card, it's a rightie. Congrats, at least you're in the majority on something.

Click to expand...

If there were facts or substance, i would of. instead, she contributes nothing.

She called republicans terrorists, i didn't. She either has to substantiate that, or it's just more partisan drivel, as i have said before. You on the other hand....im really not sure what you are doing.

Occam's Razor said:

The proper response is to refute the following, not play discredit by labeling and using silly examples.... So which of the following is not true?

They (the tea partiers) are beating the drums threatening all those receiving entitlements (both those who deserve them like those on Social Security, and those that are abusing the system) with not receiving their income.
They are threatening the world with a second round of financial meltdown to that they can flex their muscle.
They are threatening employment.
They are threatening growth and security.
They are threatening the already besieged middle class and what savings and retirement they have left.... and for what? A law that serves no purpose at all, and has been an automatic vote since 1979...

As I have said, I agree that this issue needs the attention of the American people in a "country first" not "party before country" manner. However, now is not the time to do so. There have been countless opportunities to address this in the past. Doing it now and not waiting until after the debt ceiling is raised serves only one purpose... a power play by a minority faction of one party. If they truly had Our best interest in mind and not a power play... the ceiling would have been raised weeks ago.

Click to expand...

DarkWizard12 said:

If there were facts or substance, i would of. instead, she contributes nothing.

She called republicans terrorists, i didn't. She either has to substantiate that, or it's just more partisan drivel, as i have said before. You on the other hand....im really not sure what you are doing.

Click to expand...

From Merriam Webster:
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of TERRORISM

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic adjective

Are the tea party tactics systematic? Yes
Are they threatening those listed above with the associated results of not passing the vote that has been passed 80 times with no fuss? Yes
Are they using it as a means of coercion? Yes

Substantiated... and then some.

Occam's Razor said:

From Merriam Webster:
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of TERRORISM

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic adjective

Are the tea party tactics systematic? Yes
Are they threatening those listed above with the associated results of not passing the vote that has been passed 80 times with no fuss? Yes
Are they using it as a means of coercion? Yes

Click to expand...

My problem has nothing to do with "systematic" or "coercion". Politics is systematic and activism is coercion. My problem is with the bolded word: "Terror". If there were any truth behind that, you wouldn't be on this board, for you do not remember true terror. Go look up some 9/11 videos.

Substantiated... and then some.

Click to expand...

Thats not substantiation, thats called a "leap of faith", and what blind faith at that. even if republicans were, as you say, "threatening" to do something in what I assume you mean, a "violent manner", This isn't terrorism, this is merely politics(although, you could argue they are one and the same, in which case, part of me would concur, hehe...). If the worst happens and the country defaults, I doubt anyone, much less tea partiers, is going to be revolting and spilling blood all over the place, everything will be just fine, the public will just have to prove it's resilience and make do for a while.

Otherwise, it's not republicans that is creating fear, it's you. And according to webster, creating fear is terror

Now that this discussion is over, can we please relax on the rhetoric and hyperbole now? It's as bad as glenn beck, DP does not need any more of this.

DarkWizard12 said:

My problem has nothing to do with "systematic" or "coercion". Politics is systematic and activism is coercion. My problem is with the bolded word: "Terror". If there were any truth behind that, you wouldn't be on this board, for you do not remember true terror. Go look up some 9/11 videos.

Click to expand...

That's your low bar for terrorism? The most devastating terrorist attack in america's history? So in your mind, anything that doesn't have death and explosions is not terrorism? I'm sorry, my family, friends and those I care about have been threatened unless a small group gets what they want, when they want it. I take that very seriously.

Thats not substantiation, thats called a "leap of faith", and what blind faith at that. even if republicans were, as you say, "threatening" to do something in what I assume you mean, a "violent manner", This isn't terrorism, this is merely politics(although, you could argue they are one and the same, in which case, part of me would concur, hehe...). If the worst happens and the country defaults, I doubt anyone, much less tea partiers, is going to be revolting and spilling blood all over the place, everything will be just fine, the public will just have to prove it's resilience and make do for a while.

Otherwise, it's not republicans that is creating fear, it's you. And according to webster, creating fear is terror

Now that this discussion is over, can we please relax on the rhetoric and hyperbole now? It's as bad as glenn beck, DP does not need any more of this.

Click to expand...

Most of your problem is that you assume too much. That's the only leap of faith I see...

I said nothing of violence... rather it is based on threats and fear. I also did not say the republican party, but the tea partier minority faction.

That you have no problem with systematic coercion using threats of global and domestic financial meltdown, is economic terrorism.

So... you can keep avoiding addressing the list I provided, and projecting your heavily biased assumptions and opinions on me... but a man would address the points put forth....

Now, suppose you tell me how I'm creating fear, after you man up and address the list from a few posts back.

donsutherland1 said:

Although those who stood against the Boehner bill may feel that they demonstrated strength in doing so, regardless of whether the legislation is salvaged later today, the Speaker's negotiating leverage has been damaged. He is in a weaker position and that weakness will have consequences for the Republicans. No amount of spin can mask the weakness that was exposed by the events in the House. No amount of spin can prevent that weakness from being exploited.

As legislation will require a greater number of Democratic votes to pass the House due to the need to write off the hardliners and also compensate for other Republicans who could be lost in seeking to bring Democrats on board, even greater concessions to the Democratic Party position will likely be needed than would otherwise have been the case in any compromise vehicle. More than likely, that will translate into less 10-year budget savings, which continue to be whittled down from the approximately $3.7 trillion figure that had been within reach. The irony will be that some of the very Congressmen who claimed to want far more deficit reduction will, by overreaching, have paved the way for much less deficit reduction than would otherwise have been the case. In turn, that development will increase prospects of a credit rating downgrade for the U.S., which would lead to higher interest costs and perhaps completely wipe out any of the savings in the compromise legislation. Very likely, the net 10-year savings after considering higher interest expenses may well fall short of $1 trillion in a best case scenario.

Click to expand...

So what are you saying? So they stood against his bill and got what they wanted; but you talk as though they may have lost something. Tell where you make the case for this. This whole thread is nothing more than a Boehner bashing thread, and you are sort of participating in it. Is that what you want? Don't expect to be considered a centrist if you do.

Occam's Razor said:

That's your low bar for terrorism?

Click to expand...

No, just putting terrorism into "perspective" something that is indeed lacking with any individual who agrees with calling one philosophical side a "terrorist" simply because they won't do what you want.

You do realize, in some states, terrorists are executed, right? So are you really gonna fill your post with that kind of hyperbole and charge?

The most devastating terrorist attack in america's history? So in your mind, anything that doesn't have death and explosions is not terrorism? I'm sorry, my family, friends and those I care about have been threatened unless a small group gets what they want, when they want it. I take that very seriously.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, you could be a sock puppet with no friends are family, who makes baseless claims with nothing but anecdotal evidence to back it up. I'm sorry but, cool story, bro. If it's that bad, go press charges, "boehner threatened me and my family cuz he won't raise the debt limit WAAAAAH". I guess you shouldn't have taken a government job, where your pay and livelihood is depended on the health of the US government.

Most of your problem is that you assume too much. That's the only leap of faith I see...

I said nothing of violence... rather it is based on threats and fear. I also did not say the republican party, but the tea partier minority faction.

Click to expand...

You just replaced "A" with "B". You are still making a baseless claim. So the only one spreading fear is you, by that definition, YOU are the terrorist.

That you have no problem with systematic coercion using threats of global and domestic financial meltdown, is economic terrorism.

Click to expand...

anytime one side does what you don't want, or believes something else is good for the nation, is "economics terrorism"? really?

So... you can keep avoiding addressing the list I provided, and projecting your heavily biased assumptions and opinions on me... but a man would address the points put forth....

Click to expand...

Just like you ASSUME that republicans(tea party faction/whatever u call them now) are threatening you? More like exercising their own will to forward their own beliefs and ideals using the system thats provided....and thats threatening to you? if so, you are a partisan, a political terrorist.

Now, suppose you tell me how I'm creating fear, after you man up and address the list from a few posts back.

Click to expand...

I am not going to repeat myself.

Corripe Cervisi said:

As an Australian, can you guys hurry up and sort this out? This situation is not just bad for you, it's bad for the entire world. If you default, there will almost certainly be another global recession. One that your congress DELIBERATELY inflicted. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. I really thought you would have sorted this out weeks/months ago. Why in the hell are you leaving this until there is only 3 days left? Your credit rating is almost certainly going to be downgraded now, which is going to cost you big time. All because your congressmen are too childish to negotiate. Seriously, wtf are you guys doing? The entire lot of you should be marching on the WH demanding a deal by this point. If you guys default (which I'm still hoping you won't, but I might be underestimating just how stupid some of your politicians are) it will screw your country, my country and the world. The whole thing is just so irresponsible, why did you vote for these idiots?!

Click to expand...

Well said.... why is it that our own "leaders" fail to see the obvious is certainly befuddling.

Corripe Cervisi said:

As an Australian, can you guys hurry up and sort this out? This situation is not just bad for you, it's bad for the entire world. If you default, there will almost certainly be another global recession. One that your congress DELIBERATELY inflicted. The whole thing is completely ridiculous. I really thought you would have sorted this out weeks/months ago. Why in the hell are you leaving this until there is only 3 days left? Your credit rating is almost certainly going to be downgraded now, which is going to cost you big time. All because your congressmen are too childish to negotiate. Seriously, wtf are you guys doing? The entire lot of you should be marching on the WH demanding a deal by this point. If you guys default (which I'm still hoping you won't, but I might be underestimating just how stupid some of your politicians are) it will screw your country, my country and the world. The whole thing is just so irresponsible, why did you vote for these idiots?!

Click to expand...

I happen to think we need another global recession. It would prove a point to the hacks, and it would teach valuable lessons to future leaders, who think spending 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a good thing.
I guarentee you, NO politician would ever allow this country to ever be in the position to default again.

OpportunityCost said:

Pardon me, but counting drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings is a gimick. They are going to happen whether Reid passes a bill on it or not.

Click to expand...

Its not a gimmick, it is sensible priorities, cutting our most wasteful spending vs cutting earned benefits of our seniors. I must have missed when the GOP voted to end a war.............any war.................ever!!!

DarkWizard12 said:

My problem has nothing to do with "systematic" or "coercion". Politics is systematic and activism is coercion. My problem is with the bolded word: "Terror". If there were any truth behind that, you wouldn't be on this board, for you do not remember true terror. Go look up some 9/11 videos.

Thats not substantiation, thats called a "leap of faith", and what blind faith at that. even if republicans were, as you say, "threatening" to do something in what I assume you mean, a "violent manner", This isn't terrorism, this is merely politics(although, you could argue they are one and the same, in which case, part of me would concur, hehe...). If the worst happens and the country defaults, I doubt anyone, much less tea partiers, is going to be revolting and spilling blood all over the place, everything will be just fine, the public will just have to prove it's resilience and make do for a while.

Otherwise, it's not republicans that is creating fear, it's you. And according to webster, creating fear is terror

Now that this discussion is over, can we please relax on the rhetoric and hyperbole now? It's as bad as glenn beck, DP does not need any more of this.

Click to expand...

Don't know about others, but I have greater fear of a GOP self-induced economic depression than I do a hand full of Arabs.