• 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
year2late said:
And they always say enough is enough when the other guy is in office.
Click to expand...

Can't argue here, that's why Tea party groups formed. Too many "conservative" republicans become "crony capitalists" or "progressive" republicans when they get their hands on a checkbook. Hopefully the Tea Party republicans will prove to be more consistent when they have the chance to hold the checkbook.
 
IMHO it is both irresponsible government and stupid politics to shut down the federal government and/or default on the debt over Obamacare. Is it an incoherent mishmash, likely to fail in many ways? Yes. But it is the law of the land, already passed and signed into law. Let it take effect, then campaign against it. That's why we have elections. The Repubs' current actions let BHO off the hook and shift focus from Obamacare implementation to Repub infighting.:peace
 
shrubnose said:
Keep believing whatever makes you happy.
Click to expand...

And keep denying realities you don't like.

Declaring one or the other political parties is going to cease to exist is not only pointless and attempted derailment of any topic, it is also intellectually lazy.
 
johndylan1 said:
Can't argue here, that's why Tea party groups formed. Too many "conservative" republicans become "crony capitalists" or "progressive" republicans when they get their hands on a checkbook. Hopefully the Tea Party republicans will prove to be more consistent when they have the chance to hold the checkbook.
Click to expand...

So far as I can see, the are just garden variety bullies and wannabe terrorists who have no desire to see any reform of health care.

What I see is tea party is buddy buddy with the very people that through this country off the fiscal cliff and got us into a quagmire of a money pit of a war that we will pay for until out children are dead and buries. They are buddy buddy with the same people who got us into wars with unprecedented war profiteering.

So please do not talk to me about how they are different.
 
year2late said:
So far as I can see, the are just garden variety bullies and wannabe terrorists who have no desire to see any reform of health care.

What I see is tea party is buddy buddy with the very people that through this country off the fiscal cliff and got us into a quagmire of a money pit of a war that we will pay for until out children are dead and buries. They are buddy buddy with the same people who got us into wars with unprecedented war profiteering.

So please do not talk to me about how they are different.
Click to expand...

Too bad you are indoctrinated and biased, informed by leftist propaganda, I actually had hoped we had found agreement! In addition to being wrong you are also uninformed because there are healthcare reforms that tea party conservatives support, just not reforms that step toward socialized medical care.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you believe that there are no americans who support what the GOP are doing?

you believe them to be irresponsible because of the position they are taking, however you must know their are others who see them as very responsible, and are glad they are taking the action they are.

so even though you see it as irresponsible, it is not that way in the eyes of other people.

as far as i am concerned, in my opinion, they can shut it down and keep it closed until they can understand, how to spend tax payers dollars, according to constitutional law.
Click to expand...

You have a right to your opinion and voters have a right to make those bozo's pay. Oh I forgot..... the bozo's come from gerrymandered districts that make them invincible. Just like the KINGS and Monarchs of old. Since when did the creation of despots not beholding to the people become part of the Constitution? I believe that is what we were rebelling about?
 
iguanaman said:
You have a right to your opinion and voters have a right to make those bozo's pay. Oh I forgot..... the bozo's come from gerrymandered districts that make them invincible. Just like the KINGS and Monarchs of old. Since when did the creation of despots not beholding to the people become part of the Constitution? I believe that is what we were rebelling about?
Click to expand...


well your correct, it will all pay out in the election.

why, why why?.....do you and others feel that because what one side is doing is wrong, and act as though everyone supports that position.

you must know that there are millions of people who support what the republicans are doing.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well your correct, it will all pay out in the election.

why, why why?.....do you and others feel that because what one side is doing is wrong, and act as though everyone supports that position.

you must know that there are millions of people who support what the republicans are doing.
Click to expand...

This country functions on a majority rules system, it doesn't matter what even 10 million out of 300 million want. They are not the majority.
Not many of them have a clue what it will cost the country either. Even when they are not in power they insist on wasting money and trying to cra****he economy.
You are happy about billions wasted and weakening our economy? Thomas Jefferson would be so proud of you....
 
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...

It's absolutely not okay.

In a republic, there are free elections, and when you've lost, you have to recognize that. Being a good loser is as important as being a good winner. Obama has clearly won the election and thus has a mandate for his reform plan. Not acknowledging that is a kick in the face of that majority. They should rather seek a compromise that respects the majority decision, instead of clinging to a hardcore 100% opposition in favor of their minority opinion.

It's also important that the different parties respect each other enough to rather see the other as a competitor, not an enemy.

In this case, the Republicans are placing ideology and their own party above the country. That's neither commendable, nor is it acceptable in a democratic republic. This attitude divides the country and might even destroy it. IMO.

As a German, I cannot help but remember that this kind of BS, republican parties that placed party and ideology above the country, was a major reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic. People turned away in masses from republican parties that couldn't agree on **** and kept blocking each other. We all know how that ended.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Not many of them have a clue what it will cost the country either. Even when they are not in power they insist on wasting money and trying to crashi the economy.
You are happy about billions wasted and weakening our economy? Thomas Jefferson would be so proud of you....
Click to expand...


i am pointing out that there are millions of people who support what the republicans are doing, you can discount them, however they are there making their presence known.

so i am trying to dispel this notion, that the nation is against them, when it is not, they have plenty of people on their side ......as you have on yours.
 
German guy said:
It's absolutely not okay.

In a republic, there are free elections, and when you've lost, you have to recognize that. Being a good loser is as important as being a good winner. Obama has clearly won the election and thus has a mandate for his reform plan. Not acknowledging that is a kick in the face of that majority. They should rather seek a compromise that respects the majority decision, instead of clinging to a hardcore 100% opposition in favor of their minority opinion.

It's also important that the different parties respect each other enough to rather see the other as a competitor, not an enemy.

In this case, the Republicans are placing ideology and their own party above the country. That's neither commendable, nor is it acceptable in a democratic republic. This attitude divides the country and might even destroy it. IMO.

As a German, I cannot help but remember that this kind of BS, republican parties that placed party and ideology above the country, was a major reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic. People turned away in masses from republican parties that couldn't agree on **** and kept blocking each other. We all know how that ended.
Click to expand...

sorry that is not correct, if obama had a mandate, when why were the democrats throw out of the house, in the biggest lost for them since 1947?

our system of government was not meant to be fast, it was meant to be slow and steady process....just becuase one party is in two branches, does not mean they get to do anything they wish

and our government is not democratic..........article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution...."The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

all of those who have been taught america is a democracy..... have been improperly educated.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry that is not correct, if obama had a mandate, when why were the democrats throw out of the house, in the biggest lost for them since 1947?

our system of government was not meant to be fast, it was meant to be slow and steady process....just becuase one party is in two branches, does not mean they get to do anything they wish

and our government is not democratic..........article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution...."The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

all of those who have been taught america is a democracy..... have been improperly educated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you apparently have no idea about the difference between republics and democracies. Some Americans, especially the more primitive right-wing ideologues, are famous in the entire world for their total lack of education, their small-mindedness and their partisan extremism.

Besides, I didn't mention "democracy" anywhere.

Fact is, Obama was legally elected and he legally got through his reform. When you don't acknowledge that, you kick in the face of your constitution. The Republicans now place ideology and party above the country. They will even risk extreme and severe damage to the entire country, just because they don't get their will and because they have lost the election.

When that is not prove for hating the own country and for being extremist partisan hacks, I don't know what else is.
 
German guy said:
Yeah, and you apparently have no idea about the difference between republics and democracies. Some Americans, especially the more primitive right-wing ideologues, are famous in the entire world for their total lack of education, their small-mindedness and their partisan extremism.

Besides, I didn't mention "democracy" anywhere.

Fact is, Obama was legally elected and he legally got through his reform. When you don't acknowledge that, you kick in the face of your constitution. The Republicans now place ideology and party above the country. They will even risk extreme and severe damage to the entire country, just because they don't get their will and because they have lost the election.

When that is not prove for hating the own country and for being extremist partisan hacks, I don't know what else is.
Click to expand...

yes i do, you see america is not democratic at all, its republican, this can be found by reading the constitution, the founders, and the federalist papers....number 40 in particular

the u.s. is a republic, with Republican government, not democratic government.

a republican government is mixed constitution or mixed government, what is mixed government?

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

federalist 40...madison father of the u.s. constitution.


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

i did not state obama was not legally elected, i stated becuase he was elected and holds the upper house, does not give him a blank check to do anything he wishes.

if republicans controlled things, and the house was in the hands of democrats, and the republicans wanted to end all social programs, do you believe democratics would let the republican do as they wanted?...no.

wining elections ,does not give your party all they desire.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am pointing out that there are millions of people who support what the republicans are doing, you can discount them, however they are there making their presence known.

so i am trying to dispel this notion, that the nation is against them, when it is not, they have plenty of people on their side ......as you have on yours.
Click to expand...

The latest polls show Republican Congressional approval at historic all time lows and 68% believe putting the Govt. down for even a short time is a bad idea.
Are you another one of those citizens that have forgotten about how majority rule works? I suggest you take a civics course to refresh your memory.

Here's a hint...When 68% of Americans disapprove of what you are doing and only 27% agree, the country is SOLIDLY against you.
 
Kobie said:
When have I called anyone a terrorist?
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking if you had called him a terrorist. I am asking if Obama's behavior in 2006 bore the same moral atrocity - described variously as "terrorism", "hostage taking" and the like - as Republicans today, since it was, in fact, the same behavior. And did you think that of him at the time?
 
iguanaman said:
The latest polls show Republican Congressional approval at historic all time lows and 68% believe putting the Govt. down for even a short time is a bad idea.
Are you another one of those citizens that have forgotten about how majority rule works? I suggest you take a civics course to refresh your memory.

Here's a hint...When 68% of Americans disapprove of what you are doing and only 27% agree, the country is SOLIDLY against you.
Click to expand...


do you really belive if the government shutdown,for ....how long.......we are going to crash and burn becuase of it........we didn't in 95 ,96 why would we now?

well its used to be called american government, not civics.

if things are as you say and only 27% of the people support them, you should be glad, because it should mean the party you support should control the house in 2014, so rejoice.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you really belive if the government shutdown,for ....how long.......we are going to crash and burn becuase of it........we didn't in 95 ,96 why would we now?

well its used to be called american government, not civics.

if things are as you say and only 27% of the people support them, you should be glad, because it should mean the party you support should control the house in 2014, so rejoice.
Click to expand...

I do not feel like rejoicing when my countries economy is being threatened like this. That is where we differ. I care about her.

The cost of the shutdowns in the 90's was estimated at 66 billion dollars in todays money. How much do you think this stunt is worth?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I wasn't asking if you had called him a terrorist. I am asking if Obama's behavior in 2006 bore the same moral atrocity - described variously as "terrorism", "hostage taking" and the like - as Republicans today, since it was, in fact, the same behavior. And did you think that of him at the time?
Click to expand...

Is this going to turn into one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" lines of questioning? I never said anyone was a terrorist, so why ask me that question?
 
cpwill said:
I wasn't asking if you had called him a terrorist. I am asking if Obama's behavior in 2006 bore the same moral atrocity - described variously as "terrorism", "hostage taking" and the like - as Republicans today, since it was, in fact, the same behavior. And did you think that of him at the time?
Click to expand...

That depends...did Obama lead a cabal of Representatives who intimidated their party into a stunt that lowered the credit rating of the United States for the 1st time and cost the Govt. billions? No? Then it is not the same thing at all. And frankly it belittles those that keep bringing it up as such. I'm surprised at you.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

When someone is asking if they can borrow more money is the perfect time to start reigning in spending.Especially if that spending keeps going up and up. Every cut in the book should be made and if possible go back to the basics.

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.
Click to expand...


I would think that the global economy would be hit much harder if the US declares bankruptcy and never pays that loa.
 
iguanaman said:
That depends...did Obama lead a cabal of Representatives who intimidated their party into a stunt that lowered the credit rating of the United States for the 1st time and cost the Govt. billions?
Click to expand...

Yup. Although they were Senators and Representatives both.

But we were comparing Obama voting against raising the debt ceiling and accusing those who raised it of being unpatriotic to today's conflict, not him later presiding over our first downgrade.
 
Kobie said:
Is this going to turn into one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" lines of questioning?
Click to expand...

:shrug: it was originally intended as lighthearted, however, more seriously, I can't help but notice you don't answer it. Is Obama's behavior in 2006 exhibitive of the same moral atrocity - described variously as "terrorism", "hostage taking" and the like - as Republicans today, since it was, in fact, the same behavior? And if so, did you think that of him at the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom