• 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
cpwill said:
: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?
Click to expand...

1. I didn't know about it at the time. Virtually nobody did. Raising the debt ceiling was generally a matter of political routine until the 2011 debt ceiling fight.

2. I would say it's different, since Obama wasn't trying to extract any concessions. The Republicans are trying to extract utterly absurd concessions -- basically the implementation of the entire party platform minus some sort of abortion restrictions, which they probably would have added in if they had thought of it.

Obama was making a credential-burnishing speech on the Senate floor. The GOP is attempting to hijack the government. Yeah, there's a difference. It's NOT the same behavior.
 
jamesrage said:
I would think that the global economy would be hit much harder if the US declares bankruptcy and never pays that loa.
Click to expand...

The United States is nowhere remotely close to even approaching a scenario that would be cause to declare bankruptcy.
 
Threegoofs said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didnt answer the question though. If negotiation is about giving something up, what are the Democrats offering to give up in order to get what they want (funding of Obamcare)?
 
jonny5 said:
You didnt answer the question though. If negotiation is about giving something up, what are the Democrats offering to give up in order to get what they want (funding of Obamcare)?
Click to expand...

Given that the GOP hasn't asked, that's not a question that is answerable. The GOP has made it quite clear there will be no reasonable budget negotiation, because they are a fractured party- just read Tiggers posts to see what a non-insignificant part of the House thinks about negotiation.
 
Threegoofs said:
Given that the GOP hasn't asked, that's not a question that is answerable. The GOP has made it quite clear there will be no reasonable budget negotiation, because they are a fractured party- just read Tiggers posts to see what a non-insignificant part of the House thinks about negotiation.
Click to expand...

Theyve asked 3 times, for defunding of obamacare, for delay of obamacare, and yesterday to eliminate the subsidy for congressional staff. What did the Democrats give up in return?
 
Threegoofs said:
Given that the GOP hasn't asked, that's not a question that is answerable. The GOP has made it quite clear there will be no reasonable budget negotiation, because they are a fractured party- just read Tiggers posts to see what a non-insignificant part of the House thinks about negotiation.
Click to expand...

Sure it is answerable. All the Democrats have to do is write their compromise position on piece of paper and deliver it to the leaders.
 
Moot said:
Yes, the dems have been requesting a budget conference committee since at least last April and Boehner has refused to appoint negotiators.

Conference Committee | House Budget Committee Democrats

If Boehners plan was to wait until the debt ceiling deadline and hold the country hostage as a bargaining chip.....he failed miserably. I wonder his plan is now?
Click to expand...

Putting on his tin foil hat and await instructions from Tea Party?
 
jimbo said:
Sure it is answerable. All the Democrats have to do is write their compromise position on piece of paper and deliver it to the leaders.
Click to expand...

The CR already contains the "compromise position" of the Democrats. It continues the budget cuts imposed by the sequester something most Democrats oppose as damaging to our economy and long term growth.
 
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 was fine the last time it happened, and it will be fine now. But really the ones holding this up is the Democrats, NOT the Republicans. The republicans have passed the measure numerous times and even put in measures to cut spending. The Democrats are whining because they want it their way or the highway. Republicans have actually come to the table with compromises. So make no mistake, this is the fault of the Democrats, not Republicans.
 
iguanaman said:
The CR already contains the "compromise position" of the Democrats. It continues the budget cuts imposed by the sequester something most Democrats oppose as damaging to our economy and long term growth.
Click to expand...

Ok, then it also already contains the Republicans compromise position, funding the govt without serious cuts. Now what is the Democrats compromise position on Obamacare?
 
jonny5 said:
Ok, then it also already contains the Republicans compromise position, funding the govt without serious cuts. Now what is the Democrats compromise position on Obamacare?
Click to expand...

There is no compromising the law of the land. Even a 3rd grader knows that.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It was fine the last time it happened, and it will be fine now. But really the ones holding this up is the Democrats, NOT the Republicans. The republicans have passed the measure numerous times and even put in measures to cut spending. The Democrats are whining because they want it their way or the highway. Republicans have actually come to the table with compromises. So make no mistake, this is the fault of the Democrats, not Republicans.
Click to expand...

Oh, get real.

The mantra for the first 4 years was "don't let Obama get a second term"

That was all that mattered. Not the American people. Just get Obama out.

Since he got re-elected by a very comfortable margin, the message should have been clear. Cut the crap out and compromise.

Compromise is not "do it our way or we shut you down"

I do not think at this point we should negotiate with terrorists.
 
I know what we should do to stop this make it so during a shutdown no parts of congress gets paid . That would make sure that this problem never happens again . Or a alternative their pay would be jeopardized for not doing their job .
 
year2late said:
Oh, get real.

The mantra for the first 4 years was "don't let Obama get a second term"

That was all that mattered. Not the American people. Just get Obama out.

Since he got re-elected by a very comfortable margin, the message should have been clear. Cut the crap out and compromise.

Compromise is not "do it our way or we shut you down"

I do not think at this point we should negotiate with terrorists.
Click to expand...

Compromise is a two-way street, Republicans did their share, now it is the Democrats turn.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Compromise is a two-way street, Republicans did their share, now it is the Democrats turn.
Click to expand...

What compromise did the Republicans offer the democrats in return for slicing up the affordable care act? Was it immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage? You do real that compromise involves both sides getting something they want right?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Compromise is a two-way street, Republicans did their share, now it is the Democrats turn.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the dems didn't include any extranious demands.

Maybe they should compromise by adding some, like increasing the minimum wage, and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income that is actually earned by personal work and production.
 
rathi said:
What compromise did the Republicans offer the democrats in return for slicing up the affordable care act? Was it immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage? You do real that compromise involves both sides getting something they want right?
Click to expand...

They offered to delay obamacare for a year instead of defunding. Then they reduced that to only eliminating the medical device tax. Then they reduced that to only requiring that congress be required to get healthcare off the exchange. Now, what have democrats offered? You do real that compromise involves both sides getting something they want right?
 
iguanaman said:
The CR already contains the "compromise position" of the Democrats. It continues the budget cuts imposed by the sequester something most Democrats oppose as damaging to our economy and long term growth.
Click to expand...

Now there are at least two, you and me, that think thbe question is answerable.
 
rathi said:
What compromise did the Republicans offer the democrats in return for slicing up the affordable care act? Was it immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage? You do real that compromise involves both sides getting something they want right?
Click to expand...

Slicing up the ACA? Obama has done plenty of that don't you think? Unconstitutionally mind you..... That being said, a delay rather than dismissal was a compromise and they fund the rest of the Gov.
 
jimbo said:
Now there are at least two, you and me, that think thbe question is answerable.
Click to expand...

it seems pretty simple. Republicans and Democrats have already agreed on funding all parts of govt under the current baseline for 3 months. The only point of disagreement is the funding of Obamacare. So logically, if there is to be a compromise, it has to revolve around that. Somewhere between Obamacare as is, or no Obamacare. Republicans have offered 3 choices. Democrats have rejected them all. So we're back to when and what are the democrats going to offer?
 
imagep said:
The difference is that the dems didn't include any extranious demands.

Maybe they should compromise by adding some, like increasing the minimum wage, and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income that is actually earned by personal work and production.
Click to expand...

The Dems won't allow a budget to be passed, haven't in 4 years. That being said, the only way to cut spending is by tacking things on to the CR. The obvious bloated spending to cut first is something that is not good for the people and the people do not want, the ACA.
 
jonny5 said:
it seems pretty simple. Republicans and Democrats have already agreed on funding all parts of govt under the current baseline for 3 months. The only point of disagreement is the funding of Obamacare. So logically, if there is to be a compromise, it has to revolve around that. Somewhere between Obamacare as is, or no Obamacare. Republicans have offered 3 choices. Democrats have rejected them all. So we're back to when and what are the democrats going to offer?
Click to expand...

:caution: :alert you are using logic and speaking truth. Knucklehead liberals don't understand those things.
 
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 President is allowed to spend, what the House grants him and no more. If he sees the end of the line and increases spending? Well, he runs the country out of money. He must have known that. Most CEOs know these things.

I would have thought he should have seen it coming. Or wasn't he paying attention? Or did he think he would just put the pressure on and the House would fold?
 
jonny5 said:
They offered to delay obamacare for a year instead of defunding. Then they reduced that to only eliminating the medical device tax. Then they reduced that to only requiring that congress be required to get healthcare off the exchange. Now, what have democrats offered? You do real that compromise involves both sides getting something they want right?
Click to expand...

Do you truly not understand how a deal works? It requires that both sides walk away with something they want. In your so called "compromise" that you just described, what exactly are the democrats getting out of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom