House GOP 'Seriously Entertaining' Debt Default Idea

[dmcowen674]

1-14-2013

http://news.yahoo.com/report-house-gop-seriously-entertaining-debt-default-idea-122824782.html

House GOP 'Seriously Entertaining' Debt Default Idea



Now that the magic coin is no longer on the table, Politico is kicking off the next stage of the debt ceiling fight with a report that House Republicans are "seriously entertaining dramatic steps," including letting the government default or shutting it down altogether.



Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers even went on the record with the shutdown threat, saying



"I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we're serious."



Republicans will continue to hold both options over the head of the country—particularly the shutdown option—unless they can get the president to commit to serious spending cuts in this year's budget.

So the purpose of this story seems to be a reminder from the House Republicans that they are indeed, still crazy.

So it is purely a negotiating ploy, or are they legitimately crazy? Is the President willing to call their bluff and find out? No one seems to have any idea what either side is truly capable of, which is exactly how the negotiators want it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Just look at the posts by the Republicans in here, confirmed they are crazy.

 

[Anarchist420]

If they mean default by declaring it null and void, then that's okay. Taking control of the currency and hyperinflating it would suck though.

 

[Genx87]

In other news. Kicking the can down the road means we eventually have to kick it again.

 

[berzerker60]

This is mostly just posturing in the ongoing game of chicken. The debt limit is a ridiculous anarchronism. If Congress doesn't want to borrow more money, then it shouldn't spend so much while taking in so little. The budget talks should be where we fight about this stuff, not an artificial and unnecessary debt ceiling.

 

[nehalem256]

This is mostly just posturing in the ongoing game of chicken. The debt limit is a ridiculous anarchronism. If Congress doesn't want to borrow more money, then it shouldn't spend so much while taking in so little. The budget talks should be where we fight about this stuff, not an artificial and unnecessary debt ceiling.

So when is the last time a budget was passed again?

 

[fskimospy]

So when is the last time a budget was passed again?

They are passed every year in appropriations bills. You already know this. Shockingly enough we aren't facing a crisis over the failure of congress to pass nonbinding resolutions.

 

[fskimospy]

In other news. Kicking the can down the road means we eventually have to kick it again.

I firmly welcome the GOPs attempt to make that case when deciding how much to appropriate in this years appropriations bills.

They never need to vote for spending another dime if they don't want to. What they cannot responsibly do is attempt to cause a worldwide financial meltdown to get their way.

As I've said before the ONLY responsible position is absolutely zero compromise on the debt ceiling. Any other action introduced permanent governmental and international financial instability. That is simply unacceptable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know why Obama bothers to submit a budget...he can't even get one stinking Democratic vote in the Senate or House to support it.

 

[TerryMathews]

I firmly welcome the GOPs attempt to make that case when deciding how much to appropriate in this years appropriations bills.

They never need to vote for spending another dime if they don't want to. What they cannot responsibly do is attempt to cause a worldwide financial meltdown to get their way.

As I've said before the ONLY responsible position is absolutely zero compromise on the debt ceiling. Any other action introduced permanent governmental and international financial instability. That is simply unacceptable.

You'll never get it because you're so arrogant that you can't see there can be multiple views of what is responsible.

Until the two sides can put themselves in the other's shoes, there will never be true bipartisanship. Both sides are guilty of it.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know why Obama bothers to submit a budget...he can't even get one stinking Democratic vote in the Senate or House to support it.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? If you meant that people don't vote for opposite party stunts then sure.

That would be like saying Mitch McConnel shouldn't submit any more bills because he can't even get his own vote.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't know why Obama bothers to submit a budget...he can't even get one stinking Democratic vote in the Senate or House to support it.

Obama is the head of the Democratic party. If he can't get the Dems to vote for his budget, then what does that tell you?

 

[Matt1970]

So when is the last time a budget was passed again?

2009.

 

[fskimospy]

You'll never get it because you're so arrogant that you can't see there can be multiple views of what is responsible.

Until the two sides can put themselves in the other's shoes, there will never be true bipartisanship. Both sides are guilty of it.

No. I will welcome the day that people on here can accept that some things are just objectively wrong.

Many issues in life have two sides. Risking world financial catastrophe to get spending cuts is not a responsible position. Ever.

If you would like to argue that the US threatening global financial stability on a yearly basis in order to settle domestic policy disputes is a good thing I'm open to hearing your argument in favor of itm

 

[fskimospy]

Obama is the head of the Democratic party. If he can't get the Dems to vote for his budget, then what does that tell you?

You realize that's not true, right?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You don't seriously believe that, do you? If you meant that people don't vote for opposite party stunts then sure.

That would be like saying Mitch McConnel shouldn't submit any more bills because he can't even get his own vote.

The vote on Obama's budget as presented to Congress was 99-0 and 414-0 against.

 

[fskimospy]

The vote on Obama's budget as presented to Congress was 99-0 and 414-0 against.

So? Do you believe that Mitch McConnell is unable to secure Mitch McConnell's vote for his ideas? If not, why are you bothering with this?

 

[halik]

This is mostly just posturing in the ongoing game of chicken. The debt limit is a ridiculous anarchronism. If Congress doesn't want to borrow more money, then it shouldn't spend so much while taking in so little. The budget talks should be where we fight about this stuff, not an artificial and unnecessary debt ceiling.

This. Non-news.

 

[Jaskalas]

Debt ceiling should be automatic to cover the budget. If they want to cut spending, they should cut the budget. Have the balls to be up front and clear about it, not this ambiguous "budget it then not pay for it" crap.

#noballs Republicans, doing this !@#$ backwards.

 

[fskimospy]

Debt ceiling should be automatic to cover the budget. If they want to cut spending, they should cut the budget. Have the balls to be up front and clear about it, not this ambiguous budget it then not pay for it crap.

#noballs Republicans, doing this !@#$ backwards.

Exactly. You want to cut the budget? Cut the appropriations bills. You want to shut down the government if you can't get your way? That's their prerogative. Undermining the basis for global finance? Not their prerogative.

 

[Atreus21]

No. I will welcome the day that people on here can accept that some things are just objectively wrong.

Many issues in life have two sides. Risking world financial catastrophe to get spending cuts is not a responsible position. Ever.

If you would like to argue that the US threatening global financial stability on a yearly basis in order to settle domestic policy disputes is a good thing I'm open to hearing your argument in favor of it

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337623/debt-ceiling-precedents-ramesh-ponnuru

Pairing an increase in the debt ceiling with spending cuts is, according to one liberal commentator after another, like taking hostages. Or terrorism. Or extortion. And it’s unprecedented.

Senate Republicans are fighting back against these mischaracterizations by noting the many instances in which Congress has combined debt-limit increases with measures designed to reduce the deficit.

In 1985, Congress passed a debt-limit increase along with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction package.

In 1990, a Democratic Congress raised taxes, cut spending, and increased the debt limit in a bipartisan agreement with a Republican president.

In 1993, a Democratic Congress and president passed legislation that raised taxes, restrained spending, and raised the debt limit.

In 1997, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress agreed to budget legislation that they claimed would reduce the deficit and that also raised the debt limit.

In 2010, a Democratic president and Congress raised the debt limit while also enacting budget rules that were supposed to encourage restraint.

In 2011, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress raised the debt limit while also imposing spending cuts.

Coupling a debt-ceiling increase with measures to reduce the further growth of federal debt is not an act of revolutionary fanaticism. It’s closer to business as usual.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337623/debt-ceiling-precedents-ramesh-ponnuru

Pairing an increase in the debt ceiling with spending cuts is, according to one liberal commentator after another, like taking hostages. Or terrorism. Or extortion. And it’s unprecedented.

Senate Republicans are fighting back against these mischaracterizations by noting the many instances in which Congress has combined debt-limit increases with measures designed to reduce the deficit.

In 1985, Congress passed a debt-limit increase along with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction package.

In 1990, a Democratic Congress raised taxes, cut spending, and increased the debt limit in a bipartisan agreement with a Republican president.

In 1993, a Democratic Congress and president passed legislation that raised taxes, restrained spending, and raised the debt limit.

In 1997, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress agreed to budget legislation that they claimed would reduce the deficit and that also raised the debt limit.

In 2010, a Democratic president and Congress raised the debt limit while also enacting budget rules that were supposed to encourage restraint.

In 2011, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress raised the debt limit while also imposing spending cuts.

Coupling a debt-ceiling increase with measures to reduce the further growth of federal debt is not an act of revolutionary fanaticism. It’s closer to business as usual.

Passing something concurrently is not the same as saying that they will refuse to raise it without such things.

Even if I granted your premise, saying we should continue to act incredibly irresponsibly because others have been incredibly irresponsible in the past is not a good argument.

 

[blankslate]

When an islamo-facist-Nazi-Commie-Socialist is in the White House the nuclear option is necessary....

 

[PokerGuy]

If that's what it takes to save this country, then so be it. I'm OK with the house taking radical steps to fix the country when there doesn't appear to be another way to do it.

Sure, not paying for the things congress already agreed to spend on is not the optimal place to do it, but whatever if that's what it takes to reign in spending, so be it.

 

[Jaskalas]

If that's what it takes to save this country, then so be it. I'm OK with the house taking radical steps to fix the country when there doesn't appear to be another way to do it.

Sure, not paying for the things congress already agreed to spend on is not the optimal place to do it, but whatever if that's what it takes to reign in spending, so be it.

I appreciate the feeling here, even if I disagree with the method, I get the idea.

However, you're just going to be steamrolled by the media and lose more positions in the federal government. In the end, if you want your only option to 'fix the country' then secession is the last resort. The time has come. Anyone seriously agreeing with fighting the debt ceiling, should more seriously consider fighting for state's rights.