Will Republicans vote to increase the debt ceiling?

[Craig234]

The status is that Republicans are placing big demands as 'conditions' for voting to increase it - 'holding the global economy hostage' as leverage to make demands for their agenda.

Many people think they'll vote for it because the harm is so large if they don't.

Here's a clip from Rachel Maddow with information that they may want that harm.

The basic benefits to them of doing so are that a destroyed economy helps them in 2012, and that it gives them a chance to wipe out Social Security and Medicare (starve the beast).

This clip begins with a useful list of some history of Republican hypocrisy of several issues they were 'for' until Obama agreed and they they opposed them.

It goes on to point out that under Bush Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling several times (9 IIRC); under Obama, all three votes have had 2 or fewer Republicans.

Then it goes into that discussion about whether Republicans actually want to do this.

I've criticized Republicans for playing chicken on this issue, and encourage Obama to not make concessions, as has Bernie Sanders.

If they're not playing chicken and want to cause this harm, it's going to cause a lot of damage.

The main argument against their doing so is that their real constituency, the ultra wealthy,
will lose a lot of money, too, so should oppose this. Money versus ideology.

Here's the clip. Feel free to comment on the hypocrisy information as well as the ceiling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#43556754

 

[nageov3t]

if history is any indication, Obama will give them everything they're asking for.

edit: and then herald "his" spending cuts as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[Blackjack200]

They should write a bill that does nothing but elevate the debt ceiling. Put it to a house vote as many times as necessary. If congress refuses to pass it and the United States goes into default, every congressman/woman that voted against the bill will be directly to blame.

 

[ichy]

Both sides are acting like retards. A simple look at spending & revenue figures shows that gov't spending is historically high as a percentage of GDP, and tax revenues are at a historical low. Anyone who pretends that we can restore fiscal sanity without some tax increases AND cuts to spending (including Medicare and Social Security) is an idiot.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Both sides are acting like retards. A simple look at spending & revenue figures shows that gov't spending is historically high as a percentage of GDP, and tax revenues are at a historical low. Anyone who pretends that we can restore fiscal sanity without some tax increases AND cuts to spending (including Medicare and Social Security) is an idiot.

obvious counter argument: can't raise taxes in a terrible recession. Cut spending to align with income instead.

 

[Paul98]

Both sides are acting like retards. A simple look at spending & revenue figures shows that gov't spending is historically high as a percentage of GDP, and tax revenues are at a historical low. Anyone who pretends that we can restore fiscal sanity without some tax increases AND cuts to spending (including Medicare and Social Security) is an idiot.

Something that requires sanity, AND people to not be idiots?... We are screwed

 

[Tom]

Not sure if people actually know what the debt ceiling is. Has nothing to do with spending cuts.

What it means is, we don't pay back the money we borrowed. And since we would still need to borrow money in the future, how is that going to work out ?

Not too well, I would say. Just talking about doing it is possibly going to increase the interest rate we have to pay, which is an increase in spending..

 

[thraashman]

obvious counter argument: can't raise taxes in a terrible recession. Cut spending to align with income instead.

obvious counter argument: in a terrible recession, drastic spending cuts exacerbate the economic issues.

 

[sunzt]

obvious counter argument: in a terrible recession, drastic spending cuts exacerbate the economic issues.

Who needs medicare and SS anyway?

 

[ichy]

obvious counter argument: can't raise taxes in a terrible recession. Cut spending to align with income instead.

thraashman beat me to it with the counter-argument. In the long run both spending cuts and a return to Clinton-era tax rates will do far less harm to the economy than the current path of fiscal lunacy we're going down.

 

[matt0611]

thraashman beat me to it with the counter-argument. In the long run both spending cuts and a return to Clinton-era tax rates will do far less harm to the economy than the current path of fiscal lunacy we're going down.

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

Government is spending at almost 25% of GDP, we've only had tax receipts that get to 20% of GDP. You're never going to get there with revenue increases, its just not gonna happen. So what do you propose?

 

[KGB]

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

$100B here, $100B there... pretty soon we're talking about some REAL money.

 

[sunzt]

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

It's not really taxing rich individuals that will help close the gap, but closing tax loopholes for businesses. You know, the big companies who are able to get like 0-10% effective rates while most small businesses are near 30-40%. I'd rather have a lower business tax rate with less loopholes that would have a net increase in benefits.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

Government is spending at almost 25% of GDP, we've only had tax receipts that get to 20% of GDP. You're never going to get there with revenue increases, its just not gonna happen. So what do you propose?

So your feeling is if one thing doesn't take us all the way there we should abandon it? There is no one thing that will turn the debt issue around. Nothing should be for the table.

 

[matt0611]

$100B here, $100B there... pretty soon we're talking about some REAL money.

I'm being really generous with that $100 billion estimate, you're not gonna be able to do that 12 fold or even 8 fold. Spending cuts need to come, so what are we going to cut?

 

[matt0611]

So your feeling is if one thing don't take us all the way there we should abandon it? There is no one thing that will turn the debt issue around. Nothing should be for the table.

I never said we should "abandon" it. I'm saying its not enough in itself, so what else do you have?

 

[ichy]

Again, this has to be pointed out, going back to clinton era tax rates for the rich will get us another 100 billion at the most?

Thats 1/16th of the problem. What do democrats propose for the other 15/16ths of the problem?

Is there anything besides revenue increases?

Government is spending at almost 25% of GDP, we've only had tax receipts that get to 20% of GDP. You're never going to get there with revenue increases, its just not gonna happen. So what do you propose?

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't think we should only raise taxes on the rich. IMO the fact that half of Americans pay no income tax at all is a serious problem.

I also acknowledged that spending is too large a portion of GDP. Cuts need to be made, and some of those cuts will have to come from programs like Medicare that productive citizens have paid into for most of their lives. Giving people a blank check for healthcare is not sustainable, and at a certain point Medicare needs to say "no, we won't pay for that." The Social Security retirement age should probably also be raised.

 

[PokerGuy]

Spending cuts are a must, only after that is achieved should anyone ever look at increasing taxes. Prove to me first that you're serious about cutting your wasteful spending, then come ask me for more money. Don't just come to me and ask for more money and promise to cut spending (and then never do it of course).

I say it might be time to force the issue, don't raise the debt ceiling and let the chips fall where they may. In the long run it might be the only way to salvage the country from its 'leaders'.

Oh, and LOL @ Madcow as a source for any legitimate discussion.

 

[matt0611]

It's not really taxing rich individuals that will help close the gap, but closing tax loopholes for businesses. You know, the big companies who are able to get like 0-10% effective rates while most small businesses are near 30-40%. I'd rather have a lower business tax rate with less loopholes that would have a net increase in benefits.

I would rather that too, but how much will that bring in?

I'm a very big proponent of simplifying tax code for both individual and business, especially if we lower the rate.
I think we should do it but I just don't think its going to be enough.

 

[MotF Bane]

They should write a bill that does nothing but elevate the debt ceiling. Put it to a house vote as many times as necessary. If congress refuses to pass it and the United States goes into default, every congressman/woman that voted against the bill will be directly to blame.

No, every Congresscritter and President who has had a hand in the past budgets that have been driving the debt upwards should also bear that blame.

 

[sunzt]

I would rather that to, but how much will that bring in?

I would wager much more than taxing wealthy individuals. Earnings reports are still increasing in 2011 so corporate America is actually doing quite well for itself.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

So your feeling is if one thing doesn't take us all the way there we should abandon it? There is no one thing that will turn the debt issue around. Nothing should be for the table.

No it's just that itchy's point was slightly misleading while technically correct. Taxes as a percent of GDP are lower than historical norms, but not by much. Spending a percent of GDP is way above historical norms.

If I were in charge on the Republican side I'd concede the minor tax increases exchange for the massive cuts needed. Of course Obama would never agree to this, but it would be good gamesmanship.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I never said we should "abandon" it. I'm saying its not enough in itself, so what else do you have?

The Republican position is to abandon it. No increases for the richest Americans. No end to taxpayer monies going to oil companies who are turning profits that are massive while taking your money.

Changes to tax code won't do it all but it will certainly do a good part of it. Everything should be open for discussion.

 

[nick1985]

Oh, and LOL @ Madcow as a source for any legitimate discussion.

Craig loves her and takes whatever she says as gospel. You should know that by now.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So are you discrediting her for being wrong on the facts or in spite of the facts? What part of what was presented wasn't accurate?