right wing cons threaten to default on national debt

Cons are ready to shut down the government if they don't get their way, in just two weeks. Their demand is to defund Obama care.

Obama's response was, "Imagine if a democratic congress threatened to shut down the government if a republican president didn't raise corporate taxes by 20%."

The republicans extortion attempt will fail, or they will all be thrown out of congress next year.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5...ment-over-obamacare-is-a-bluff-they-can-t-win

 

That demand is not an official one of the GOP in Congress. Your own source says as much. The Republicans calling for the defunding of Obama care, in exchange for their votes to fund the government, don't have the votes to see their threat through. Once again, RJ, you didn't actually read, let alone understand, the source you think supposedly backs up your "point".

 

Yes and No, but they technically do, because there's not enough to break a filibuster, which they've had a trend of doing lately when they don't get their way or no they'll lose on a straight up or down vote.




----

I don't like our national debt, but I understand that creating a pattern on the international market that Congress would politically even USE threats about not raising the debt ceiling is concerning, because their intent to use that as leverage for one party to get their way on another issue (Healthcare > Obamacare) is not good news. It has the potential to cause another recession because it would freeze up credit nationwide.

I'd go so far as to say that it's unconstitutional and a violation of the Oath of Office any Congressmen to use the debt ceiling as a political weapon, because of the domino effect of bad news across the economy.

The premise being the constitution says that the full faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned, and their political actions go counter to that principle.

It's time those in Congress, specifically in the Tea Party understand that sometimes how you vote goes against a local constituency because catering to a local constituency isn't always what's best for the country as a whole. (Political concept of being a Trustee, rather than an Delegate)

 

What purpose does the debt ceiling serve?
The problem requiring action is Federal government spending, which needs to be contained. ObamaScare is just another government spending program which should not have been passed to begin with, and eliminating the funding of it greatly helps in allowing the creation of a budget which with additional spending reductions would allow government to operate without another massive increase in our debt. Obviously until politicians learn to live within the means of tax revenue collected our debt will increase each year.
When government continually lives on borrowed money, it should recognize that it is also living on borrowed time.
I would suggest that U.S. birth certificates add an entry showing the debt owed on the date of ones birth, perhaps then when they reach voting age they could check to see what their accumulated debt is relative to what is was when they were born, and use that information in deciding how they vote. Current liabilities, when all are taken into account, amount to more than $1 million per U.S. citizen.

 

Can you imagine what the result would be if corporate taxes WERE to be raised by 20%?

Congress is simply trying to contain spending in order to reduce the amount the debt ceiling will HAVE to be raised, which essentially is passing cost of living in the present to those who will live in the future.

 

Man, Only RJ can pick um. You set you're self up for fail every time. Plus the fact, We get it, You're a left wing nut job who hates the people who pays your wages, The 'Cons', 'Tea baggers' or whatever stupid name you come up with. Im sure you can come up with something a little more educated.


20% is scandalous and you are better off calling them loan sharks. 20% is nuts and will never happen, Another pipe dream. I don't argue a tax, But not strong arming, Straight up you fucking hard with no vaseline at 20%.

IMO, I think since the 'middle to lower' class is getting screwed and looked over, They should be allowed to govern themselves with elected true middle class citizens. Nothing wrong with it and it not like they care and pass it over already.

If we can spend 20 million to find out why a high percentage of lesbians were overweight, Or take ONE, 100 million dollar vacation, They have some funding to spare.
Ya know, Looking back, osamas 'chevy volt' venture was a complete multimillion dollar deal gone bust and that was swept under quick.

 

The cons are going ahead with their plan to shut down the government and default on the national debt, unless they get their demand to defund healthcare. That's their idea of "compromise". Speaker Boehner(pronounced boner) had the gall to say it was a victory for the American people. Freedom of choice to cons is, no healthcare, or another wrecked economy.

Even if the cons fantasy came true, of it passing the Senate, there would never be enough votes to override a veto. It's just the 41st vote to defund healthcare, which will fail like the other forty votes. And when the government gets shut down in a couple of weeks the cons will get the blame, as they should. And next year many cons will be voted out of congress. Yea! The end of gridlock.

 

The question now is 'will the Senate and/or Obama continue to try and extort more money from current and future American taxpayers by shutting down the government?' or will they/he accept a budget that still exceeds the means of our tax revenues, but with a much smaller debt increase?
If it comes to a shutdown the debts can continue to be paid, and maybe we can get a better grasp on which government services can be reduced or eliminated entirely.

Kudos to Boehner AND the American taxpayers who contacted their CongressPerson demanding they exercise some fiscal responsibility!!

Long live the King Willem-Alexander!!

 

I think the question is , how are we going to eliminate the debt. Does revenue come from food stamps and other social welfare programs when jobs are hard to come by and continue to go overseas, while billions are still being spent on wars to keep the oil flowing, waste is rampant in most government programs, or do we raise taxes back to 80-90 % (as it used to be) on those that have been extremely successful and can afford to pay more??We end the wars and take money from the pentagon to pay on the debt, stop foreign aid except for humanitarian aid, redouble efforts at eliminating wasteful programs, and START taking care of THIS country?? Which is the best way and how many and who would be hurt by doing it the first way or the second way?? Who can best afford a correction like this?? The millionaires-billionaires or the poor and middle class?

 

promise?

Can i hold them to that?

the government never keeps a promise

 

oh yay more political posturing with threats of a government shut down. this is a yearly occurrence now.

 

False, the GI Bill was a promise in America's past, and it was honored.

Sure, you can find instances where it didn't work for everybody, but it's an honest effort and it's not deliberately nefariously not keeping the promises it drops. It's more like their stretched to thinly with their promises and they have to prioritize which ones they can keep.

 

otherwise you certainly are full of excuses arent you?

yeh it puts money in another government institution the schools LOL

 

Congress has sent a budget bill to the Senate, why isn't Pelosi yelling "You need to pass it to see what's in it."?

 

The Schools suck because No Child Left Behind, was a bad educational policy to begin with, and it was underfunded for the mandates it required school districts to comply with anyway.

It also sucks because teachers get K-12 tenure way to easily in my opinion and their salaries tend to suck which means the profession doesn't attract the people gift of teaching that it needs to. But that's my view of education problems in a truncated argument, go find my education thread if you want to discuss this more.

---

Anyway back to the issue of the government shutting down because of the debt ceiling not being raised, if Obamacare isn't repealed.

You do know that our national debt still increases even during a "shutdown" right? Just because of the impacts it has on the multiplier effect economically speaking because of all the jobs that get furloughed right?

 

Actually Obama is the only one threatening to shut down the government, refusing to compromise by allowing the government to continue to be funded, with additional deficit spending, UNLESS a NEW and ADDITIONAL spending program 'ObamaScare' is included in the budget. Of course the Democrat majority Senate is willing to go all out in assisting him in exercising this Chicago mobster style protection tactic of extortion.
Regulatory capture has become the means by which our elected representatives have been incapacitated and made ineffective in the Federal government in carrying out the will of the people, allowing more of our governing decisions to be made and enforced by persons who have been appointed to power, often beyond control of our elected representatives.
A government shutdown might be the best thing that could happen, by reducing the harm done by incompetent governance until a rational and fiscally reasonable compromise can be achieved as was done during the Clinton administration.

A government which has the power to create money out of thin air is not the same as having a goose who can lay golden eggs. If Federal, State, and Local government spending is not brought under control, collapse is imminent in the future.

 

No, Obamacare passed, that battle is over.

Political parties cannot obsess over battles lost, they've got to move on or they hold up the entire democratic process.

A shutdown is a nice soundbyte and it appeals to the gung-ho culture of "tough guy, stand-your-ground" politics. But it's actually a really bad idea, unless one is resigned and agrees with all the hurt that hits the average American household due to a shutdown, because one issue didn't go their way.

When Obamacare was enacted it closed the budget gap in the federal deficit caused by Medicare Part D, and if it's repealed the debt would increase because that fix would be undone.

---

The Republican party needs to give Obamacare a chance to see if it works after it's been fully implemented, THEN they can criticize it on logical observable grounds, but in the meantime they just looks really bad politically opposing it but they're forced to in an attempt to appeal to their base.

Like I said on the healthcare thread, the states that have gone with the flow are gonna see Obamacare work for them, but the state legislatures who have opted out and not set up state healthcare exchanges are gonna feel pain and the people who live in those states will feel pain because they opted out of a good thing, albeit not perfect.

 

Why is that said like it's a bad thing?

 

Because of the impacts it has on services to everyday people, and the fact that it's actually not good for the budget, and the fact that Congressmen still get paid during a "shutdown".

It also is more likely to lower the USA's credit rating AGAIN and that would entrench any ability to get out of the debt crisis overall because the credit flow becomes more restrictive.

 

No, the battle is over when the fighting stops. Pelosi and the Democrat majority Congress passed ObamaScare telling us "The bill had to be passed to see what's in it." They then passed it, people began to read and see what's in it, and not only that but found the bill remains a work in progress and fundamentally flawed.

1. The bill never should have been passed.
2. The fight should continue until ObamaScare has been totally eliminated.
3. Living on borrowed money perpetually is unsustainable.