Please provide me a cite. What I expect is that you will see quotes such as that they would rather see a default happen than raise taxes. If you call that wanting a default, then Harry Reid wants a default also. Because he has said that the Senate will not pass a bill that doesn’t include tax increases. I guess Obama wants a default as well, since he has indicated he will veto any bill that doesnt extend the debt ceiling until 2013.
It’s not. Cutting 40% over a decade may be on the edge of practical but would hurt a lot of people. Cutting 40% instantly will be catastrophic no matter what. Whatever you think of how the government spends its money, 40% of it isn’t just going into a black hole somewhere. Lots of people will be absolutely wrecked by the sudden loss of that money. There is no way a net positive can come of this.
(Bolding mine.)
Incorrect. Raising the debt ceiling is not about raising taxes. Raising the debt ceiling merely allows the government the authority to borrow more. Raising taxes is a related side issue that really isn’t germane to the specific issue.
Not entirely correct. Even Reid’s latest plan he’s working on in the Senate doesn’t have tax increases included. Apparently, the President’s notion of a balanced solution .. shared sacrifice .. has been laid to rest at the altar of the anti-tax crowd.
Yes, Obama wants a solution that extends into 2013. I can’t blame him … with the Republicans publicly stating their primary goal – their FIRST priority, over all other national interests – is to make Obama a one-term president, of course any GOP “solution” that requires this whole mess to be rehashed sometime prior to November 2012 is a purely, cynical political ploy.
As far as choosing what to pay off, should Congress sit on their hands past Tuesday: I am an air traffic controller. I guaran-damn-tee you that if default comes, we’ll still be required to work, just without pay. There’s no way the government shuts down the entire ATC system … talk about strangling the entire travel/cargo industry. But, since the failure of Social Security checks to arrive will cause exponentially more outcry amongst Americans than any other part of government that might stop operating, I think our “leaders” in Congress might come up with something fairly quickly should those checks not go out.
Crazy-eyed old folks with walkers (or Hoverounds) and torches? They don’t want to face that.
It is a common sentiment voiced by Tea Partiers.
Raising the debt limit is about meeting obligations made already, in the budget passed by Congress. It has nothing – except as a leverage position – to do with a discussion about how best to reduce overall government debt, or evaluate future fiscal policies. The fact that Tea Partiers have chosen to blackmail the entire country with a totally inflexible position is abhorrent. Flirting with fiscal disaster (and I have not yet seen any reasonable assertion that passing August 2nd without a debt limit raise would be anything less than a disaster) to make a political point is extremism incarnate. That theirs is a fringe position is made clear by polls showing that the majority of Americans want a solution that balances spending cuts and new revenues.
The simple fact is that many of these people (including apparently the guy in my quote above) do not understand the difference between the debt ceiling and our fiscal policies. They think that running out of money simply means that a lot of things they do not want to be funded will not get funded. Not right then, and they hope not ever again. They are too simple to understand that if you run out of money before you pay the rent, or the plumber, or the electric company, this isn’t a “spending cut”. It is a default on your obligation. And it leads to the conclusion that you cannot be trusted to honor your obligations in the future.
Nor does it reduce the amount the electric company, or your landlord, or the plumber will expect you to come up with the next month. Those, call them your “fiscal policies”, will not be changed until you move to a different place with cheaper rent, go solar, and marry the plumber’s daughter. Or get a job paying twice as much. They most assuredly will NOT be changed merely because you ran out of money last Thursday.
I was referring to the Tea partiers that actually hold office.
OK if you say so. I wasn’t seeing any special limitation, be it to congresspeople or otherwise. I doubt that the politician apple falls far from the tree of voters who elected her/him.
I didn’t have to look very hard to find the cite I provided. I strongly suspect it would be possible to find equivalent quotations from actual officials. Frankly though my tolerance for abject stupidity and self serving mendacity isn’t great enough to sustain me through reading many more statements from Tea Party pols.
If you believe that carries your point for you, well, fine by me.
Now can we address the difference between defaulting on our national obligations in a partisan power struggle, and crafting actual fiscal policies for the next decade?
One thing I don’t understand is why the Republicans can’t give in on the idea of raising the debt ceiling by enough so that it isn’t an issue until after the 2012 election. (Okay, well I can understand since they are immune to logic, but besides that). Even when (if) the debt ceiling is raised, there are still two more chances for them to hold the country hostage–first, the Federal government’s fiscal year 2011 ends October 31, 2011. Without a FY 2012 budget in place by then or a continuing resolution, we’re back to the threat of shut down we had back in April that was averted at the 11th hour. Then, right before the 2012 elections, they can then hold the country hostage with the FY2013 budget. Isn’t that enough for them?
it may be that the 14th amendment does not allow the president to default. He may have no option except to raise the debt limit himself.
The Debt Ceiling Crisis: Approaching the Witching Hour | HuffPost Latest News relevant article.
When this was discussed in another thread it comes down to whether “public debt authorized by law” means the net effect of government actions or if it means actual debts already incurred by the treasury via bonds, etc.
That is, is my military retirement check a “public debt authorized by law” or does that phrase only apply to that savings bond my MIL gave to my son? If it is only the latter, the debt ceiling isn’t subject to the amendment because the issue is if the treasury can sell more bonds.
Funnily enough your creditors have a problem with the same bullshit happening again. Any solution that involves the same debate happening again in 6 months time will still cause a downgrade to the US credit rating. Then your dollar goes into freefall and your debt payments get even higher. Whee!!!
If he raises the debt limit, those questions will not matter.
You’re a step ahead. I’m on the topic of whether that phrase of the 14th applies. If it applies, he can’t just raise the debt ceiling. He can announce that he is ignoring the debt ceiling citing the 14th. That would have the same net effect, the treasury could borrow to avoid default but the legal debt ceiling would still be the last passed into law. This might solve some short term issues but it wouldn’t provide that stability that the financial markets crave.
If you have a source that claims he can just change the law I’d love to see their legal reasoning.
The “legal reasoning” would be what Bill Clinton recommends to Obama in this case, and what GWB did routinely whenever Cheney felt like it: Just do it, and let the courts tell you - *later *- you shouldn’t have.
I have heard at least one news report where Clinton advocated the 14th amendment solution. Doing what you want and waiting for the courts is a viable option but that doesn’t change the law, it ignores it.