While I sympathize with the gut instinct that government should balance its budget, even if I think it’s a naive idea, that really has nothing to do with the current issue of the debt ceiling.
The spending is already authorized. Defaulting on debt is unconstitutional. Not spending money to execute the laws duly passed by Congress is illegal. Balancing the budget by not allowing the Executive to borrow would give him power that he does not have to pick and choose where the money is spent. If Congress wants to balance the budget, they must do it by actually balancing it, not by taking away the ability to pay for the stuff they authorized. There shouldn’t even be a debt ceiling. It’s a profoundly stupid idea, and using it to hold other legislation hostage is even more profoundly stupid. And reckless. And potentially catastrophic to the economy of the US and the rest of the world.
He did indeed, confirmed by multiple sources. And if anyone can find out exactly what the connotation was in 1860, please share with the class, because I’m having trouble finding info online.
It isn’t a projection once they have clearly demonstrated the fact.
What the hell do you think happens to people without health insurance? They get better anyway, so no need for a doctor? No, they get worse, they suffer, sometimes they die. What else could happen?
Do you support compulsory vaccination? That isn’t “socialized medicine”? How about quarantines for infectious diseases? Clearly an infringement on liberty imposed on innocent people, yes?
Suggestions, really. Like guidelines. Don’t let the voting record fool you, that’s just the lies of the liberal media, just because they voted for something doesn’t mean they actually were for it! Its pretty easy to get those two buttons mixed up, you know!
Clean CR is the default, normal action- it’s the Republicans who went outside the norm (and took hostages in our metaphor), not the Democrats. This was part of the Republicans’ plan, as confirmed by past statements and memoranda.
Ah so it is “our demands are just! their demands are unfair!”. Fine - but don’t pretend there are demands only from one side.
Again, same as with the debt limit - if the requirement to legislate it exists, that means it cannot be expected that it be automatically rubberstamped. Because if there was such an expectation, there would be no need for such legislation and it wouldn’t be required.
The Teabagger demand is to delay or eliminate health care insurance for needy citizens. The Democratic demand is that the debate over Obamacare not take place as part of the unrelated, necessary, requirement to pass the resolution required to fund the government.
Only if (again in our hostage taking metaphor) “don’t kill the hostage” is a demand. If the Democrats had memos and statements going back a few months indicating in a straight-forward way that their plan was to shut down the government (or threaten to) in order to get their way, you’d have a point. But actually the Republicans do- they planned to use the threat of shutdown to defund and delay the ACA. So yes, in the real world, the Republicans planned to make demands against a threat of shutdown and default, and the Democrats did not.
Sure, in a pretend and simple world of black and white literalness, perhaps. But in the real world, with complex politics and complex interactions, the debt limit not being extended would result in financial collapse for all.
The law passed. The law is enacted. Most Republicans know and understand this, and want this Republican blackmail to stop because they know this is a cheap and underhanded trick that can’t work, so you are an unwanted minority in your own party. How does that feel?