Debt Ceiling Threats Not a Winning Formula

[Oldstyle]

I mean it's all good and well to cast stones at others for being "unreasonable" but that charge rings a bit hollow when no spending cuts are ever made.

It's Congress' "job" to handle purse strings. It's part of our system of checks and balances to keep the Presidency from having too much power. The notion of Barack Obama that Congress should simply keep raising the debt ceiling so that he can put the agenda he wishes in place without any interference is wishful thinking at best.

The notion that House Republicans should get a second chance at defeating legislation that has already passed both houses and been signed into law is what is wishful thinking imho.

Defaulting on our financial obligations WILL result in a downgrade and even further economic chaos without question.

So an agenda is passed with "assurances" that it will cost X amount only to have that cost come in far higher than X... resulting in the need to increase the debt ceiling once more. Pardon me for pointing out the reality of the situation, Dog but this nonsense has been taking place for far too long. We the taxpayers are sold a bill of goods by our representatives on what their legislation will cost and then we're supposed to happily continue to fork over more cash or go further in debt to pay for it all?

You and I both know that the government is bloated and wasteful...yet we're not forcing them to correct that. Why? Why are we not saying ENOUGH!

 

[saveliberty]

What is really irresponsible is forcing future generations to pay for our folly.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bingo.

Unfortunately, such thoughtful pragmatism is frowned upon in today's GOP.

.

I'm curious...what is "pragmatic" about running trillion dollar deficits and ignoring cautions from the rating agencies that we risk another credit downgrade if we continue to do so? I'm sorry, Mac...but I see very little that is "thoughtful" in that.

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic or thoughtful about it. It's an immoral dereliction of duty by our "leaders" that has taken place for decades.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

If you really think that defaulting on our debts when the global economy is teetering on oblivion is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. If you think that being the party to blame for gumming up the works and plunging us into a disaster is a good idea for future elections, same thing.

Most of the voting public is going to blame the GOP, despite its narcissistic stance, its belief that it's "saving" us. If you don't consider how the optics of this are going to damage the party and its ability to do anything in the future, well...

.

The truth, Mac...is that we are putting the global economy in great peril because we AREN'T addressing our deficit problem. If we continue on the way we are...we are going to crash and burn eventually. Our debt load is simply to high to sustain if we continue on this way. We need to do the fiscally responsible thing and start making spending cuts and we need to do so not only for ourselves but for the rest of the globe that we are going to take down the toilet along with us if we don't.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I mean it's all good and well to cast stones at others for being "unreasonable" but that charge rings a bit hollow when no spending cuts are ever made.

It's Congress' "job" to handle purse strings. It's part of our system of checks and balances to keep the Presidency from having too much power. The notion of Barack Obama that Congress should simply keep raising the debt ceiling so that he can put the agenda he wishes in place without any interference is wishful thinking at best.

The notion that House Republicans should get a second chance at defeating legislation that has already passed both houses and been signed into law is what is wishful thinking imho.

Defaulting on our financial obligations WILL result in a downgrade and even further economic chaos without question.

So an agenda is passed with "assurances" that it will cost X amount only to have that cost come in far higher than X... resulting in the need to increase the debt ceiling once more. Pardon me for pointing out the reality of the situation, Dog but this nonsense has been taking place for far too long. We the taxpayers are sold a bill of goods by our representatives on what their legislation will cost and then we're supposed to happily continue to fork over more cash or go further in debt to pay for it all?

You and I both know that the government is bloated and wasteful...yet we're not forcing them to correct that. Why? Why are we not saying ENOUGH!

I absolutely, positively could not agree more. Seriously.

But messing with the debt ceiling isn't going to solve that problem. IMHO it will only make it worse. The debt ceiling is like the stitches that holds a bad cut together. Ripping off the stitches off isn't going to heal the cut - it's just going to plunge us into a deeper recession.

I crave fiscal responsibility - I've voted for Republicans who didn't give it to me - I voted for Democrats who haven't given it to me either. I believe that more people are opening their eyes to the problem and I hope they will demand a response from government.

But not just ANY response. I'd hate to see gasoline thrown on the fire in panic.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm curious...what is "pragmatic" about running trillion dollar deficits and ignoring cautions from the rating agencies that we risk another credit downgrade if we continue to do so? I'm sorry, Mac...but I see very little that is "thoughtful" in that.

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic or thoughtful about it. It's an immoral dereliction of duty by our "leaders" that has taken place for decades.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

If you really think that defaulting on our debts when the global economy is teetering on oblivion is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. If you think that being the party to blame for gumming up the works and plunging us into a disaster is a good idea for future elections, same thing.

Most of the voting public is going to blame the GOP, despite its narcissistic stance, its belief that it's "saving" us. If you don't consider how the optics of this are going to damage the party and its ability to do anything in the future, well...

.

The truth, Mac...is that we are putting the global economy in great peril because we AREN'T addressing our deficit problem. If we continue on the way we are...we are going to crash and burn eventually. Our debt load is simply to high to sustain if we continue on this way. We need to do the fiscally responsible thing and start making spending cuts and we need to do so not only for ourselves but for the rest of the globe that we are going to take down the toilet along with us if we don't.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to the thread topic, this threat that we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. My point is that such an act would not only cause another shock when the economy can least afford it, but would damage the GOP brand to the point where the Dems would gain too much control electorally (I'm not fond of the idea of either party having its way).

Do we have to cut spending? Hell yes, as soon as possible, across the board. At least we have to essentially freeze spending for some time frame. Of course. We need to look at everything. But fer chrissake, don't make the GOP such an easy freakin' target for the Dems, I'm beggin' ya.

I've said it before -- Moderate a bit, win some national elections, govern with fiscal responsibility, show that your way works, move the country in a better fiscal direction, win more seats. Earn it. Play this all or nothing game and you could give all the power to the Dems.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic or thoughtful about it. It's an immoral dereliction of duty by our "leaders" that has taken place for decades.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

If you really think that defaulting on our debts when the global economy is teetering on oblivion is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. If you think that being the party to blame for gumming up the works and plunging us into a disaster is a good idea for future elections, same thing.

Most of the voting public is going to blame the GOP, despite its narcissistic stance, its belief that it's "saving" us. If you don't consider how the optics of this are going to damage the party and its ability to do anything in the future, well...

.

The truth, Mac...is that we are putting the global economy in great peril because we AREN'T addressing our deficit problem. If we continue on the way we are...we are going to crash and burn eventually. Our debt load is simply to high to sustain if we continue on this way. We need to do the fiscally responsible thing and start making spending cuts and we need to do so not only for ourselves but for the rest of the globe that we are going to take down the toilet along with us if we don't.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to the thread topic, this threat that we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. My point is that such an act would not only cause another shock when the economy can least afford it, but would damage the GOP brand to the point where the Dems would gain too much control electorally (I'm not fond of the idea of either party having its way).

Do we have to cut spending? Hell yes, as soon as possible, across the board. At least we have to essentially freeze spending for some time frame. Of course. We need to look at everything. But fer chrissake, don't make the GOP such an easy freakin' target for the Dems, I'm beggin' ya.

I've said it before -- Moderate a bit, win some national elections, govern with fiscal responsibility, show that your way works, move the country in a better fiscal direction, win more seats. Earn it. Play this all or nothing game and you could give all the power to the Dems.

.

HOLY CRAP! AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!

I'd vote for you right now.

 

[Bill Angel]

How about a Billion Dollar Coin with Alan Greenspan's Image On It?
The reverse side of the coin would contain the following quote from Alan Greenspan:"The whole notion of a debt ceiling makes no sense"
"The simplest escape route out of the debt ceiling impasse is for the president to direct the Treasury to find a legal way to pay its debts. The Treasury then has a variety of options. One gaining particular attention relies on a law that allows the Treasury to mint a coin of unspecified value and deposit it with the Federal Reserve. Those funds could then be used legally to pay debts....The Treasury could legally mint a coin worth enough to cover debts for several years and deposit that coin with the Federal Reserve. The funds would not be used for spending that isn't authorized and appropriated by Congress, but only to pay debts."
From Huffington Post: Harry Reid Would Back Obama If He Bucks GOP On Debt Ceiling: Source

 

[nodoginnafight]

You don't have to print a coin.
There are several legal opinions that the president can legally just ignore the debt ceiling.

So if you're going to enter into a legal battle over it, you can do that without going to the trouble of minting a coin.

But that is pretty bizarre. (and one scary looking coin)

 

[Bill Angel]

You don't have to print a coin.
There are several legal opinions that the president can legally just ignore the debt ceiling.

So if you're going to enter into a legal battle over it, you can do that without going to the trouble of minting a coin.

But that is pretty bizarre. (and one scary looking coin)

According to the US Treasury Department , the largest currency denomination ever printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing was the $100,000 series 1934 gold certificate, which featured a portrait of President Woodrow Wilson.
That bill would be worth $1,700,000 in today's currency.

 

[Intense]

I watched the last fight about the debt ceiling and remember shit you fucks forgot.

Now that I poroved to you your idiot party CANT use the debt ceiling to kill this country what will you use to kill it instead?

Did you remember to take your medicines?

"Elderly patients, diagnosed with psychosis as a result of dementia (for example, an inability to perform daily activities as a result of increased memory loss).

 

[Oldstyle]

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic or thoughtful about it. It's an immoral dereliction of duty by our "leaders" that has taken place for decades.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

If you really think that defaulting on our debts when the global economy is teetering on oblivion is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. If you think that being the party to blame for gumming up the works and plunging us into a disaster is a good idea for future elections, same thing.

Most of the voting public is going to blame the GOP, despite its narcissistic stance, its belief that it's "saving" us. If you don't consider how the optics of this are going to damage the party and its ability to do anything in the future, well...

.

The truth, Mac...is that we are putting the global economy in great peril because we AREN'T addressing our deficit problem. If we continue on the way we are...we are going to crash and burn eventually. Our debt load is simply to high to sustain if we continue on this way. We need to do the fiscally responsible thing and start making spending cuts and we need to do so not only for ourselves but for the rest of the globe that we are going to take down the toilet along with us if we don't.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to the thread topic, this threat that we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. My point is that such an act would not only cause another shock when the economy can least afford it, but would damage the GOP brand to the point where the Dems would gain too much control electorally (I'm not fond of the idea of either party having its way).

Do we have to cut spending? Hell yes, as soon as possible, across the board. At least we have to essentially freeze spending for some time frame. Of course. We need to look at everything. But fer chrissake, don't make the GOP such an easy freakin' target for the Dems, I'm beggin' ya.

I've said it before -- Moderate a bit, win some national elections, govern with fiscal responsibility, show that your way works, move the country in a better fiscal direction, win more seats. Earn it. Play this all or nothing game and you could give all the power to the Dems.

.

The GOP is doing all that you just suggested, only it's happening at the State level. At the National level it's like we go into a different "dimension" where the rules of economics no longer apply. The States are forced to get spending somewhat under control because they can't simply print more dollars like the Federal Government can.

I'm rather baffled by your clarion call to "moderate a bit". The so called compromise that was just worked out consisted of $41 in tax increases for ever $1 of spending cuts. Are you asking for even MORE compromise? When do the spending cuts come?

 

[Mac1958]

The truth, Mac...is that we are putting the global economy in great peril because we AREN'T addressing our deficit problem. If we continue on the way we are...we are going to crash and burn eventually. Our debt load is simply to high to sustain if we continue on this way. We need to do the fiscally responsible thing and start making spending cuts and we need to do so not only for ourselves but for the rest of the globe that we are going to take down the toilet along with us if we don't.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to the thread topic, this threat that we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. My point is that such an act would not only cause another shock when the economy can least afford it, but would damage the GOP brand to the point where the Dems would gain too much control electorally (I'm not fond of the idea of either party having its way).

Do we have to cut spending? Hell yes, as soon as possible, across the board. At least we have to essentially freeze spending for some time frame. Of course. We need to look at everything. But fer chrissake, don't make the GOP such an easy freakin' target for the Dems, I'm beggin' ya.

I've said it before -- Moderate a bit, win some national elections, govern with fiscal responsibility, show that your way works, move the country in a better fiscal direction, win more seats. Earn it. Play this all or nothing game and you could give all the power to the Dems.

.

The GOP is doing all that you just suggested, only it's happening at the State level. At the National level it's like we go into a different "dimension" where the rules of economics no longer apply. The States are forced to get spending somewhat under control because they can't simply print more dollars like the Federal Government can.

I'm rather baffled by your clarion call to "moderate a bit". The so called compromise that was just worked out consisted of $41 in tax increases for ever $1 of spending cuts. Are you asking for even MORE compromise? When do the spending cuts come?

Fair question, especially in the wake of that horrific fiscal cliff bill.

Let me rephrase, "moderate a bit" was a lousy term, sorry: I think it's human nature that, when the other guy stiffens his back and refuses to budge, we tend to do the same. So when the GOP hardliners forced Boehner's hand, Obama and the Democrats responded in kind. And, since Obama and the Dems have the vote advantage right now, they went whole hog and absolutely fucking fleeced the GOP. Why not? They could point to the Tea Party absolutists as a reason -- don't forget the power of image on elections.

My argument is that a more pragmatic approach would have yielded a more sane bill, and it would have shown the electorate that the GOP is not controlled by its absolutist crazies. And, if Obama is as radical as the GOP claims, it would have shown the electorate that they can even get something done with someone like him.

If I were GOP, I'd want to win back the Senate and the White House. And rather than playing this absolutely insane "we're in the minority, but it's still our way or the highway" game, they could incrementally show the public that (a) they can get things done and (b) deserve to win some elections.

Then, as I said, get back some power, show how your strategies are effective, gain some serious momentum.

Look, I'll bet we agree that the American Left has incrementally, over time, convinced more and more Americans that they should depend more and more on the federal bureaucracy (I hope that was a nice way to put it). But they didn't do it overnight, you can't. They did it incrementally, over time, patiently. They kept banging away, and now here they are.

I'm just humbly suggesting that trying to cram humungous changes down America's throat all at one time is clearly a losing strategy. And I don't want one party (either one) gaining so much control of the federal bureaucracy that it can have its way with us.

.

 

[Oldstyle]

We may be talking about two different things. I'm referring to the thread topic, this threat that we're not going to raise the debt ceiling. My point is that such an act would not only cause another shock when the economy can least afford it, but would damage the GOP brand to the point where the Dems would gain too much control electorally (I'm not fond of the idea of either party having its way).

Do we have to cut spending? Hell yes, as soon as possible, across the board. At least we have to essentially freeze spending for some time frame. Of course. We need to look at everything. But fer chrissake, don't make the GOP such an easy freakin' target for the Dems, I'm beggin' ya.

I've said it before -- Moderate a bit, win some national elections, govern with fiscal responsibility, show that your way works, move the country in a better fiscal direction, win more seats. Earn it. Play this all or nothing game and you could give all the power to the Dems.

.

The GOP is doing all that you just suggested, only it's happening at the State level. At the National level it's like we go into a different "dimension" where the rules of economics no longer apply. The States are forced to get spending somewhat under control because they can't simply print more dollars like the Federal Government can.

I'm rather baffled by your clarion call to "moderate a bit". The so called compromise that was just worked out consisted of $41 in tax increases for ever $1 of spending cuts. Are you asking for even MORE compromise? When do the spending cuts come?

Fair question, especially in the wake of that horrific fiscal cliff bill.

Let me rephrase, "moderate a bit" was a lousy term, sorry: I think it's human nature that, when the other guy stiffens his back and refuses to budge, we tend to do the same. So when the GOP hardliners forced Boehner's hand, Obama and the Democrats responded in kind. And, since Obama and the Dems have the vote advantage right now, they went whole hog and absolutely fucking fleeced the GOP. Why not? They could point to the Tea Party absolutists as a reason -- don't forget the power of image on elections.

My argument is that a more pragmatic approach would have yielded a more sane bill, and it would have shown the electorate that the GOP is not controlled by its absolutist crazies. And, if Obama is as radical as the GOP claims, it would have shown the electorate that they can even get something done with someone like him.

If I were GOP, I'd want to win back the Senate and the White House. And rather than playing this absolutely insane "we're in the minority, but it's still our way or the highway" game, they could incrementally show the public that (a) they can get things done and (b) deserve to win some elections.

Then, as I said, get back some power, show how your strategies are effective, gain some serious momentum.

Look, I'll bet we agree that the American Left has incrementally, over time, convinced more and more Americans that they should depend more and more on the federal bureaucracy (I hope that was a nice way to put it). But they didn't do it overnight, you can't. They did it incrementally, over time, patiently. They kept banging away, and now here they are.

I'm just humbly suggesting that trying to cram humungous changes down America's throat all at one time is clearly a losing strategy. And I don't want one party (either one) gaining so much control of the federal bureaucracy that it can have its way with us.

.

I still don't follow your thinking, Mac. What "humungous changes" were the GOP trying to cram down America's throat? Entitlement reform? Spending cuts? The fact of the matter is you can't find a reputable economist who won't say that both things HAVE to happen in order for us to remain solvent yet you treat the GOP's request for both in the same light as a call for a complete ban on abortion. What's almost farcical is that what the GOP proposed wasn't even close to what we really need...it was just a step in the right direction but they were attacked for proposing that small step with accusations that they wanted to do away with every Federal agency, dissolve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which was ridiculous. The American people need to be informed that things cannot go on as they are...the numbers simply don't work and anyone who says they will work is flat out lying to us. The problem we now face is that we have a left wing dominated main stream media that refuses to "go" with that story simply because they're in favor of big government and more entitlements and don't really care about it being fiscally doable.

We just had a 41 to 1 "compromise"...tax increases to spending cuts...yet you're here saying that the GOP needs to learn to be more patient? Wow! You're 100% correct that over the past sixty years that the American people have been made "dependent" but the simple truth is that we don't have sixty years to correct the fiscal corner that we've painted ourselves into.

 

[Mac1958]

The GOP is doing all that you just suggested, only it's happening at the State level. At the National level it's like we go into a different "dimension" where the rules of economics no longer apply. The States are forced to get spending somewhat under control because they can't simply print more dollars like the Federal Government can.

I'm rather baffled by your clarion call to "moderate a bit". The so called compromise that was just worked out consisted of $41 in tax increases for ever $1 of spending cuts. Are you asking for even MORE compromise? When do the spending cuts come?

Fair question, especially in the wake of that horrific fiscal cliff bill.

Let me rephrase, "moderate a bit" was a lousy term, sorry: I think it's human nature that, when the other guy stiffens his back and refuses to budge, we tend to do the same. So when the GOP hardliners forced Boehner's hand, Obama and the Democrats responded in kind. And, since Obama and the Dems have the vote advantage right now, they went whole hog and absolutely fucking fleeced the GOP. Why not? They could point to the Tea Party absolutists as a reason -- don't forget the power of image on elections.

My argument is that a more pragmatic approach would have yielded a more sane bill, and it would have shown the electorate that the GOP is not controlled by its absolutist crazies. And, if Obama is as radical as the GOP claims, it would have shown the electorate that they can even get something done with someone like him.

If I were GOP, I'd want to win back the Senate and the White House. And rather than playing this absolutely insane "we're in the minority, but it's still our way or the highway" game, they could incrementally show the public that (a) they can get things done and (b) deserve to win some elections.

Then, as I said, get back some power, show how your strategies are effective, gain some serious momentum.

Look, I'll bet we agree that the American Left has incrementally, over time, convinced more and more Americans that they should depend more and more on the federal bureaucracy (I hope that was a nice way to put it). But they didn't do it overnight, you can't. They did it incrementally, over time, patiently. They kept banging away, and now here they are.

I'm just humbly suggesting that trying to cram humungous changes down America's throat all at one time is clearly a losing strategy. And I don't want one party (either one) gaining so much control of the federal bureaucracy that it can have its way with us.

.

I still don't follow your thinking, Mac. What "humungous changes" were the GOP trying to cram down America's throat? Entitlement reform? Spending cuts? The fact of the matter is you can't find a reputable economist who won't say that both things HAVE to happen in order for us to remain solvent yet you treat the GOP's request for both in the same light as a call for a complete ban on abortion. What's almost farcical is that what the GOP proposed wasn't even close to what we really need...it was just a step in the right direction but they were attacked for proposing that small step with accusations that they wanted to do away with every Federal agency, dissolve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which was ridiculous. The American people need to be informed that things cannot go on as they are...the numbers simply don't work and anyone who says they will work is flat out lying to us. The problem we now face is that we have a left wing dominated main stream media that refuses to "go" with that story simply because they're in favor of big government and more entitlements and don't really care about it being fiscally doable.

We just had a 41 to 1 "compromise"...tax increases to spending cuts...yet you're here saying that the GOP needs to learn to be more patient? Wow! You're 100% correct that over the past sixty years that the American people have been made "dependent" but the simple truth is that we don't have sixty years to correct the fiscal corner that we've painted ourselves into.

Oldstyle, I was about to try again, but I really don't know how else to put it. I'd just being the same stuff in a different way. I guess we're just going to have to disagree. I appreciate the civil discussion, though.

.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN before raising the debt ceiling. NOT A DIME more until MAJOR cuts around the board-- NOTHING protected, are on the table.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fair question, especially in the wake of that horrific fiscal cliff bill.

Let me rephrase, "moderate a bit" was a lousy term, sorry: I think it's human nature that, when the other guy stiffens his back and refuses to budge, we tend to do the same. So when the GOP hardliners forced Boehner's hand, Obama and the Democrats responded in kind. And, since Obama and the Dems have the vote advantage right now, they went whole hog and absolutely fucking fleeced the GOP. Why not? They could point to the Tea Party absolutists as a reason -- don't forget the power of image on elections.

My argument is that a more pragmatic approach would have yielded a more sane bill, and it would have shown the electorate that the GOP is not controlled by its absolutist crazies. And, if Obama is as radical as the GOP claims, it would have shown the electorate that they can even get something done with someone like him.

If I were GOP, I'd want to win back the Senate and the White House. And rather than playing this absolutely insane "we're in the minority, but it's still our way or the highway" game, they could incrementally show the public that (a) they can get things done and (b) deserve to win some elections.

Then, as I said, get back some power, show how your strategies are effective, gain some serious momentum.

Look, I'll bet we agree that the American Left has incrementally, over time, convinced more and more Americans that they should depend more and more on the federal bureaucracy (I hope that was a nice way to put it). But they didn't do it overnight, you can't. They did it incrementally, over time, patiently. They kept banging away, and now here they are.

I'm just humbly suggesting that trying to cram humungous changes down America's throat all at one time is clearly a losing strategy. And I don't want one party (either one) gaining so much control of the federal bureaucracy that it can have its way with us.

.

I still don't follow your thinking, Mac. What "humungous changes" were the GOP trying to cram down America's throat? Entitlement reform? Spending cuts? The fact of the matter is you can't find a reputable economist who won't say that both things HAVE to happen in order for us to remain solvent yet you treat the GOP's request for both in the same light as a call for a complete ban on abortion. What's almost farcical is that what the GOP proposed wasn't even close to what we really need...it was just a step in the right direction but they were attacked for proposing that small step with accusations that they wanted to do away with every Federal agency, dissolve Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which was ridiculous. The American people need to be informed that things cannot go on as they are...the numbers simply don't work and anyone who says they will work is flat out lying to us. The problem we now face is that we have a left wing dominated main stream media that refuses to "go" with that story simply because they're in favor of big government and more entitlements and don't really care about it being fiscally doable.

We just had a 41 to 1 "compromise"...tax increases to spending cuts...yet you're here saying that the GOP needs to learn to be more patient? Wow! You're 100% correct that over the past sixty years that the American people have been made "dependent" but the simple truth is that we don't have sixty years to correct the fiscal corner that we've painted ourselves into.

Oldstyle, I was about to try again, but I really don't know how else to put it. I'd just being the same stuff in a different way. I guess we're just going to have to disagree. I appreciate the civil discussion, though.

.

With all due respect, Mac...you're a little vague on what that "different way" should be. How do you propose that the GOP counter Democratic "giveaways"? The sad fact is that Americans ARE now dependent and don't want to give up the freebies.

 

[Toro]

The threat of the Fiscal Cliff worked. Why won't the Debt Ceiling?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The threat of the Fiscal Cliff worked. Why won't the Debt Ceiling?

In what way do you think the threat of the fiscal cliff worked?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How is borrowing money paying bills?? My God, you liberals are literally brain dead.

Do I really have to explain it to you? Seriously?

Yes you do because the rw's STILL do not know what the debt ceiling is.

I'm wondering how a party is going to re-brand themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility by threatening not to pay their bills?

Looking back to our Big Spenders - Reagan and King Bush the Second, that's what they did.

Somewhere, there are videos of them running through congress, screaming CHARGE IT!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN before raising the debt ceiling. NOT A DIME more until MAJOR cuts around the board-- NOTHING protected, are on the table.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF.

The debt ceiling is not a raise in spending.