GOOD NEWS? Drudge links report of GOP REVOLT!

[jillian]

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only way to send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, for it to be voted on by the House, Senate... passed... signed by the President? Isn't it then up to 3/4's of the states to ratify it?

yes... but don't confuse the tea loons with facts. they confuse easily.

 

[the_savage]

Tough love, but you wouldn't understand that

riight. we had to destroy the country in order to save it from the scary black president. never mind that the cons cared not a whit about fiscal responsibility when bush was president, and will immediately stop caring about it when a republican gets back in the white house, but when there's a democrat in the white house, they're perfectly willing to destroy the country simply to undermine him. you can call that a lot of things, but "patriotism" ain't one of them. if you were sent by a foreign adversary to undermine america from within, i'm not sure what you cons would do differently.

Bush...bush...bush!! He sucked, too! Happy? Ron Paul is who I voted for

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

And that's all that really matters, right? Who gets blamed? We don't need to worry about actually fixing the problem and saving this country from a complete collapse, right?

Sounds like you got the Washington mentality down pat. You ought to run for Congress. You'd fit right in with the rest of those worthless tools.

 

[ShackledNation]

Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.

 

[B. Kidd]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

Harry Reid just announced that Boehner's bill just arrived in the Senate and is D.O.A.. You could very well be spot on!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Default is coming no matter what we do. We cannot continue this level of debt spending.

 

[ShackledNation]

The question is not will we default. It is how we will default. The Federal Reserve devalues the currency, meaning debt has less real value. The same is true for savings. Each time the Federal Reserve creates money, holders of the dollar are being defaulted on. The currency is worth less than before and savings in that currency are worth less than before. The real value of debts and savings decrease, so savers subsidize the extravagant spending of government.

Quantitative Easing is default. Wake up people.

 

[8537]

The question is not will we default. It is how we will default. The Federal Reserve devalues the currency, meaning debt has less real value. The same is true for savings. Each time the Federal Reserve creates money, holders of the dollar are being defaulted on. The currency is worth less than before and savings in that currency are worth less than before. The real value of debts and savings decrease, so savers subsidize the extravagant spending of government.

Quantitative Easing is default. Wake up people.

So since "every time the federal reserve creates money...the currency is worth less than before"

We should have seen some serious inflation in recent years. Instead, we're bordering in deflation. What happened?

Hint: Money creation is not always inflationary.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Default is coming no matter what we do. We cannot continue this level of debt spending.

Oh no, you apparently haven't heard. We just need to borrow more money... it's an issue of not enough debt.

All joking aside, you're spot on... it's over... this cannot continue, even if we raised EVERYBODY'S taxes.

It's the spending stoopid.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.

More like a great con game...

Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...

Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....

Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...

i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...

 

[ShackledNation]

Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.

More like a great con game...

Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...

Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....

Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...

i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...

Going back to 2007-2008 levels is not substantial at all. We need to go back to 1920s spending levels.

 

[Liability]

But conservative Republicans in the House, many allied to the tea party movement, said they don’t just want votes on the amendment, they want an assurance it will be sent to the states.

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only way to send an amendment to the Constitution to the states, for it to be voted on by the House, Senate... passed... signed by the President? Isn't it then up to 3/4's of the states to ratify it?

yes... but don't confuse the tea loons with facts. they confuse easily.

The correct answer was "no."

But don't confuse jillian with reality.

 

[Liability]

Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

You need to see the actual "possibilities."

1. We GET the "assurances" such as they are.

2. We don't get the assurances and we don't "default" anyway.

Default is NOT a necessary result from a refusal to pass a bill the President likes. The term "default" is NOT interchangeable with "no increase in the debt limit."

If there is no increase in the debt limt, every single fucking obligation made by the U.S. Government can STILL be paid and damn well BETTER be paid. The refusal to do so is nothing more and nothing less than a choice (a hideous one) that could be made by the President. He will bear total responsibility for that choice. The consequence of permitting a completely avoidable default to occur should be his immediate impeachment.

 

[Trajan]

here to-

Big GOP Bloc in House Opposes Boehner's Debt Plan - WSJ.com

 

[8537]

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

You need to see the actual "possibilities."

1. We GET the "assurances" such as they are.

2. We don't get the assurances and we don't "default" anyway.

Default is NOT a necessary result from a refusal to pass a bill the President likes. The term "default" is NOT interchangeable with "no increase in the debt limit."

Oh, sure it is. The only question is: Will we default on our bond obligations, on our contracts with private sector firms, on our obligations to SS recipients, on obligations to our vets and/or on any other outstanding spending that Congress has approved.

If there is no increase in the debt limt, every single fucking obligation made by the U.S. Government can STILL be paid and damn well BETTER be paid.

no, that's just not true. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How bad will it hurt when we hit the bottom of the cliff?

 

[B. Kidd]

How bad will it hurt when we hit the bottom of the cliff?

Will it make passing a kidney stone feel pleasurable?

 

[Liability]

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

You need to see the actual "possibilities."

1. We GET the "assurances" such as they are.

2. We don't get the assurances and we don't "default" anyway.

Default is NOT a necessary result from a refusal to pass a bill the President likes. The term "default" is NOT interchangeable with "no increase in the debt limit."

Oh, sure it is. The only question is: Will we default on our bond obligations, on our contracts with private sector firms, on our obligations to SS recipients, on obligations to our vets and/or on any other outstanding spending that Congress has approved.

If there is no increase in the debt limt, every single fucking obligation made by the U.S. Government can STILL be paid and damn well BETTER be paid.

no, that's just not true. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance.

Nope. It's not "sure" and that's not the "only" question. It's not even a real question.

The only REAL question is WHETHER the scumbag dishonest President would have the audacity to cause a default DESPITE the FACT that it is not necessary.

You are accountable for your own ignorance and your boundless willingness to be deluded.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How bad will it hurt when we hit the bottom of the cliff?

Will it make passing a kidney stone feel pleasurable?

 

[8537]

Nope. It's not "sure" and that's not the "only" question. It's not even a real question.

Well, that's progress. At least you've quit claiming we won't default on our obligations.

The only REAL question is WHETHER the scumbag dishonest President would have the audacity to cause a default DESPITE the FACT that it is not necessary.

Please explain how, if the debt ceiling is not raised the government can fund all of its obligations.

You are accountable for your own ignorance and your boundless willingness to be deluded.

But you are accountable for drivel you typed, including the claims that we can somehow refrain from defaulting on our obligations without having the money to pay them.