"We would have taken it down."

I understand that is the fearful message that you want people to believe but the Rebulicans intended to pay our debts without raising the debt ceiling and yes---it could have been done.
How could it be done?


We need to cut over 40% off the budget.

Debt interest is 4.65% - can't cut that.
Social security is 19.63%
Medicare = 12.79%
Defense 18.74%

that's 56%. Leaves 4% for everything else.
 
Last edited:
Origins of the debt showdown - The Washington Post

The freshmen also heard from GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who offered numbers showing that a majority of Americans did not want the debt limit raised. That sparked lengthy discussions, according to several of those in attendance. The freshmen “left basically saying that if they were going to raise it, ‘We absolutely have to get something in return,’ ” FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon recalled.

About that time, Rep. Jason Chaffetz went to Cantor’s office to chat. Chaffetz, a Utah sophomore, had developed a close bond with Cantor and McCarthy.
Chaffetz asked Cantor: Now that we control the House, how do we use our power?

Cantor didn’t hesitate.

“He said, ‘One of the biggest things that’s going to happen is that we have to deal with the debt ceiling,’ ” Chaffetz recalled in a recent interview. “He, in particular, knew a long time ago that that was going to be a big deal.”

That was a sharper message than Boehner’s, and it had come from his number two.

On Thursday, July 21, Obama’s senior advisers met at the White House with top aides to Boehner and Cantor. For two hours, they went line by line through the emerging agreement. It felt like they were “very close” to the promised land, a senior administration official said.

That afternoon, Obama called Boehner and gave him a choice: If you want aggressive entitlement cuts, I need more revenue. But if you can’t stomach extra revenue, we can dial back the entitlement cuts and still do something important.

The call went well, according to Democrats in the room. That evening, Obama met with Democratic leaders and told them to prepare for tough cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Twenty-four hours later, the deal was dead. Once again, Boehner walked away. Worse, from the administration’s point of view, Boehner’s rhetoric was growing harsher, at times echoing the most uncompromising voices in his new majority.
For Republican leaders, there was pride in a hand well played. “I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”

Chaffetz, who voted against both Boehner’s first proposal and the final bill, said he was well aware of how the leadership had used his and others’ willingness to let a default happen as a negotiating chip, and said he didn’t mind at all. “We weren’t kidding around, either,” he said. “We would have taken it down.”
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w&ob=av3n"]‪Gnarls Barkley - Crazy‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Why are people simply because they have principles and stick to them?

In case you missed the news the last few days, the rating downgrade resulted in exactly the opposite of what all the "experts" said would happen. The downgrade was supposed to make the cost of borrowing go up, which should have caused people to dump treasuries and put more money into real assets, like stocks. What actually happened is that treasures have turned into the best bet, and yields on ten year treasuries closed today at 0%. That means the government is essentially borrowing money without adding to the future debt by taking on interest.

What, exactly, is it I am supposed to be afraid of happening again? Can you tell me what happened the last time that Congress refused to raise the debt limit way back in the dark ages when Reagan was president?
 
I understand that is the fearful message that you want people to believe but the Rebulicans intended to pay our debts without raising the debt ceiling and yes---it could have been done.
How could it be done?


We need to cut over 40% off the budget.

Debt interest is 4.65% - can't cut that.
Social security is 19.63%
Medicare = 12.79%
Defense 18.74%

that's 56%. Leaves 4% for everything else.

I said pay our debts--not pay off the whole national debt. Nice fuzzy math tho.
However you wanna spin it-----someone is not going to get the funding they used to. Can't wait to see who gets shafted.
 
Are you denying that we could have paid our debts without raising the debt ceiling ?

i dunno one way or the other. but i'm amazed the right would have been willing to take that risk.

edit: well, i take that back, i'm not amazed. but it definitely shows how utterly reckless the republicans are.

Reckless is spending money we don't have and financing things we can't afford. It's not reckless to try to stop the bankrupting of our country.
 
Are you denying that we could have paid our debts without raising the debt ceiling ?

i dunno one way or the other. but i'm amazed the right would have been willing to take that risk.

edit: well, i take that back, i'm not amazed. but it definitely shows how utterly reckless the republicans are.

Reckless is spending money we don't have and financing things we can't afford. It's not reckless to try to stop the bankrupting of our country.

it's reckless to do it by threatening to default on obligations we've already agreed to pay, esp. obligations the previous administration incurred.

we're never going to get spending under control until we get out of these wars and stop spending more on the military than every other country on the planet. and you know what, we're never going to do that. therefore, we're never going to get spending under control. therefore, we ARE going to go bankrupt. guaranteed. we're going down the exact same road the soviets did in the 80s, sacrificing fiscal soundness for ideological purity, and we're going to pay the same price.
 
i dunno one way or the other. but i'm amazed the right would have been willing to take that risk.

edit: well, i take that back, i'm not amazed. but it definitely shows how utterly reckless the republicans are.

Reckless is spending money we don't have and financing things we can't afford. It's not reckless to try to stop the bankrupting of our country.

it's reckless to do it by threatening to default on obligations we've already agreed to pay, esp. obligations the previous administration incurred.

we're never going to get spending under control until we get out of these wars and stop spending more on the military than every other country on the planet. and you know what, we're never going to do that. therefore, we're never going to get spending under control. therefore, we ARE going to go bankrupt. guaranteed. we're going down the exact same road the soviets did in the 80s, sacrificing fiscal soundness for ideological purity, and we're going to pay the same price.

And that is what the TEA PARTY is all about. Making the federal government small enough to keep from trying to take over the world and large enough for our defense.. Our military should be for protecting us, defending OUR COUNTRY, not trying to force our type of government on people that don't want it and couldn't handle it if they got it. We seem to agree on a lot but I'm not willing to give up on our future without a fight.
 
i dunno one way or the other. but i'm amazed the right would have been willing to take that risk.

edit: well, i take that back, i'm not amazed. but it definitely shows how utterly reckless the republicans are.

Reckless is spending money we don't have and financing things we can't afford. It's not reckless to try to stop the bankrupting of our country.

it's reckless to do it by threatening to default on obligations we've already agreed to pay, esp. obligations the previous administration incurred.

we're never going to get spending under control until we get out of these wars and stop spending more on the military than every other country on the planet. and you know what, we're never going to do that. therefore, we're never going to get spending under control. therefore, we ARE going to go bankrupt. guaranteed. we're going down the exact same road the soviets did in the 80s, sacrificing fiscal soundness for ideological purity, and we're going to pay the same price.

How do you stop the reckless spending our congress seems to be addicted to unless you refuse to let them spend. The TEA PARTY didn't want to default on our debt but defaulting may have been the lesser of two evils. We didn't get the cuts that were needed to put us on a healthy path so the issue will have to be addressed at a later date. If the super congress can't agree on a plan it may be addressed sooner than some want. The longer we wait to get serious about our spending the more painful it is going to be. Everyone seems to think they can tax the rich enough to solve the problem but if you tax the rich 100% of their income you wouldn't generate a trillion dollars. How do we get to the 1.4 trillion negative spending we are currently doing each year. A lot of the wealthy they talk about are small business owners whose business profits are taxed as personal income and the more tax they pay the less they can invest in their businesses and hire more workers so taxing the wealthy is like walking a tight rope, on one side you generate revenue, on the other you lay off workers and lose income tax revenue. It's a balancing act you can't afford to lose so I feel they should proceed with caution.
 
Reckless is spending money we don't have and financing things we can't afford. It's not reckless to try to stop the bankrupting of our country.

it's reckless to do it by threatening to default on obligations we've already agreed to pay, esp. obligations the previous administration incurred.

we're never going to get spending under control until we get out of these wars and stop spending more on the military than every other country on the planet. and you know what, we're never going to do that. therefore, we're never going to get spending under control. therefore, we ARE going to go bankrupt. guaranteed. we're going down the exact same road the soviets did in the 80s, sacrificing fiscal soundness for ideological purity, and we're going to pay the same price.

And that is what the TEA PARTY is all about. Making the federal government small enough to keep from trying to take over the world and large enough for our defense.. Our military should be for protecting us, defending OUR COUNTRY, not trying to force our type of government on people that don't want it and couldn't handle it if they got it. We seem to agree on a lot but I'm not willing to give up on our future without a fight.

i know, and the tea party's position on turning back the post-war imperial project the US seems to have embarked on is one of the things i'll give the movement credit for.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top