House Republicans Should Not Rely on Democrats For Votes on the Debt Ceiling

Death_of_the_Donkey

when you know a strong wind is coming. All of this posturing and blustering is good, right up until the moment when the market decides that failure to raise the debt ceiling is impacting the economy, at which point our line gets obliterated. As Francis has been saying, we are likely to see a huge market dislocation (read collapse) should the debt ceiling not be raised and bills not get paid (I am talking vendor bills here, not interest payments). This is why we have to use what leverage we have to extract the best deal we can get now, because if the markets tank and we have to react, Obama will win. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

But not with Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In fact Boehner and Cantor should stop negotiating with the President and the Democratic leadership. Heck, throw in Mitch McConnell too. The Republicans should try to pick off the 4 Democratic votes needed to pass a modified version of CCB. Out of the 9 Democrats who voted for the BBA resolution, surely there are 4 who would accept CCB if changes were made that met their objections. Let Reid filibuster and Obama fume. We only need 4 more votes to get cut, cap and balance through the Senate. Do we need to reduce the cuts? Do we need to slightly raise the cap by a percentage point? Do we need to take the 2/3 rds majority for taxes out of the balanced budget amendment? I think almost all conservatives could live with a modified version of CCB that gets 218 votes in the House and 50 votes in the Senate.

dwander

Why should the conservatives be the only ones to compromise. As of yet there has not been one plan put forward by the democrats. What is it that the conservatives should compromise towards?

There must be no compromise until the democrats put forth an honest effort towards an actual budget. At that point, there may be something to compromise with. Until then, the only proposal on the board is the conservative one. So, really, there isn?t anything to compromise about.

As far as the market goes, just maybe the democrats actually care if the market tanks as well. If they do, they can either put forth their own plan or adopt ours.

silentcal2012

On the one hand, Republicans please beg and call Senate Democrats, On the other, Republicans never, ever deal with House Democrats.A little message, dissonance, no. Negotiations run both ways

CCB or nothing, which means nothing because CCB is a pipe dream. The GOP is going to take a hit for nothing. At least spend your political capital on battles you can win.

And it was the Tea Party that led the attacks on Paul Ryan, remember him not being good enough for the TPE state of the unon address. He was the “establishment” guy” and the blistering attacks came from the same sources bashing Boehner.

msctex

. . .the “Star Wars” epistemology holds up about as well in the real world as you would expect movies aimed at 10 year-olds to function.

It is Conservatives who deal in Absolutes, because it is Absolutes which provide the only concrete foundation for any rational system of thought. It is Progressives who pretend the rules differ from day to day, and for whom “Trust Your Feelings” is a mantra.

And what is Identity Politics but the notion that “your point of view” is actually a valid consideration when it comes to the nature of reality. 2+2=4, from any point of view, every time.

I wish it could have been Obi Wan who (also) said, “In any compromise between Good and Evil, Good loses.” But Lucas was presenting a fantasy with fantasy values.

steve010

move to use the 14th Amendment. He said in his speech today that “He would certainly like to do it all on his own if he could.” Then, he talked about the 14th Amendment option specifically and said that he had discussed this option with his lawyers and that they said that they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.

He never said that he wouldn’t go that way. He also said that the 14th Amendment is constitutional and that the debt ceiling requirement is statutory and not in the Constitution.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

There is nothing else out there on the table and with support from the majority of members of Congress that gets even CLOSE to actually addressing the debt problem.

The McConnell pass-the-buck wont pass the House, is DOA, and will only punt on the problem.

The gang-of-6 is vaporware with no cuts determined until Democrat Senators months from now hypothetically do some markup. Not a solution.

So, you are ironically correct “CCB or nothing” … Either we use CCB as a framework for the compromise solution, OR we get a ‘nothing’ cramdown that betrays conservatives (but it wont pass), OR we get no deal.

“At least spend your political capital on battles you can win.”
Can Obama win his political battle to get the Republicans on the hook to raise taxes? “Yes I can”?

BigRedConservative

House Republicans should not rely on Democrats for ANYTHING

YnotNOW

Yes, we need to have absolute and unchanging values, but that does not mean that there don’t have to be practical compromises on the road toward achieving them.

The fact that we do not control the Senate or White House means that there is no way we can achieve our goals or enact our values in any “absolute” sense. Therefore there will be a compromise. Us conservatives will not like it. Liberals will likewise scream because it requires them to stray from their abolute values that are in direct contractiction to ours.

But the compromise needs to be reached in a way that illustrates the values we are seeking to work towards. one step now. as PROOF that we hold our values and are working toward them. A few more steps after the 2012 election.

conservativecurmudgeon

Someone needs to stand athwart the Well of the House and yell “STOP!”

Enough with the deals, enough with the negotiations. Our d(arned)able president has YET to sit down and draft even the outline of a proposal. Isn’t he the one whose supposed to (to coint a term) “adminster” the laws that congress passes? Wasn’t the LAST debt ceiling one of these laws?

Let the House TELL the Miscreant In Chief what to pay come August Second (bond holders, retirees, SS receipients, etc.) and WALK AWAY.

Dammit, NONE OF THIS PROBLEM is the Republican’s fault. Let the Democrats FIX IT, for once…

msctex

This is one of those times where people who agree can argue forever, if words are not clearly defined and agreed upon.

You’re right. Under present political circumstances — their numbers and subsequent power versus our own — we are not going to get everything we want. But it is possible to acknowledge this fact without making what amounts to any deals with the devil, which will inevitably only come back to haunt us. That would be a compromise, and it simply need not take place. We need to take everything we can get, stand back and let the chips fall. For the first time in a very long time, people are well aware of who constructed the house of cards.

The desperation is on their side of the aisle, and it grows more palpable every day, It need not seep over into ours. All this talk about Social Security checks not being mailed and the like is reprehensible rhetoric on the part of disgusting liars.

snowshooze

But can we do that?
Here’s yer CCB, enjoy.
??? no, we are done. No other offers. Deal with it.
What is that outcome?

charlesmartel

I’m sure we all appreciate your concern, but you’re not fooling anyone.

gawken

That’s our firewall, Cantor, and the Republican Study group..

MNConservative

No, you can rely on Democrats for many things, chief among them corruption, stupidity, deception, lack of good faith, hating American values, shock value, and, if you have a sense of humor, a good laugh every now and again.

Spiral

It is Conservatives who deal in Absolutes, because it is Absolutes which provide the only concrete foundation for any rational system of thought. It is Progressives who pretend the rules differ from day to day, and for whom ?Trust Your Feelings? is a mantra.

The Founders of this great nation compromised on slavery. The Framers of the US Constitution compromised on the issue of small state versus large state representation (US House would be based on population, benefitting large states; US Senate would provide 2 US Senators per state benefitting small states). There was also the compromise that provded that “other persons” (slaves) would count as three-fifths during a US Census count for purposes of detemining each state’s electoral votes and representation in the US House.

Conservatives do compromise and should compromise.

The real question is: Under what circumstances should compromises be made and to what affect?

Speaker Boehner seems unwilling to have the federal government welch on its legal-financial obligations. Thus, if a large number of Republican US House members refuse to vote for a debt limit increase that contains little or no spending cuts, Boehner might have to ask Democrat US House members to support a debt limit increase.

The result could be the opposite of what conservatives want. What if the price of Democrat House members voting for a debt limit increase is higher taxes? I don’t think it will get to that.

However, I do think that Republican US House members should be willing to adopt the Cianfrocca plan, which would allow for a series of short term debt ceiling increases, as long as there are no tax increases included in the package.

It’s good to be a tough negotiator. But anyone who has purchased a car knows that at some point you have to figure out what is reasonable and what is not. Otherwise you end up without a car to drive.

BigRedConservative

A liberal making a fool of himself. Which they are unparalleled at. So I suppose you’re right.

jimmyg

nt

Death_of_the_Donkey

We first need to send Norquist and his subsidy protecting pledge to the showers. Then we can craft a deal that is pro free markets by eliminating tax subsidies/loopholes (while leaving marginal rates alone for now) coupled with spending cuts and using chain-cpi for all government calculations. Then, we can always go back and reform the rest of the tax code later. I have failed to see why we defend market distorting subsidies in the tax code and not recognize them as the spending they are.

Tbone

“Then, we can always go back and reform the rest of the tax code later.”

Later never arrives in Washington DC.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

There are more than 218 members of the House who have voted for cut, cap and balance. 46 Senators agreed. This has strong support. It’s the Republican position: We will raise the debt ceiling if we get spending cuts, spending caps, and a path to a balanced budget.

As long as there are more than 218 members who insist on this position:
- No debt ceiling increase without spending cuts
- No debt ceiling increase without a serious plan to address the debt issues and a path to a balanced budget
- No tax hikes PERIOD

… then we can and will get an agreement. Such an agreement, assuming it shaves on some particulars, will be close to our position.

Will we compromise? WE ALREADY HAVE. We took out “Repeal Obamacare” and we took out $9 trillion in lower spending.

Do Reid and Obama want a default? they claim no. We claim no as well. All Reid and Obama need do is put away the fantasy of getting Republicans to vote for tax increases, get some real spending cuts on the table, and we can deal.

Death_of_the_Donkey

and even if we can’t, getting rid of special interest, lobbyist paid for, market distorting tax subsidies is never a bad thing.

gekster

He seams to think he is an economic Einstein.
Public school educated one at that.

YnotNOW

need to go the way of the dinosaur, but we also have to be careful about sending the message that they can be used to “raise revenue” and “pay for deficit reduction” when it will actually be used to grow government.

Therefore, use the leverage of closing “loopholes” to enact lower RATES – if they are not linked, there is not leverage to make it happen at all.

(and yes, it will probably not happen significantly until we take the Senate in 2012)

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

In the end, all the great ‘compromisers’ like Clay and others couldn’t hold it together and indeed helped CAUSE the Civil War.

I do not want default, nor civil war, nor even the ugly personal politics such as practiced by Rep DWS vs Rep West.

I want us to solve the problem. But the problem is NOT “how do we raise the debt ceiling?” The problem to fix is “How do we get out of this fiscal mess where 1/4 of our GDP is spent by the Federal Govt, taxes and spending and regulation is choking job creation like a ‘wet blanket’, and our children’s future is imperilled by a debt and deficits spiralling out of control?”

The Republicans promised to doing something about the deficit and debt and spending AND THEY ARE, to their credit.

We are compromising. But we CANNOT compromise away dealing with the debt.

“Speaker Boehner seems unwilling to have the federal government welch on its legal-financial obligations. Thus, if a large number of Republican US House members refuse to vote for a debt limit increase that contains little or no spending cuts, Boehner might have to ask Democrat US House members to support a debt limit increase. ”

To what end? The fact is that if the deal does not address the debt problem, its a non-solution. “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

“It?s good to be a tough negotiator. But anyone who has purchased a car knows that at some point you have to figure out what is reasonable and what is not. Otherwise you end up without a car to drive.”

Cut, Cap and Balance is very reasonable. It’s about the minimum we can do to get a handle on this.

Any further ‘compromise’ will solve nothing but helps Obama politically. A lose/lose for the GOP.

msctex

How about for the purposes of my augment, I state that no Compromise should ever under any circumstances be made with someone who does not have the best interests of the subject in question at heart. There must be a shared, genuine concern for the subject between the two parties at the table: at least that much MUST be mutual.

The great question of our time, after all, is whether we are currently negotiating with dangerously unaware individuals, or individuals who would tear down our system entirely given the opportunity. I lean more towards the latter every day.

You negotiate a car price. You do not make a compromise by spending 15K as opposed to 14.5K, because you’re getting the same car either way. A compromise would be to settle on a lower price but not get air conditioning.

I suppose my point is that, as you say, “Conservatives do compromise and should compromise.”

But with EACH OTHER. Because, again, “In any compromise between Good and Evil, Good loses.” I believe the same holds true for Right and Wrong.

chrysostom15

Michele Bachmann and others make it impossible for the House to increase the debt limit without democrat votes. Remember her pledge not to raise the debt ceiling?

ohiohistorian

and not a farthing more. As I have said here several times previously, that part of the debt is part of the Continuing Resolution, which IS an Appropriations bill. We also (choke) have to cover the spending in the ObamaCare bill, as THAT was passed by the Congress. However, in the absence of Harry and his gang working on the budget, we owe nothing to the Executive Branch, which is complicit in Harry’s maneuverings. Let Obama screw off after 10/1/2011, as there should be no commitments at that point.

It is really too bad that the “O” does not want to fight the budget and ceiling during his re-immaculation. Tell him to shove it. Boehner needs a spine transplant aw well as some conservative values.

ohiohistorian

In a similar way, the Tea Party/conservative caucus needs to do the same. If the Dems are frightened enough, they will cave. And nothing frightens a Congressman more than loss of his sinecure and power.

PaladinLostHour

…lets see how he feels about this:

1) Rep Walsh should begin quietly lining up the same signatories to his earlier effort for a new, no confidence resolution in the Republican House leadership

2) Communicate to Boehner and Cantor that it will be introduced immediately as a privileged question under rule IX (1) should they cave and threaten to bring forward any variant of McConnell, the mandate extraction, or the above ‘sleeping with the enemy’ scenario

The House Dems would not be able to resist the temptation to spank Weepy John and Eric the Unready, and would join Walsh’s crew in moving the motion to a vote; which under privilege, would necessarily take place before any other business.

Maybe losing his Speakership, or worse – serving it out under formal rejection by his colleagues – will wake this guy up.

Spiral

I’m not advocating compromise for the sake of compromise.

However, given a GOP US House, a Democrat US Senate and a Democrat President, compromise is required.

We can certainly disagree as to which proposed compromises are acceptble.

For example, I do not think that Boehner or McConnell should accept tax increases as part of a compromise on raising the debt ceiling and/or cutting spending.

Given the spend-a-holic ways of the last Republican era (2001-2008), it is understandable that conservatives want to make sure that Republicans are serious about cutting spending. But we have to have our eyes open and realize that the federal government is still dominated by the Democrats.

The Republican House can not simply announce that from here on out the Democrats will have to do as ordered by the GOP.

In my estimation, most Democrat members of Congress are as willing to “stand on principle” (bad ones, of course) as are Republicans. This is why Senator McConnell’s mention of the need to take this issue to the voters was, in my opinion, correct.

We currently have a “split decision” at the federal level, with the levers of power divided. The GOP and the Democrats have large differences on fiscal-economic issues that no Gang of Six can paper over. And neither side is going to convert to the other’s point of view.

So, let’s resolve this in November 2012.

If we play our cards right, we’ll stomp all over the Democats in 2012, in all federal races. Then we won’t have to worry about “compromise,” unless it’s President Rick Perry compromising with a GOP Speaker and a GOP Senate majority leader.

concap

When it comes to the other side.

As for compromising on the right.

It will never happen.

You can?t get five to people to compromise on RS, let alone the party as a whole.

acat

and didn’t win the White House until 5 years later.

The Santelli broadcast on CNBC that’s as agreed-upon as the Tea Party starting point as any other*, was in early 2009.

The Tea Parties are already well ahead of Reagan in terms of results, after just two years .. now, they face the dual challenge of not forming a third party failure (all third parties that don’t entirely coopt one of the major parties fail .. bull moose, reform, green, constitution, Libertarian** etc.) and of not losing focus on electing like-minded (generally, smaller-government lower-tax) candidates.

So far, the Tea Parties are doing very, very well.

Mew

* except by Paulistines – wikipedia’s Tea Party article is despicably pro-Luap-Nor. I’d suggest fixing it but the basement-dwelling neandathals who worship Ron Paul would just mess it up again.

** see * above.

msctex

At least the last few lines. I stand by what I wrote before: any compromise with an individual or political Party without the nation’s best interests at heart — be this due to stupidity or malice — we will only come to regret. Any agreement under such circumstances will prove in the long run a victory for their side, and a defeat for ours.

We do not need to cut deals with these people, or cozy up to them in any way, shape or form to pretend they are anything more or less than what they actually are: either genuinely malevolent, or so staggeringly ignorant and philosophically warped that they might as well be. We should take — not ask for, TAKE — everything we can get, play hardball to the nth degree, and let the chips fall. Because as you say, by late 2012, we will be looking at another Morning in America, as Obama has proven so breathtakingly incompetent I fully expect him to someday qualify as a verb. One defining failure of a level heretofore unimagined.

Mature, responsible adult behavior — however we want to term the sense that rational people are involved in the equation — does not involve holding hands with people proven to only cause damage. It in fact, dictates we distance ourselves as much as possible.

Now here is what should be a very scary thought. They have conditioned us to believe “compromise” to be a good thing. The next step in that direction is to believe “sacrifice” is a good thing. And any time a politician uses that word, it means they are going to “help” us, whether we want it or not.

concap

You said

We can certainly disagree as to which proposed compromises are acceptble.

None ar accceptable

All most all of the freedom lost in the last 100yrs was COMPROMISED away by the right.

And in the last 60yrs by a so called Conservative.

Just as cold is the absents of heat, so is it, Socialism is the absent of Freedom.

Every compromise is a lose of Freedom?s and a gain for Socialism.

You can not compromise your way to Freedom.

http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

Post one comment that isn’t illogical and defeatist. Hell, you can just point to one you’ve already done.

One comment, pointing out one specific flaw with Leftism. Because frankly, you don’t seem to have the slightest clue why you’re a conservative, if in fact that’s what you are.

conservativecurmudgeon

They are code-words invented by the left to engender class hatred– a real Noam Chompskey bit of new-speak.

As a man who owns my own business, i appreciate ANY way ANY person or business can escape paying “income” tax on things that actually REDUCE the amount of so-called income. It is positively Leninist.

earlgrey

I don’t mean to pile on, but I guess that is what I am doing. Oh well. We won’t all agree with each other.

acat

I gave up trying to talk to DotD a while ago for similar reasons.

Mew

earlgrey

If we get a deal we like and Obama signs it, does that then give him leverage to be like Clinton was in 1996, and say he is a centrist?

I don’t really think so because he has been too brazen in his liberalism. I think the public understands pretty much what he stands for, but they don’t realize how what he stands for is bad for them.

Spiral

If we get a deal we like and Obama signs it, does that then give him leverage to be like Clinton was in 1996, and say he is a centrist?

It depends on how good the deal is. If Obama were to accept a reduction in both federal income tax rates and corporate tax rates and were willing to accept large, significant and credible reductions in entitlement spending, the economy would rebound and help Obama win reelection.

Obama has no interest in cutting spending and cutting tax rates. So, it’s purely hypothetical.

It’s an interesting question however. Why should Republicans try to make Obama more electable? Can’t think of a reason off the top of my head.

concap

just what is it you think they compromised when it came down to it?

Spiral

When a nation hold free and fair elections, that represents an implicit compromise. It means that all citizens will be bound by the election results, even if they do not like the outcome of the election.

In 1860 the Southern leadership refused to accept the outcome of the election and started a Civil War.

Unwillingness to compromise ultimately means either anarchy or despotism, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln’s 1st inaugural address.

swami7774

Sounds like any “deal” has broken down. So he’ll come out and stamp his feet (again).

funwithknives

Anyone ,please show in any kind of detail where REFORM has occured and held firm. Even when it looks good at first, The Gremlins work their magic and you’re right back where you started. Think back to the last IRS Reform bill. How in Creation did that make anything “Better” or Reform Squat?
NOW, A definitive SunSet Clause might be an option. Or are am I just idealistic?

acat

It’s actually something I’ve been thinking of myself.

What would it take for Obama to win in 2012?

The economy would have to have significant, verifiable, non-media-fertilized green shoots. Reagan had some green shoots going into 1984, see the “It’s morning in America” commericals. Obama must be able to show similar.

Can he?

No.

Any deal done at this time will not address the fear, uncertainty, and doubt caused by Obamacare, among other things. All it will do is to slow down the rate of spending to more GWB levels. That’s not going to do enough.

I am not concerned about making this deal, and letting Obama claim credit. I do not think his base will like the deal, for one thing, so may go for a longshot dark-horse challenger in the primaries (just as they did in 2007 against Hillary…) and for another, I do not think this will make enough difference in the pocketbooks and wallets of the independents. They know they were better off four years ago.

Mew

d_lamar

Thank you speaker Boehner for not surrendering conservative values!

swami7774

Obama flays the GOP for turning down a deal he thought was just terrific. Says “the American people are tired of political posturing”, then not 2 minutes later says “can they (the Republicans) say ‘yes’ to anything?”
Now he’s huffing and puffing and ordering the leadership to the White House tomorrow at 11AM.
I think this leads to the McConnell plan.

swami7774

He’s slinging the “fair share” trope.
He’s trying to look angry and commanding but instead looks peevish and weak.

d_lamar

I’m not sure that’s possible. But as long as the republicans in the house hold strong, it doesn’t matter what McConnell does. The house holds all the cards.

msctex

I compromised nothing during or due to the election of Barrack Obama. I lost respect for a substantial portion of my fellow voters, and I made financial adjustments to compensate for the Socialist disaster clearly on the horizon, but an election or the concept thereof does not involve compromise.

A compromise is not forced outright by circumstance. It is a DECISION, within the bounds of one’s own power. Circumstances can strongly encourage it, but not force it. I can’t help that so many people made a dreadful error in judgement re Obama, I can only take enormous satisfaction in watching them being dragged towards the light.

For the 12th time I must cite semantics, and suggest that your usage of this term overreaches its true meaning. Consider this: the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats LOVE the idea of your accepting your current definition of “compromise,” because it means they get what they want, while feeling good about doing it. After all, compromise is always a Good thing, right? It’s what thinking people do under any circumstance of conflict, right?

No way in hell.

Scope

I’m just listening to the O’s presser, coming off the breakdown in talks between him and Boehner. Interesting that the O didn’t do pressers for long periods of time, but he is now out there saying blah blah blah Republicans, blah blah blah the R’s want grandma to eat dog food, the blah blah blah R’s won’t accept anything, they are willing to let the country to go in to default. The questions from those attending were planted there to ask the questions they are asking. One female bird wanted to know if SS checks would go out on Aug 3, and whose fault it would be if they don’t, and he went right after the R’s saying that it would be their fault, but he also included not paying the veterans and more. The questions are absolutely planted questions in order for him to shine. If the Republicans don’t come out against this bully’s soapbox, they deserve to lose. And now, we are into the 2012 election speech waring the seniors, the college students, and the poor that if you don’t elect him back, the country will be eaten by the ninja wales.

gekster

then why doesn’t the Dems accept the compromise of CCB, when the Repubs clearly won the last election.

Scope

stamp his feet, blame the R’s for everything. This guy has no moral base at all whatsoever. He can lie and lie with no guilt or concern at all. The presser was a setup to make him appear to be the only adult, or leader in the room. He actually called himself a “leader” which is a joke all it’s own.

Scope

and I’m quite sure that McConnell has no support at all. What amazes me is why the Tea Party Senators are not coming out with guns a blazing against McConnell. Something seems to be very wrong there. Why are they not fighting McConnell all the way? Or did I miss their fight?

Death_of_the_Donkey

We should not be defending tax subsidies of any sorts, as they all distort free markets and let government pick winners and losers (and that means all, mortgage interest, state tax deductions, charitable giving, cap gains/dividends, muni bonds, eitc, etc). Get rid of them all, lower the rates and broaden the base, as it will produce a better economy and more revenue through higher growth (and you can apply those thoughts to the corporate tax rate too, although personally I would probably lower that to somewhere between 0-5%).

As for the flaws with leftism, I think much of what i said about government trying to pick winners and losers applies to that as well, but also we should be focused on providing equal opportunities as opposed to equal outcomes.

The problem I have with many comments here is that I am also pragmatic and realize that the economy is going to go down in flames if we don’t raise the debt ceiling and I simply have no desire to die on the hill of economic ruin.

Scope

is once again Krauthammers remarks that the McConnell Plan B will be the one that ultimately passes. There are many reasons that I now have given up on Fox, and Krauthammer must must be seen as a grand compromiser, in the true squishy middle glory.

Death_of_the_Donkey

that actually eliminated all deductions AND simplified the code. The problem is that yes, if you only go part way (ie 1986), it becomes way to easy to start adding stuff back in.

gekster

We didn’t raise the debt ceiling for almost two months
The econamy did not colapse.
The sky did not fall, chicken little.

Death_of_the_Donkey

spent those two months utilizing other sources of funds (ie stopping pension payments and the like) in order to avoid a problem. Those are the same things the treasury has been doing since May. Just like back then, we are going to run out of these other sources (on Aug 2) and bills won’t get paid. At that point the markets will lose confidence, vendors will stop getting paid, and people will get laid off, thus starting recession part II. Also, let us not forget that this economy is slightly more fragile than the one that was growing at a 4% clip back then.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

If the north hadn’t attacked there wouldn’t have been a war.

The south didn’t intend to fight anybody.

Don’t forget Lincoln was just fine with secession.

When it was Texas seceding from Mexico. Just like we supported an independent Ukraine and Georgia. Their Georgia can break away from tyranny but not ours?

As far as elections and respecting them Lincoln should have respected the free and fair elections held across the south that resulted in secession.

No need to re-fight the war but let’s at least get our history straight.

romeg

of a Free and Fair election in November of 2010. The outcome of that election sent a clear and unequivocal message: “Mr. President: STOP WHERE YOU ARE!”

The ONLY reason that the Republicans don’t control BOTH houses of the Congress is that only 1/3 of Senators stand for re-election at any one time.

When Obama was swept into office by the ‘Independents’ he never missed an opportunity to remind the minority that ‘Elections have Consequences’.

Well, Mr. President. Elections DO have consequences and one of the consequences of the 2010 elections is that the political landscape has shifted AWAY from your socialist agenda. Embrace the fact that the American People disapprove of your governance up to that point and their objective was/IS to prevent you from going forward.

Spiral

You ask why don’t the Democrats accept the CCB?

Simple, because they don’t agree with the legislation.

Now, the fact that the Democrats don’ like the CCB plan would be of no consequence all if all of the following conditions were met:

[a] The GOP controlled the White House, the US House and the US Senate

[b] Either the Senate filbuster rule were eliminated or the Senate consisted of at least 60 Republican US Senators.

However, as long as the Democrats adhere to a Marxist ideology, they will be opposed to CCB. And as long as the Democrats control either the US House, the US Senate or the White House or have at least 41 US Senators (enough to maintain a filibuster by denying 60 votes for cloture), the Democrats have a veto power over legislative items like the CCB.

Tbone

funwithknives.

Finrod

I can understand not doing it in public; no sense of giving the press any more ‘GOP divided’ stories than they already have. But I dearly hope they’re letting him have it with both barrels in the caucus room.

Tbone

in a Biblical sense.

Tbone

Of course, Einstein didn’t know crap about economics.

Spiral

I know you mean that in the nicest way.

Cheers.

concap

.

gekster

but the acorn that hit you on the head ain’t no big deal.
You are an alarmist. No sense talking to you, you see the black cloud where there is none.

gekster

Democrats were for it before they were against it.
just one of many articles.
from:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/Considering-a-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-Lessons-from-History

excerpt:
Although the balanced budget amendment had not been a major issue nationally for several years, it provided a striking contrast between Daschle?s first campaign in 1978 and his early career in Congress, when he consistently promoted the amendment, and his later years in the Senate. During his last competitive Senate bid in 1986, Daschle ran a television ad saying that ?in 1979, Tom Daschle saw the damage these deficits could do to our country. His first official act was to sponsor a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget.? In 1992, Daschle?s campaign literature touted the ?Daschle Plan,? which included the balanced budget amendment: ?In 1979, before it became popular, I was pushing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was my first official action, and I?ve authored or coauthored one every year.? In 1995, the amendment had the support of sixty-six of the sixty-seven senators needed for passage, but Daschle voted against it because of opposition from the Clinton administration?. When pressed on the amendment in the last [2004] television debate, Daschle said that he had opposed the bill in the 1990s because there were no provisions in the amendment allowing for emergencies such as war. But the record showed that there was an emergency clause

When a Republican brings it up, they are against
If aRrepublican is President, they are all for it.
And you didn’t win anybody over with the first time you wanted to eliminate the filibuster.
You won’t now, so drop it. You are wasting bandwidth.

electionwatch

How do I put a picture into a post? Do I have to post it onto another website and then put it into a post? I’m doing some redistricting and want to know how to put a picture of my redistricting into a post. Please help.

Sorry for going off-topic.

BTW Republicans shouldn’t rely on ANY Democrats for votes on the debt ceiling. Even the conservative Democrats and the Blue Dogs.

acat

then your name is Barack Obama, and you sell it for all you’re worth.

The first question is whether independents will still believe him.

The second question is which GOP POTUS candidate will best call him out, while at the same time not being “the anti-Obama”*.

It’s all kabuki, and .. while I’d like to think Americans know better, I’m not convinced. Unfortunately.

Mew

* two points. First, bob dole ran as the anti-clinton, not as bob dole, and look how well it worked. Second, having an anti-Obama will work poorly if the Dem nominee isn’t Obama…which I tihnk is getting more likely.

gunslingr45

should be our new catch phrase.
spoken from the grave by billions of souls who compromised by walking instead of riding to the gulags and death camps.

Socialism billions dead, but they keep trying it?..

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

House Republicans Should Not Rely on Democrats For Votes on the Debt Ceiling

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL