was big on spending containment during his days in the OK Legislature. Maybe he’ll get another shot at it in 2012 if Lankford can’t get it right. I have been worried about him going soft. Still, I need to keep my eyes trained on Cole.

One need’s to establish some small victories in order to propel a movement forward.

There will be a price to pay by standing firm and not ceding any ground on this issue. Keep in mind the American public is very fickle. If we want to proceed with the scorched earth strategy, that’s fine. Just realize, everyone get’s burned using that tactic.

If we get a part of our demands and then use the part we did not get to further our case, it carries us through the next election. It gives us a firm base on which to establish our case for an undivided government.

Taking a position which ultimately gives us Reid’s plan as a solution makes Republicans look weak, ineffectual, disorganized and divided. We will never move past a divided government and rid ourselves of this weak party “leadership” if that occurs.

Here’s a great practical example of what you’re saying:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/18/plan-nine-from-dnc/

Anyway, I also suspect many people screaming “hold the line” would quickly change their stance once they start seeing the Dow crashing and their assets and 401s evaporating or their companies struggling to get enough liquidity to pay salaries.

And it wasn’t even close. Naturally the Reps couldn’t be blamed – they had no power before the Reagan election.

We didn’t have the networking then or even in the 96 election that we have now. Also we will not have a Dole type on the national ticket, (because Romney isn’t going to make it). Despite all that in the 96 election conservatives didn’t take a beating, that’s just the medias spin.

How dare you call us Bush conservatives who want to capitulate or not cut spending when you are ardently advocating a plan that raises the debt ceiling with no guarantee of future caps and has a version of the McConnell plan in it.

You are siding with the establishment. YOU are advocating phony cuts and debt commissions that have done nothing for thirty years. That is not posturing, its truth.

With that last paragraph you have lost all credibility with me as far as I am concerned.

Are you and Erick and the lot of you who don’t understand the realpolitik here going to claim to be more conservative and better strategists than Paul Freaking Ryan?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272773/step-forward-long-journey-remains-paul-ryan

Stop acting like the FDLer and DKOS morons during the Obamacare debate. Understand the politics of the real and take a pretty good deal that will damage Obama severely heading into the election while keeping the markets calm at least for awhile.

For all his good attributes, Erick doesn’t understand the rating agencies a lick. Saying “selective default isn’t as bad as losing AAA” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve read in this debate since “SD” IS EQUIVALENT WITH “D,” it’s just an indication that the condition of default will be shorter. I bet he is also unaware what will happen at financial institutions and insurance companies all of a sudden find that the most popular investment, a Treasury bond, just went from AAA to SD. It’s a thousand times worse than AAA to AA+

Are you and Erick and the lot of you who don’t understand the realpolitik here going to claim to be more conservative and better strategists than Paul Freaking Ryan?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272773/step-forward-long-journey-remains-paul-ryan

Stop acting like the FDLer and DKOS morons during the Obamacare debate. Understand the politics of the real and take a pretty good deal that will damage Obama severely heading into the election while keeping the markets calm at least for awhile.

For all his good attributes, Erick doesn’t understand the rating agencies a lick. Saying “selective default isn’t as bad as losing AAA” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve read in this debate since “SD” IS EQUIVALENT WITH “D,” it’s just an indication that the condition of default will be shorter. I bet he is also unaware what will happen at financial institutions and insurance companies all of a sudden find that the most popular investment, a Treasury bond, just went from AAA to SD. It’s a thousand times worse than AAA to AA+

nt

cordpt is not a conservative, rwm52. He’s an “old guard” supporter who wants to see the return to “politics as usual”.

I found that out myself the other day.

Except that after SS payments, Medicare and Medicaid and the coupon payment there won’t even be enough cash to pay defense vendor contracts. And it will be considered a selective default because we are legally obligated to make those payments since they exist in the CR.

As I’ve explained, not raising the debt limit doesn’t imply any cuts at all. They CAN SPEND more – and they will. When you say “if the debt ceiling stays put they can’t spend more” you’re either misinformed or lying. They just won’t pay for it right away, they’ll be handling IOUs right away. But the debt limit doesn’t prevent the House from passing whatever appropriation bills they want.

Again, let me be very clear: not raising the debt limit doesn’t cut any spending, not even indirectly. If you’re wrong, I’m going to tell you exactly that: you’re wrong. This isn’t a matter of opinion, rather one of fact.

If you thought that was harsh or condescending, you need to go to a Chris Christie townhall.

As for the 401ks, I wasn’t talking about you in particular. I was just saying what would be the reaction of the majority of the electorate. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Pass that out to the states and national bankruptcy, whether today or five years from now is probably averted.

Fail and we will default guaranteed. And that will be the beginning. Hyper-inflation will follow as the fed continues its policy of driving down interest rates by bidding on debt.

Then Social Security dies as the devalued federal IOU’s prove insufficient to provide meaningful checks to retirees.

Ditto for every other federal debt holder or trust account that is by law required to buy federal debt.

I am for CCB but if they switched to only a BBA passed out to the states it would be worth a one time increase. It would put a finite end to the drunken splurge.

And at least offers the chance of some substantive reform in the 2nd step.

The balanced budget amendment can’t. At least not in time of saving the country from bankruptcy.

Plus, I have serious doubts – to put it gently – about that part of the CCB. We have the example of other countries and our own states that have passed constitutional “balanced budget” language and it never worked. They’ll just find some accounting tricks to go around it. So, I don’t think the balanced budget mechanisms would work but the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes would, which would make the US a hardcore version of California. A big California with the ability to borrow abroad and print money.

And those that believe the amendment would work are actually calling for a brutal tax raise – the CCB keeps the spending at around 20% of the GDP in the next 10 years and right now the government revenue is only at 15%. So, if the CCB was implemented and the “balanced budget amendment” was to be taken serious, that would mean the biggest tax increases in the history of the US, Alas, it won’t be implemented .

look *exactly* like the process we’re in now?

That is, nothing happens to allow the raising of the debt ceiling without the House and Senate agreeing on a bill, right?

I get that not passing anything doesn’t necessarily reduce spending, although I do think that the 40% cut in checks going out would be less painful than many expect – the lesson of Minnesota reaffirms the lesson I learned in 1995.

That said, passing nothing will also hurt dem constituencies more, so the closer to the actual “doomsday” we get, the more motivated they will be to make a deal, like a used car salesman on a quota, with the end of the month approaching.

Mew

That would be 2010, I would rather forget 2008. It was the year people elected one of the worst POTUS in US history.