It’s amazing how many people still believe in this.

When you decide to cut your personal spending, do you go for it by buying the same stuff but not paying the bills? The money won’t be saved; once the situation is regularized those expenses that occurred in the meanwhile will be paid. For all purposes, the money is already spent, this is about making the payment.

And Obama will decide what to pay or not pay with one thing in mind: make the most political damage to republicans. Anyway, this will never happen: the debt limit will be raised (and Thomas Sowell is absolutely right, we should just get rid of it – why the heck should the government have the opportunity to delay the payments of stuff they’ve already bought? If it was an individual doing that, he’d go to jail).

Plus, why is the CC&B superior to Bohener’s plan? It’s laughable to see Erick criticizing Bohener’s plan for leaving Obamacare untouched when the CCB manages to leave Obamacare untouched as well – but, unlike Bohener’s plan it also leaves Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid completely untouched. In fact, it doesn’t even specify any cuts – the tougher part of putting together an austerity program.

The CCB is the perfect excuse for the Bush-conservatives who, loyal to their roots, don’t want to cut spending at all but love to pose as “purists” and play their juvenile “everybody but me is a Rino, see how much of a conservative I am, hey, are you looking at me, please look at me, I’m the only conservative here, am I not?” game by promising some “spending cuts” in abstract without paying the political price of proposing some actual, tangible and concrete cuts. The CCB is a pledge to cut some unspecified stuff in 10 years that doesn’t have a chance whatsoever of passing the Senate or being ratified.

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.

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.

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 .

This is exactly the problem with many folks here and what I was trying to explain to RWM.

Not raising the debt limit leads to postponing payments, not cutting expenditures. In fact, spending would increase: transfer payments would raise sharply, the interest on public debt would increase, there would be interested on delayed payments, etc. The money not being there is not an obstacle,,, in fact, they’ve already spent it.

Does your view on the subject changes know that you know this? Because I feel many folks around here are standing for the “hold the line, do nothing” cause because they are sincerely convinced that, somehow, not raising the debt limit leads to savings (as it would with a normal person).

Link, please?

Bohener’s plan only needs 51 votes. We’ll see if it gets them or not. We know that the BBA didn’t even get close to the votes it needed.

How many votes do you think you can get? From everyone who may face a potential contested election in 2012? Let’s see: Nelson, Nelson, Tester, Brown, McCaskill, Casey, Manchin, Stabenow. Anyone else? Eight votes there. How many would you still miss to pass the amendment?

Provide a link or just write down their names. I’m honestly curious.