RCP - House Rejects Undconditional Debt Ceiling Hike

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/06/01/house_rejects_unconditional_debt_ceiling_hike_256444.html

The House overwhelmingly voted down an unconditional increase to the $14.3 trillion debt limit Tuesday, as the Republican majority delivered a symbolic rebuke to President Obama ahead of a meeting at the White House.

[LadySkinsFan]

If they want spending cuts, we need to cut the wars. Period.

[Destino]

I agree with not raising the debt ceiling in theory. The problem is that it's going to take a tax increase and a spending cut to turn the ship around. Both in the short term will make the economy worse... and that's a tough decision for a politician to make.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with not raising the debt ceiling in theory. The problem is that it's going to take a tax increase and a spending cut to turn the ship around. Both in the short term will make the economy worse... and that's a tough decision for a politician to make.

I did not like the way this article worded the vote because I don't think it was JUST a Republican referendum. The one thing that I was very encouraged with was the fact that the vote was very By Partisan. There were 97 votes in favor or raising the ceiling but there were actually 82 Democratic votes that voted against this measure. Hopefully, that's something that can be built upon. At some point, we have to all start rowing in the same direction if we want to accomplish anything. JMO

[Predicto]

Here we go again. Let's all play political brinksmanship, then we can all back down 2 hours before the deadline. Yay.

[Larry]

Here we go again. Let's all play political brinksmanship, then we can all back down 2 hours before the deadline. Yay.

Behind every national crisis, there's a partisan opportunity.

[TimmySmith]

We won't get budget cuts or tax increases if they raise the ceiling, which means they are going to raise the ceiling.

[mjah]

Here we go again. Let's all play political brinksmanship, then we can all back down 2 hours before the deadline. Yay.

Two hours?

Why waste 119 minutes of perfectly good threatening-to-shoot-the-hostage time?

[Larry]

We won't get budget cuts or tax increases if they raise the ceiling, which means they are going to raise the ceiling.

Oh, there will be some sausages handed out.

Will there be anything important? I really doubt it.

[Predicto]

We won't get budget cuts or tax increases if they raise the ceiling, which means they are going to raise the ceiling.

You can't just say - "I demand that we solve a burgeoning decades long budget problem in the next three days or we are going to make the USA default on its obligations, destroy its credit rating, and cost the American taxpayers trillions in extra interest costs."

It is utterly irresponsible.

[Larry]

It is utterly irresponsible.

Yes, it is irresponsible.

As in "If we do this, I bet the voters will blame the Democrats for it".

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Medicare and Medicaid need to be subjected to some cuts.

Not that your average politician has the stones to say that, but its true.

[PokerPacker]

what's irresponsible is racking up this debt. The debt ceiling is there for a reason. Jacking it up each time we get there defeats the purpose. Maybe we could actually learn to be fiscally responsible instead, but no, lets just keep spending money we don't have because we can always just increase the debt ceiling.

[Larry]

Medicare and Medicaid need to be subjected to some cuts.

Not that your average politician has the stones to say that, but its true.

Been pushing for a gradual raising of the retirement age to 70, for years, now. Simple. About as painless as you can possibly get. IMO, it's certainly the idea that would make the biggest difference compared to the amount of pain.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 03:48 PM ----------

what's irresponsible is racking up this debt. The debt ceiling is there for a reason. Jacking it up each time we get there defeats the purpose. Maybe we could actually learn to be fiscally responsible instead, but no, lets just keep spending money we don't have because we can always just increase the debt ceiling.

An excellent argument for why we should be proposing smaller budgets.

But there's a difference between driving the train over a cliff and "I think we should consider slowing down".

[deejaydana]

what's irresponsible is racking up this debt. The debt ceiling is there for a reason. Jacking it up each time we get there defeats the purpose. Maybe we could actually learn to be fiscally responsible instead, but no, lets just keep spending money we don't have because we can always just increase the debt ceiling.

I agree with this more than the other posts. I feel like both parties can share blame in letting it come to this but it's a political game of chicken here they're all playing in the run up to 2012. Should be entertaining.

[Wrong Direction]

But there's a difference between driving the train over a cliff and "I think we should consider slowing down".

It's hard to slow down when every "cut" is described as driving the train over a cliff.

[GibbsFactor]

It is very easy.

Raise income or cut spending.

What is better? No medicare or 15% hike in taxes across the board?

Choose wisely.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 04:05 PM ----------

It's hard to slow down when every "cut" is described as driving the train over a cliff.

Haha, none of the cuts are a drop in the bucket. Not even the "wars".

[Wrong Direction]

Haha, none of the cuts are a drop in the bucket. Not even the "wars".

Cuts are hard on people. Most of spending is not defensible on a cost-benefit basis. It sucks that we'll keep spending foolishly because we've created people dependent on federal welfare programs, subsidies, tax breaks, and on and on and on. We've created a huge dependent class of everyone from rich CEOs to poor single mothers, and we just keep digging the hole deeper and adding more dependents because it's just so darn cruel to not help people (even though that wretched cost-benefit stuff keeps coming up).

[mojobo]

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times in the last 49 years... It's not really a ceiling. You don't avoid default by borrowing money to pay off your creditors, you do it by starting to spend less than you bring in. I think the only "bipartisan" measure that would work is the Republicans saying how much to cut while the Democrats pick which programs to cut. Just because we can pay back our creditors with debased dollars doesn't mean thats much better than defaulting.

[GibbsFactor]

Cuts are hard on people. Most of spending is not defensible on a cost-benefit basis. It sucks that we'll keep spending foolishly because we've created people dependent on federal welfare programs, subsidies, tax breaks, and on and on and on. We've created a huge dependent class of everyone from rich CEOs to poor single mothers, and we just keep digging the hole deeper and adding more dependents because it's just so darn cruel to not help people (even though that wretched cost-benefit stuff keeps coming up).

Absolutely.

So I ask again. No medicare or 15% more from your check?

[GhostofSparta]

Ah, screw it. Just raise the debt ceiling to $100 trillion and then we can put off this issue for another what, 6 years?

[Wrong Direction]

Absolutely.

So I ask again. No medicare or 15% more from your check?

There was a debate question between Obama and McCain that went generally unnoticed, or at least unscrutinized. Obama's answer was that he would cut with a scapel, not a hatchet. It sounded great at the time...very smart of him.

I was unimpressed for one simple reason...a president or Congress that agrees to cut with a scalpel has just put the fate of any spending cuts in the hands of special interests and lobbyists. It's the exact wrong solution politically, even if you could justify it in a debate.

Politically, the hatchet job is the better way to go. Most could get by with 2% less government spending, for example. On taxes, I like the Ryan proposal because it broadens the tax base while lowering rates for corporations who actually do pay high rates today. That is a tax-neutral proposal that could possibly be tweaked a couple of percentage points to add some revenue.

Reasonable people could do this. Politicians are just to beholden to special interests to be reasonable. There's a reason $2 billion+ will be raised between now and November 2012 to hire one man or woman for a $450,000/year job.

[Larry]

Absolutely.

So I ask again. No medicare or 15% more from your check?

Link y'all might consider.

[NoVaO]

Politically, the hatchet job is the better way to go. Most could get by with 2% less government spending, for example. On taxes, I like the Ryan proposal because it broadens the tax base while lowering rates for corporations who actually do pay high rates today. That is a tax-neutral proposal that could possibly be tweaked a couple of percentage points to add some revenue.

Completely disagree. There are things the Government does that encourage economic growth. Cutting into education hurts future economic growth because you put more unskilled workers into the labor force. Cutting infrastructure hurts economic growth. The Government does things that are necessary that the private sector won't touch because they aren't profitable. It is not profitable for a business to build a giant high way system. Or medical research a private company deems too costly to pursue, but should be pursued because of possible benefits, the Government steps in and pays for it. It is not profitable for an insurance company to insure people that are aging, so the Government steps in and does it.

There are a lot of good things Government does and many of those things shouldn't be cut if you can help it. Yes, that means you will have lobbyists doing their thing, but that is no reason to just target everything.

As for the Ryan plan, the problem with it is he designs it as revenue neutral. And he lowers not only the corporate tax rate, but the individual tax rate for top earners as well, which should actually be increased.

[deejaydana]

^^^^^^^^^^^ the problem w/govt now is the redundancy of depts and tasks. There is simply no way that gov't shouldn't be pruned back...not that this will likely ever happen (especially with the chump we have at the reins presently).