GOP already looking to negotiate raising the debt ceiling

[nawainwright]

The scuttlebutt is that they will negotiate "major" spending cuts in order to persuade them to raise the debt ceiling. Sorry. Wrong. We didn't elect you to slow down out of control spending, we sent you to stop it. It hasn't even been a week and the establishment is already caving, I hope the freshmen coming in can just put the brakes on this whole thing. When you have a spending problem, you don't go find more credit to save yourself, you cut up the cards.

FoxNews.com - GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts

 

[Leadeye]

We are way past congress being able to solve this problem regardless of who is in office. Not sure what this country will do when the repo man comes knocking at the door, but I expect the standard of living will make this place look like mexico.

 

[John224]

When I was much younger, I learned you cannot keep using credit to get out of debt. At some point you have to pay for the ride. And that was back when the accepted interest rates were 18.99% and they still charged a yearly fee and my credit was and still is excellent. We could always find a reason to use the card! It wasn't easy, but we did it over a period of years. And we owed about what each American now owes for the deficiate today. They tend to forget after the people spoke to get them elected, and don't listen to the people any more.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The Dems had already planned to do this. They just waited until after the election so they would not be responsible for the actual passage themselves. It has been in the works for some time now.

 

[nawainwright]

The Dems had already planned to do this. They just waited until after the election so they would not be responsible for the actual passage themselves. It has been in the works for some time now.

I'm well aware that the Dems had this in the pipes, but the problem here isn't that the Dems wanted to do this, its that the "financial hawks" we just put into office are already talking about compromising to allow it through.

 

[steepo17]

The scuttlebutt is that they will negotiate "major" spending cuts in order to persuade them to raise the debt ceiling. Sorry. Wrong. We didn't elect you to slow down out of control spending, we sent you to stop it. It hasn't even been a week and the establishment is already caving, I hope the freshmen coming in can just put the brakes on this whole thing. When you have a spending problem, you don't go find more credit to save yourself, you cut up the cards.

FoxNews.com - GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts

Read the WSJ article referenced in the story and don't jump to conclusions so quickly. This country is like an ocean liner - you can't just grab the wheel and expect to turn 180 degrees immediately. The Dems already put us on a spending path that can't be corrected overnight. Until it can be repealed, it might be necessary to temporarily raise the ceiling to cover previously budgeted spending. However, I don't have confidence in any politician, regardless of party, and would favor putting them all on that ocean liner and sending them out to sea indefinitely.

 

[pudly]

So really, what this is saying is that in controlling just the House, the Republicans don't expect to be able to reduce the deficit to $0 in one year. Since they likely won't be able to get budgets passed and signed by Obama that eliminate Obamacare, raise retirement ages, reduce the military, and cut various social programs, this would seem like a truism. Although the House initiates the budget process, they definitely don't control passage.

 

[nawainwright]

Granted, they do not control passage, however it sets a concerning precedent if they do begin to crumble on principle before they even get in power.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It's not about crumbling on principle. It's about governing.

Just like Obamagonnaneedajob thought he could just waltz in and start removing all the troops from Iraq and have them all out in 16 months. Shut down Gitmo. Let gays in the military. All things he said he would do day one. Well, day 700 has come and gone. Which of these did he accomplish? None of them. Because turning the rudder takes more work than just an edict. There are consequences. If the new House twists the dials too quickly and we're trown into a severe recession or depression, then what?

The worst thing we can do is start eating our own (if in fact you're a republican, little r) like the left has decimated Obama. Have patience. Remember 1994 when the Congress and White House split parties. Best times we've had in a long time, and by the end we were operating a surplus.

 

[pudly]

Just saw a very relevant headline. The man is oblivious...

Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts

 

[cadan]

Read the WSJ article referenced in the story and don't jump to conclusions so quickly. This country is like an ocean liner - you can't just grab the wheel and expect to turn 180 degrees immediately. The Dems already put us on a spending path that can't be corrected overnight. Until it can be repealed, it might be necessary to temporarily raise the ceiling to cover previously budgeted spending. However, I don't have confidence in any politician, regardless of party, and would favor putting them all on that ocean liner and sending them out to sea indefinitely.

Why not, what if the don't grant an authorization to increase the permitted debt limit? Would this not attain the end goal of attaining a balanced budget? Once there is a hard limit on how many bills get paid, would they not finally be forced to make a priority call on what is important is essential and what is not?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm not certain, but I believe Congress has to honor spending obligations made unless they repeal them. They can vote to de-fund specific programs, but that won't have any effect unless the vote is passed by the Senate and signed by the Pres. Also, don't forget that all these new Congresscritters are "newbies" in the governmental system. It will take them a little while to make their views known in the "halls of Congress".

 

[dross]

It's a good use of a bargaining chip. It throws the out of control spending into the light, and eventually the debt ceiling has to be raised, there's really no choice about that. This is making Obama give something for something they were going to have to give anyway. We can't default on our debt.

Either way Obama loses. If he fights it, they hold the high ground. If he doesn't fight it, they have a big victory in spending cuts.

What we can't do is run the country aground so as to appear not to compromise.

 

[cadan]

It's a good use of a bargaining chip. It throws the out of control spending into the light, and eventually the debt ceiling has to be raised, there's really no choice about that. This is making Obama give something for something they were going to have to give anyway. We can't default on our debt.

Either way Obama loses. If he fights it, they hold the high ground. If he doesn't fight it, they have a big victory in spending cuts.

What we can't do is run the country aground so as to appear not to compromise.

I don't think I'm following what your proposing here. As far as I am aware it is inevitable that the government will default on it's promises (e.g. social security, etc,.). At this point, it is just a matter of choosing which way this is going to be done. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't help unless there is a willing buyer. Now, there is one willing buyer who is the Federal Reserve bank, but this buyer does so by creating money out of thin air, and the consequent currency debasement is just another way of defaulting on the obligations.

My thought was that the house would have to approve an increase to the debt ceiling, and if they choose not to, then something must give. Which item in the Federal budget would go unpaid, I am not sure. Hopefully our politicians would sufficiently wise to place the redemption of US treasuries low on the list on items not to be paid.

 

[beararms1776]

They most likely will have to spend more to get the economy back on track and directed away from socialism. The right people spending it in the right places to accomplish that I think is the key.

 

[dom1104]

Wow, I am dissapointed. I thought republicans were the answer, that libertarians were crazy, and that all it takes to turn around 50 years of spending is the right politicians in washington, ......

 

[cadan]

They most likely will have to spend more to get the economy back on track and directed away from socialism. The right people spending it in the right places to accomplish that I think is the key.

I've been reading the from the Austrian's. They would have said the exact opposite. One must save to get back on track, and directed away from socialism. Government should stop sending, and private citizens then can buy whatever they want and can afford. I think the Austrian's are right, why do you think otherwise?

 

[beararms1776]

I've been reading the from the Austrian's. They would have said the exact opposite. One must save to get back on track, and directed away from socialism. Government should stop sending, and private citizens then can buy whatever they want and can afford. I think the Austrian's are right, why do you think otherwise?

Maybe on real job growth insted of more gubment jobs.

 

[cadan]

Maybe on real job growth insted of more gubment jobs.

Well, government spending does produce government funded jobs - regardless of whether men are employed directly or indirectly. Thus diminishing the private sector directing resources, and hindering the recovery. After all, it is the private sector which produces what consumers want, but the same cannot be said of gov't.

 

[beararms1776]

Well, government spending does produce government funded jobs - regardless of whether men are employed directly or indirectly. Thus diminishing the private sector directing resources, and hindering the recovery. After all, it is the private sector which produces what consumers want, but the same cannot be said of gov't.

For some reason the R see a need to negotiate a cap on top of all the spending. They see a need to spend more on something. What would that be?