PDA

View Full Version : Implications Of Filibustering The Debt Ceiling?




trey4sports
11-04-2010, 12:02 PM
Simply put, what would happen? I don't know enough about the issue and i'm curious what you guys think?


Secondly, do you think he will filibuster the debt ceiling?

RonPaulCult
11-04-2010, 12:07 PM
Here's what liberals say will happen. Personally, a lot of this sounds like it would be a GOOD thing to me, but you know, I'm crazy.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html

Dr.3D
11-04-2010, 12:18 PM
Filibustering The Debt Ceiling would make the government finally have to live within it's means like everybody else. It would mean they would have to call back their military from the various countries it has them in and also cut costs across the board. It would in effect, cut government waist and bring it back on course to a balanced budget. Of course that wouldn't be enough. The government needs to reduce it's size to about say, one quarter of what it is now. That would make it much less expensive to operate and free up a lot of money.

jscoppe
11-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Basically, the federal gov't wouldn't be able to write checks anymore. Most of it would have to shut down. Discretionary spending is such a small chunk of the budget that not enough cuts could be made in the month between taking office and the vote on the debt ceiling. There would have to be defaults in some areas.

It will likely be passed, though. I don't think Rand will filibuster it, but his "no" vote won't be enough to stop it. Hopefully no future debt ceiling raises will need to be passed; it is only because of the tying of the new electees' hands regarding the budget that make it impossible not to pass this time.

The bottom line is that our fiscal policy has been unsustainable for a long time. It's going to crash if it doesn't change.

BenIsForRon
11-04-2010, 12:41 PM
It seems to me that it would create more chaos than we need to create. I think it would be better to actually cut spending before freezing the debt ceiling.

On the other hand, it almost seems like a disaster has to happen before most of congress will consider austerity measures.

DeadheadForPaul
11-04-2010, 12:46 PM
1.) This idea is being advanced by the MSM in order to set up a Rand bashing moment in the future. Either he will be publicly destroyed like Bunning was or he will not filibuster and be called a sell-out.

2.) Rand has many other options. This is pretty much a last-ditch nuclear option, and I doubt he will use it the first year if he ever does

Bern
11-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Remember when Bunning, Rand's predecessor in KY, single handedly blocked extensions to unemployment and COBRA benefits as a parting shot? Yeah, watching Congress scramble to avoid their own rules and responsibilities for a few days was high theater. Without consequences, kids will misbehave all day long.

obijuan
11-04-2010, 01:15 PM
It seems to me that it would create more chaos than we need to create. I think it would be better to actually cut spending before freezing the debt ceiling.

On the other hand, it almost seems like a disaster has to happen before most of congress will consider austerity measures.

This seems like a very reasonable position...no need to throw the whole system into chaos immediately if you're going to get cooperation on cutting spending and balancing the budget. You always have the nuclear option, until you use it. Then you may get no cooperation...

Though you might be right on the disaster front...people frequently don't act unless they absolutely have to.

cswake
11-04-2010, 02:46 PM
They could always compromise as Ron said, only increase the debt ceiling enough to generate half the deficit for 2011 and then refuse to increase for 2012.