Jim Demint says he will vote to raise debt ceiling but only if it includes cuts

[dude58677]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/110310nj3.htm

[MRoCkEd]

"You don't have much choice if you charge something on your credit card. You have to pay it, and that's effectively what this debt limit is," DeMint said in an interview with National Journal. "If Republicans have to do that on their own, they need to attach some legislation to it that forces us to move towards a balanced budget. Otherwise, I think the American people are going to look at us and say, 'The Republicans still don't get it.'"

DeMint voted against the last debt-limit increase in January, which gave the Treasury an extra $2.1 trillion in breathing room, because there were no spending control mechanisms attached to it. He told NJ that he was not in favor of shutting down the government, however, which is what blocking a debt limit hike would essentially achieve.

Sounds like he will vote for it if it includes "spending control mechanisms" but not otherwise. He won't be filibustering it, though.

[Jordan]

Come on, Rand. We need your filibuster.

You can only change the country once, but there are decades left to be an eye doctor.

[Brett85]

The title is false and needs to be changed. He and Coburn have both said that they'll vote against it if there's no meaningful spending cuts attached to it.

[dannno]

This is just another reason why it would have been so awesome to elect Alvin Greene... what do you really expect DeMint to accomplish? When have we ever had an opportunity to elect a stand-up guy like Greene??

[low preference guy]

This is just another reason why it would have been so awesome to elect Alvin Greene... what do you really expect DeMint to accomplish? When have we ever had an opportunity to elect a stand-up guy like Greene??

this is very short-sighted (if you're not being sarcastic). the republican establishment needs to be displaced, and people like Rand should take prominent positions. whether you like it or not, it's easier to do that with DeMint in the Senate.

[t0rnado]

Every single Republican in the Senate and the House voted against the hike in the debt ceiling this year. If they vote for it in 2011, they are not only inconsistent, but they are sellouts, who need to be voted out of office.

[Zippyjuan]

Ask him where he would cut. It is easy to say "cut" until you get into specifics. There are interest groups which support every government program- cut them and you risk alienating people who may decide not to vote for you in the next election. That is why nobody will make any serious cuts and nobody will go on record saying what should be cut and by how much (unless it is a program only supported by voters for the other party).

He is right that people expect the Republicans to do something about the deficit- if they just produce more of the same, they will be sent home in 2012.

[PeacePlan]

Every single Republican in the Senate and the House voted against the hike in the debt ceiling this year. If they vote for it in 2011, they are not only inconsistent, but they are sellouts, who need to be voted out of office.

They only voted against it because they knew it would still pass. Now they can vote against it and they won't because they have enough to block it.

[FrankRep]

This is just another reason why it would have been so awesome to elect Alvin Greene... what do you really expect DeMint to accomplish? When have we ever had an opportunity to elect a stand-up guy like Greene??
Wait to see what he does before attacking him. Damn.

[Stary Hickory]

K Rand is not going to filler-buster this either. You have to pick your battles. Getting spending cuts in is what is needed. Real cuts. If Rand filler-busters this first thing it will be a huge blow to anything else that he wants to accomplish. Not to mention getting any kind of liberty candidate in office will be hardly possible.

Not going to balance the budget on day one. I would like it, I would support it, but it's not going to happen. There simply are not enough liberty folks up there to make the drastic cuts that we all want to see. It can be paired down dramatically but that won't really happen until Obama is out of office.

[Zippyjuan]

Now that the Republicans have the majority in the House, they will have the responsibility for writing the spending bills. Let's see how much they actually propose to cut. Campaigning for balancing the budget and cutting the deficit is a long ways from actually doing it.

[j6p]

Every single Republican in the Senate and the House voted against the hike in the debt ceiling this year. If they vote for it in 2011, they are not only inconsistent, but they are sellouts, who need to be voted out of office.

They need to pretend because a Democrat is in the white house. Use your brains people.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

K Rand is not going to filler-buster this either. You have to pick your battles. Getting spending cuts in is what is needed. Real cuts. If Rand filler-busters this first thing it will be a huge blow to anything else that he wants to accomplish. Not to mention getting any kind of liberty candidate in office will be hardly possible.

Not going to balance the budget on day one. I would like it, I would support it, but it's not going to happen. There simply are not enough liberty folks up there to make the drastic cuts that we all want to see. It can be paired down dramatically but that won't really happen until Obama is out of office.

Lol. That darn Jackson and his assailing the Bank, dontcha know you are gonna lose votes?! Play that fear card Stary, you play it well.

[j6p]

Wait to see what he does before attacking him. Damn.

We have to wait for it to pass to find out what's in it. Heard that one before. Demint came out and said it what other proof do you need. He is a lying war monger peace of work. Where is Alvin?

[FrankRep]

We have to wait for it to pass to find out what's in it. Heard that one before. Demint came out and said it what other proof do you need. He is a lying war monger peace of work. Where is Alvin?
What's not what I said. I said he's not guilty yet.

[Travlyr]

They only voted against it because they knew it would still pass. Now they can vote against it and they won't because they have enough to block it.
This.

Come on, Rand. We need your filibuster.

You can only change the country once, but there are decades left to be an eye doctor.
And this.

And it's a debt system of money. Cutting spending causes default.

[j6p]

What's not what I said. I said he's not guilty yet.

Yes it was what you said. When he comes out and says he will vote for it.

[FrankRep]

Yes it was what you said. When he comes out and says he will vote for it.

Smart move for DeMint:


Jim DeMint says he will vote to raise debt ceiling but only if it includes cuts.


One way to force spending cuts. Good for DeMint.

[revolutionary8]

What's not what I said. I said he's not guilty yet.
DeMint is most certainly guility of dictating and perpetuating the talking point of the establishment to the press- that refusing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a "shut down of government". This places those who oppose raising the debt celing in to a precarious postition. It is a political power play, nothing more, nothing less. That man knows exactly what he is saying, whether it is really his choice or not.

Can the GOP Really Wait Until Next Year to Shut Down the Government?
http://wallstreetpit.com/49672-can-the-gop-really-wait-until-next-year-to-shut-down-the-government


"If there was any way we could get around it, we need to do it. But again, we've already spent the money. The question is now, do we shut down the government, or do we fund what we've already done?" he said.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/110310nj3.htm

This is more fearmongering from the elitist establishment and the complicit media.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

DeMint is most certainly guility of dictating and perpetuating the talking point of the establishment to the press- that refusing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a "shut down of government". This places those who oppose raising the debt celing in to a precarious postition. It is a political power play, nothing more, nothing less. That man knows exactly what he is saying, whether it is really his choice or not.

Can the GOP Really Wait Until Next Year to Shut Down the Government?
http://wallstreetpit.com/49672-can-the-gop-really-wait-until-next-year-to-shut-down-the-government


http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/110310nj3.htm

This is more fearmongering from the elitist establishment and the complicit media.

No shit. If the debt ceiling is 14 trillion dollars how can still spending 14 trillion possibly be considered shutting anything down?

[awake]

It's like saying I'm all for tax cuts as long as there are new taxes to replace the old ones we are getting rid of - what's the frick'n point.

Revenue neutral tax schemes = shuffle some papers and pretend you are doing something.

The Bureaucrats full time job is keeping his job.

[FrankRep]

Lets see what type of Spending Cuts he offers/supports before attacking him.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Smart move for DeMint:


Jim DeMint says he will vote to raise debt ceiling but only if it includes cuts.


One way to force spending cuts. Good for DeMint.

If you raise the debt ceiling that allows government to spend more -- and when allowed they will. Any increase in the debt ceiling is necessarily an increase in spending. You buy orwellian bullshit, from orwellian bullshitters.

[Anti Federalist]

Lets see what type of Spending Cuts he offers/supports before attacking him.

He won't touch the big three, which is where drastic cuts will have to happen to make any difference:

SS/Medicare or

Defense or

Debt service.

[FrankRep]

If you raise the debt ceiling that allows government to spend more -- and when allowed they will. Any increase in the debt ceiling is necessarily an increase in spending. You buy orwellian bullshit, from orwellian bullshitters.
If the spending cuts don't include War reduction, then attack away.

[Kotin]

It's like saying I'm all for tax cuts as long as there are new taxes to replace the old ones we are getting rid of - what's the frick'n point.

Revenue neutral tax schemes = shuffle some papers and pretend you are doing something.

The Bureaucrats full time job is keeping his job.

That is what I am leaning towards.. :(

[FrankRep]

He won't touch the big three, which is where drastic cuts will have to happen to make any difference:

SS/Medicare or

Defense or

Debt service.

If the spending cuts don't include those, then attack away. I want to see what they plan to cut.

[Brett85]

We have to wait for it to pass to find out what's in it. Heard that one before. Demint came out and said it what other proof do you need. He is a lying war monger peace of work. Where is Alvin?

Alvin is probably marching at some Communist rally.

[Baptist]

Lets see what type of Spending Cuts he offers/supports before attacking him.

Why?

We should not support ANYONE who votes to raise the debt ceiling. These jokers got elected on the promise of "shrinking government." Last time around not a single Republican voted to raise the debt ceiling. Now that they are in control they are going to raise it? Sorry. They can end Obamacare right here and now by not raising the debt ceiling. Government will not shut down and there will not be anarchy. We'll just have to cut programs that were created over the past decade.

[Brett85]

Why?

We should not support ANYONE who votes to raise the debt ceiling. These jokers got elected on the promise of "shrinking government." Last time around not a single Republican voted to raise the debt ceiling. Now that they are in control they are going to raise it? Sorry. They can end Obamacare right here and now by not raising the debt ceiling. Government will not shut down and there will not be anarchy. We'll just have to cut programs that were created over the past decade.

They all voted against raising the debt ceiling last time because there was no spending cuts to go along with it. People like Demint are saying that they are going to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get spending cuts. If they don't get the cuts they want included, they will vote against raising the debt ceiling and the government will shut down. This is the best way for them to negotiate getting spending cuts. It's basically black mail. However, for some people it's all or nothing. Spending cuts just aren't enough. The entire government has to shut down. Here's an article where Tom Coburn talks about this.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/03/coburn-willing-to-block-debt-limit-increase-to-force-spending-cuts/

[Baptist]

They all voted against raising the debt ceiling last time because there was no spending cuts to go along with it. People like Demint are saying that they are going to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get spending cuts. Even Rand wouldn't vote against raising the debt ceiling if there were substantial spending cuts to go along with it. Some people just won't be satisfied until the entire government is shut down.

The government won't shot down!!!!!! Only 60% of it! We're talking a government the size of the 1990s here people. Bush tripled the size of the federal government and Obama has expanded it too. They spend $1.60 for ever $1 we sent them. No debt ceiling does not equal no government. Not raising debt ceiling means 60% cut.

We should attack every Republican that votes to raise the debt ceiling. That includes Rand Paul. Rand Paul said that he will never vote for an unbalanced budget. Is he a liar? You don't need to raise debt ceiling if you have balanced budgets.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

They all voted against raising the debt ceiling last time because there was no spending cuts to go along with it. People like Demint are saying that they are going to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get spending cuts. Even Rand wouldn't vote against raising the debt ceiling if there were substantial spending cuts to go along with it. Some people just won't be satisfied until the entire government is shut down.

The Government would not be shut down if Rand filibustered and stopped the raising of the debt ceiling. They would however, need to axe the 1.4 trillion deficit. If you are serious about cutting spending here is the first oppportunity. Raising the debt by saying we won't have a 1.4 trillion debt, we will have a 1 trillion debt this year is not a spending cut. It is like saying well, instead of me getting three new credit cards, I'll only get two and a half. A spending cut would be getting ZERO credit cards.

If these people don't even have the balls to go back to year 2000 spending levels then why the fuck do you even believe anything is going to change. Going back to the year 2000 isn't going to avert the situation we have now, but at least it would signal a different direction.

[low preference guy]

The Government would not be shut down if Rand filibustered and stopped the raising of the debt ceiling. They would however, need to axe the 1.4 trillion deficit.

i don't think so. bernanke can just print it.

[Baptist]

The entire government has to shut down. Here's an article where Tom Coburn talks about this.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/03/coburn-willing-to-block-debt-limit-increase-to-force-spending-cuts/

See, this is a joke, and you guys are buying it. Last time they raised the debt ceiling 1.3 Trillion dollars. Coburn and other Republicans are talking cuts of 300-400 billion? THAT MEANS THEY WILL STILL RAISE IT NEARLY A TRILLION DOLLARS. How can you support that? How can any of us support that?

[Brett85]

The government won't shot down!!!!!! Only 60% of it! We're talking a government the size of the 1990s here people. Bush tripled the size of the federal government and Obama has expanded it too. They spend $1.60 for ever $1 we sent them. No debt ceiling does not equal no government. Not raising debt ceiling means 60% cut.

We should attack every Republican that votes to raise the debt ceiling. That includes Rand Paul. Rand Paul said that he will never vote for an unbalanced budget. Is he a liar? You don't need to raise debt ceiling if you have balanced budgets.

No, he isn't a liar. But not allowing the government to borrow the money that it needs would cause the government to go bankrupt, and the entire government would be shut down. It's not just a 60% cut like you said. Like I said, fiscal conservatives like Rand, Coburn, and Demint are using this as leverage to get substantial spending cuts. After reading a lot of these comments I think that people are going to be disappointed with Rand no matter what he does. If Rand isn't a total anarchist in the Senate people here will label him a "sell out."

[Baptist]

If these people don't even have the balls to go back to year 2000 spending levels then why the fuck do you even believe anything is going to change. Going back to the year 2000 isn't going to avert the situation we have now, but at least it would signal a different direction.

My point exactly. I can't believe people here are gullible enough to settle for only raising the debt ceiling $700, $800 or $900 billion for another year or less. This is crazy. If people on these forums don't get it, then surely the masses of sheeple don't. This country is screwed and there is no hope for it. You guys don't want to shrink government, you merely want it to GROW slower.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, he isn't a liar. But not allowing the government to borrow the money that it needs would cause the government to go bankrupt, and the entire government would be shut down. It's not just a 60% cut like you said. Like I said, fiscal conservatives like Rand, Coburn, and Demint are using this as leverage to get substantial spending cuts. After reading a lot of these comments I think that people are going to be disappointed with Rand no matter what he does. If Rand isn't a total anarchist in the Senate people here will label him a "sell out."

What the fuck? Only in your warped mind is spending 1.5 trillion a year instead of 2.5-3 trillion a year an anarchist. You are going on my ignore list for your laundry list of ridiculousness.

[Baptist]

After reading a lot of these comments I think that people are going to be disappointed with Rand no matter what he does. If Rand isn't a total anarchist in the Senate people here will label him a "sell out."

If Rand simply votes "NO" then 99% of us will be happy I'm sure. If he filibusters it, then he would be an iconic hero that everyone here worships. But speaking for myself, I just want him to at least vote NO. Ron Paul would NEVER vote to raise a debt ceiling under any circumstance.

[Brett85]

See, this is a joke, and you guys are buying it. Last time they raised the debt ceiling 1.3 Trillion dollars. Coburn and other Republicans are talking cuts of 300-400 billion? THAT MEANS THEY WILL STILL RAISE IT NEARLY A TRILLION DOLLARS. How can you support that? How can any of us support that?

The alternative is to raise the debt ceiling without having any cuts at all. People here always let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demint and Coburn are talking about substantial cuts that would greatly reduce the deficit and lead us in the direction of a balanced budget, and that still isn't good enough for you.

[FrankRep]

My point exactly. I can't believe people here are gullible enough to settle for only raising the debt ceiling $700, $800 or $900 billion for another year or less. This is crazy. If people on these forums don't get it, then surely the masses of sheeple don't. This country is screwed and there is no hope for it. You guys don't want to shrink government, you merely want it to GROW slower.
Who's gullible? I don't support the debt ceiling increase.

[Brett85]

What the fuck? Only in your warped mind is spending 1.5 trillion a year instead of 2.5-3 trillion a year an anarchist. You are going on my ignore list for your laundry list of ridiculousness.

You're an anarchist who supports drunk driving, abolishing speed limits, and abolishing traffic lights. You're a lunatic and a nut. I don't feel the need to talk to you either.

[Baptist]

Who's gullible? I don't support the debt ceiling increase.

Good. Then if Demint, Rand or anyone votes to raise it, even if by $10, I can expect you to criticize them?

[Brett85]

If Rand simply votes "NO" then 99% of us will be happy I'm sure. If he filibusters it, then he would be an iconic hero that everyone here worships. But speaking for myself, I just want him to at least vote NO. Ron Paul would NEVER vote to raise a debt ceiling under any circumstance.

So you want him to vote against $400 billion worth of spending cuts? I don't think that Ron Paul would vote against substantial spending cuts. Ron always votes in favor of spending cuts.

[low preference guy]

So you want him to vote against $400 billion worth of spending cuts? I don't think that Ron Paul would vote against substantial spending cuts. Ron always votes in favor of spending cuts.

wrong. ron paul votes against bills that have good and bad things. he voted against auditing the fed, as he voted against the financial regulation bill. stop making things up. there is not a chance Ron Paul will vote for increasing the debt ceiling.

[Baptist]

So you want him to vote against $400 billion worth of spending cuts? I don't think that Ron Paul would vote against substantial spending cuts. Ron always votes in favor of spending cuts.

Watch. Ron Paul will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. I don't care how much spending cuts are included.

[revolutionary8]

You're an anarchist who supports drunk driving, abolishing speed limits, and abolishing traffic lights. You're a lunatic and a nut. I don't feel the need to talk to you either.

Oh please. :rolleyes: I'll say it again in case you are already on his ignore list:


Only in your mind is spending 1.5 trillion a year instead of 2.5-3 trillion a year an anarchist.

Why even bring others who might agree with some of those things in to this argument about the debt ceiling? IMO, it is to shut down conversation and put people in to groups and categories in order to label them all "nuts" in order to hijack the subject away from the real issue- in this case, the morality of raising the debt ceiling.

[Brett85]

wrong. ron paul votes against bills that have good and bad things. he voted against auditing the fed, as he voted against the financial regulation bill. stop making things up. there is not a chance Ron Paul will vote for increasing the debt ceiling.

So Ron will vote against reducing the deficit. That's nice.

[Baptist]

wrong. ron paul votes against bills that have good and bad things. he voted against auditing the fed, as he voted against the financial regulation bill. stop making things up. there is not a chance Ron Paul will vote for increasing the debt ceiling.

Exactly.

How would Ron vote? As follows.

Bill A to Increase debt ceiling - NO
or
Bill B to decrease spending - YES
or
Bill C to dramatically decrease spending but also raise debt ceiling a little - NO

[Brett85]

Oh please. :rolleyes: I'll say it again in case you are already on his ignore list:


Why even bring others who might agree with some of those things in to this argument about the debt ceiling? IMO, it is to shut down conversation and put people in to groups and categories in order to label them all "nuts" in order to hijack the subject away from the real issue- in this case, the morality of raising the debt ceiling.

Not raising the debt ceiling would cause the government to go into default and shut down. That's what I'm saying. The federal government would cease to exist.

[low preference guy]

So Ron will vote against reducing the deficit. That's nice.

increasing the debt ceiling allows the government to get in debt more and thus spend more and increase the deficit.

[Brett85]

Exactly.

How would Ron vote? As follows.

Bill A to Increase debt ceiling - NO
or
Bill B to decrease spending - YES
or
Bill C to dramatically decrease spending but also raise debt ceiling a little - NO

Like I said, the choice is between raising the debt ceiling with no spending cuts, or raising it with substantial spending cuts. You're never going to see Congress cut over a trillion dollars at once, which would include huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security. You and others live in a fantasy world.

[revolutionary8]

Watch. Ron Paul will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. I don't care how much spending cuts are included.

No he won't

Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul217.html
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again engaging in fiscal irresponsibility and endangering the American economy by raising the debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion dollars. One particularly troubling aspect of today’s debate is how many members who won their seats in part by pledging never to raise taxes, will now vote for this tax increase on future generations without so much as a second thought. Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today. Does anyone really believe this will be the last time, that Congress will tighten its belt if we just grant it one last loan? What a joke! There is only one approach to dealing with an incorrigible spendthrift: cut him off.

The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal government’s debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back.

Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes – currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses’ the people’s hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.

The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money.

Over the last three years, we have witnessed an unprecedented explosion in federal spending. The national debt has actually increased an average of $1.6 billion a day since September 30, 2003!

Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect government spending will exceed this new limit next year!

Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risk that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt instruments?

The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet, since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy.

The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

November 20, 2004

[FrankRep]

Good. Then if Demint, Rand or anyone votes to raise it, even if by $10, I can expect you to criticize them?
I will criticize them, I'm against the debt ceiling increase.

In the unlikely case that one of the stipulations is that the Wars must be stopped and the troops brought home immediately, I'll be more open to a compromise. (That won't happen anyways)

[Baptist]

Umm that's what I said dude =) Reread my post.

[revolutionary8]

Like I said, the choice is between raising the debt ceiling with no spending cuts, or raising it with substantial spending cuts. You're never going to see Congress cut over a trillion dollars at once, which would include huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security. You and others live in a fantasy world.

TC, it is YOU that is living in a fantasy world because you think that is even a choice. Spare us all the sanctimonious BS.

[low preference guy]

Like I said, the choice is between raising the debt ceiling with no spending cuts, or raising it with substantial spending cuts. You're never going to see Congress cut over a trillion dollars at once, which would include huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security. You and others live in a fantasy world.

wrong. he can vote against increasing the debt ceiling. it's not illegal. if there is an amendment that has spending cuts, he will vote for the amendment, and then against the entire bill. just like he did with auditing the fed.

[Brett85]

increasing the debt ceiling allows the government to get in debt more and thus spend more and increase the deficit.

The huge spending has already been done. We're not talking about more spending by increasing the debt limit. It's like Demint said in the article. The money has ALREADY BEEN SPENT and put on the credit card, and now it has to be paid for. My position is that people like Rand, Coburn, and Demint should use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get substantial spending cuts that will reduce the deficit.

[Brett85]

TC, it is YOU that is living in a fantasy world because you think that is even a choice. Spare us all the sanctimonious BS.

That is the choice. Having the government go into default isn't a choice that any Senator should want.

[revolutionary8]

The huge spending has already been done. We're not talking about more spending by increasing the debt limit. It's like Demint said in the article. The money has ALREADY BEEN SPENT and put on the credit card, and now it has to be paid for. My position is that people like Rand, Coburn, and Demint should use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get substantial spending cuts that will reduce the deficit.

I see, since the money has alreay been spent (borrowed), we should be able to borrow and spend more! SAWEEET!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[dude58677]

Lionelle Ritchie wrote a song on this:

OOhhhh what a feeling
When you are raising the debt ceiling

LOL :D

YouTube - Lionel Richie - Dancing On The Ceiling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdQDXs75Ulo)

[revolutionary8]

That is the choice. Having the government go into default isn't a choice that any Senator should want.

We are already in default TC.

[low preference guy]

My position is that people like Rand, Coburn, and Demint should use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get substantial spending cuts that will reduce the deficit.

You live in a fantasy world. There is zero chance of that happening. Rand will not vote for increasing the debt ceiling. You make me laugh!

[Brett85]

I see, since the money has alreay been spent (borrowed), we should be able to borrow and spend more! SAWEEET!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nope. I've said over and over again that there should be huge spending cuts that reduce the deficit. I'm in favor of reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. We should all be in favor of that.

[Brett85]

You live in a fantasy world. There is zero chance of that happening. Rand will not vote for increasing the debt ceiling. You make me laugh!

He'll vote against raising the debt ceiling if there aren't substantial cuts to go along with it. Be prepared to be disappointed. Rand is actually a rational person.

[revolutionary8]

Lionelle Ritchie wrote a song on this:

OOhhhh what a feeling
When you are raising the debt ceiling

LOL :D

ROFL, I thought that was Boston. :D

[low preference guy]

Nope. I've said over and over again that there should be huge spending cuts that reduce the deficit. I'm in favor of reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. We should all be in favor of that.

So you then are in favor of not increasing the debt ceiling so the country can't go further into debt, right? considering that increasing the debt ceiling and allowing the country to go into debt increases the deficit.

[revolutionary8]

He'll vote against raising the debt ceiling if there aren't substantial cuts to go along with it. Be prepared to be disappointed. Rand is actually a rational person.
Are you personal friends w/ Rand or something? Are you saying that Ron Paul is not "rational" but Rand Paul is? I don't get this, but I don't think we need to "set ourselves up for failure" any time soon. IF it passes the house, then THOSE are the people that we need to focus upon first, not a freshman senator who might or might not "let us all down".

[low preference guy]

He'll vote against raising the debt ceiling if there aren't substantial cuts to go along with it. Be prepared to be disappointed. Rand is actually a rational person.

why would I be disappointed if he votes against raising the debt ceiling? dude, you make no sense.

[Anti Federalist]

Not raising the debt ceiling would cause the government to go into default and shut down. That's what I'm saying. The federal government would cease to exist.

Maybe I'm missing something...

This is bad, why? :confused:

[FrankRep]

Are you personal friends w/ Rand or something? Are you saying that Ron Paul is not "rational" but Rand Paul is? I don't get this, but I don't think we need to "set ourselves up for failure" any time soon. IF it passes the house, then THOSE are the people that we need to focus upon first, not a freshman senator who might or might not "let us all down".

I trust Rand Paul will make the best decision either way.
Politics is like a big chess game.

[revolutionary8]

I trust Rand Paul will make the best decision either way.
Politics is like a big chess game.

Now that Frank, I absolutely agree with you on. :)

[Brett85]

why would I be disappointed if he votes against raising the debt ceiling? dude, you make no sense.

I'm saying that he would vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling if there were substantial cuts to go along with it. He would realize that that's the best we can do. He doesn't want to increase the debt limit without having any spending cuts to go along with it.

[Brett85]

Are you personal friends w/ Rand or something? Are you saying that Ron Paul is not "rational" but Rand Paul is? I don't get this, but I don't think we need to "set ourselves up for failure" any time soon. IF it passes the house, then THOSE are the people that we need to focus upon first, not a freshman senator who might or might not "let us all down".

No, I'm not personal friends with Rand. We'll just see what he says when he's asked about it in his 2 interviews this weekend. Are you friends with Ron? You believe that Ron would vote with the Democrats against $400 billion in spending cuts?

[revolutionary8]

No, I'm not personal friends with Rand. We'll just see what he says when he's asked about it in his 2 interviews this weekend. Are you friends with Ron? You believe that Ron would vote with the Democrats against $400 billion in spending cuts?

No I am not "friends" with Ron Paul at all, I just pay attention to what he says and how he votes. I think it is pretty clear that he will vote NO. This is not a stretch TC. Both his voting record, and his past speeches on the issue of the debt ceiling are pretty clear cut. The stretch is that you are trying to "prepare us" for a YES from Rand Paul, son of Dr. NO.
I guess I understand it, sorta. I won't need "preparation" for Rand's possible eventual vote, I will need "preparation" for the consequences of raising the debt celing.

[Brett85]

So you then are in favor of not increasing the debt ceiling so the country can't go further into debt, right? considering that increasing the debt ceiling and allowing the country to go into debt increases the deficit.

I want to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get huge spending cuts. I'm talking about cutting spending, not increasing it. All of the money that we've spent has already been put on the credit card.

[Brett85]

No I am not "friends" with Ron at all, I just pay attention to what he says and how he votes. I think it is pretty clear that he will vote NO. This is not a stretch TC. The stretch is that you are trying to "prepare us" for and YES from Rand Paul, son of Dr. NO.
I guess I understand it, sorta.

We'll just see how it all plays out. My point all along is simply that the worst situation would be if they increase the debt limit without including any spending cuts in it. Politics is all about compromise. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. I just don't think that Rand will vote with the Democrats against cutting $400 billion in spending.

[low preference guy]

I want to use the debt ceiling vote as leverage to get huge spending cuts. I'm talking about cutting spending, not increasing it. All of the money that we've spent has already been put on the credit card.

you want to increase the debt ceiling? then you're not for balanced budgets and cutting spending. you just bullshit.

[Brett85]

you want to increase the debt ceiling? then you're not for balanced budgets and cutting spending. you just bullshit.

I don't want to increase the debt ceiling. I'm just saying that if it has to happen, I would rather have $400 billion in spending cuts to go along with it. But if you were in the Senate you would vote with the Democrats against the $400 billion in spending cuts, and we would end up raising the debt ceiling without any spending cuts attached to it.

[Brett85]

you want to increase the debt ceiling? then you're not for balanced budgets and cutting spending. you just bullshit.

Also, learn how to type please.

[low preference guy]

You believe that Ron would vote with the Democrats against $400 billion in spending cuts?

Please get informed before spouting nonsense. Figuring out how Ron would vote only requires looking at his voting record and his writings. He always voted against increasing the debt ceiling. And he even wrote about it. In the article below, he called arguments identical to those you're making A JOKE.

Read it for yourself. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul217.html)

And this is your most stupid argument of all:


You believe that Ron would vote with the Democrats against $400 billion in spending cuts?

That's like trying to argue that Ron will vote to pass the financial regulation bill by saying:


You believe that Ron would vote against Auditing the Fed?

Yes, he did. The financial regulation bill contained an audit the fed amendment, written by Ron Paul himself. And he voted against the bill!

Again, please get informed before proudly displaying your ignorance.

[Brett85]

Please get informed before spouting nonsense. Figuring out how Ron would vote only requires looking at his voting record and his writings. He always voted against increasing the debt ceiling. And he even wrote about it. In the article below, he called arguments identical to those you're making A JOKE.

Read it for yourself. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul217.html)

And this is your most stupid argument of all:



That's like trying to argue that Ron will vote to pass the financial regulation bill by saying:



Yes, he did. The financial regulation bill contained an audit the fed amendment, written by Ron Paul himself. And he voted against the bill!

Again, please get informed before proudly displaying your ignorance.

In that article he didn't mention anything about a bill that included raising the debt limit along with substantial spending cuts. That isn't a situation that's ever come up before, so we don't know for sure how he'll vote. I'm just predicting that Rand would vote to cut spending by $400 billion. Like I said, we'll just see how it all plays out.

[low preference guy]

I'm just predicting that Rand would vote to cut spending by $400 billion. Like I said, we'll just see how it all plays out.

Ok. If he votes for increasing the debt ceiling, he votes for cutting $400 billion. If he votes against increasing the debt ceiling, he votes for cutting $1.5 trillion. Your phrasing is really misleading. You could be a villain in an Orwellian novel.

[Brett85]

Ok. If he votes for increasing the debt ceiling, he votes for cutting $400 billion. If he votes against increasing the debt ceiling, he votes for cutting $1.5 trillion. Your phrasing is really misleading. You could be a villain in an Orwellian novel.

You're dreaming if you think that Congress would ever cut 1.5 trillion dollars all at once. Would I like for that to happen? Of course. Is it ever going to happen? Of course not. I would be surprised if the Dems even went along with a $400 billion spending cut. Like I said, I would rather take what I can get.

[low preference guy]

You're dreaming if you think that Congress would ever cut 1.5 trillion dollars all at once. Would I like for that to happen? Of course. Is it ever going to happen? Of course not. I would be surprised if the Dems even went along with a $400 billion spending cut. Like I said, I would rather take what I can get.

I'm not dreaming about anything, I'm just explaining that the way you phrase "Rand will vote against $400 billion in cuts" is misleading, because if he votes the other way, he will be voting for cutting $1.5 t.

[Brett85]

I'm not dreaming about anything, I'm just explaining that the way you phrase "Rand will vote against $400 billion in cuts" is misleading, because if he votes the other way, he will be voting for cutting $1.5 t.

And you believe that our current Congress would actually make deep cuts into SS and Medicare in order to cut 1.5 trillion all at once? I'm just explaining that cutting $400 billion is probably the best we can do. I would rather cut $400 billion than cut nothing at all.

[sofia]

DeMint is a FRAUD.

Our nation is at the breaking point. To merely "vote against" something is NOT enough....especially when you know that the bad legislation in question is going to pass ANYWAY!

Where is the courage in that?

Sorry folks....but it's Mr. Smith goes to Washington time. This shit needs to be filibustered until others gain courage and then join a REAL leader.......and that ain't DeMint...

DeMint didnt even endorse rand against Grayson until Rand was up 15 points!...And just the other day on the Hannity show....DeMint kept fawning over neo-conman Marco Rubio......Marco....Marco...Marco.......

and not one damn refernce to Rand Paul.

[low preference guy]

And you believe that our current Congress would actually make deep cuts into SS and Medicare in order to cut 1.5 trillion all at once? I'm just explaining that cutting $400 billion is probably the best we can do. I would rather cut $400 billion than cut nothing at all.

If people vote against raising the debt ceiling they will be forced to. If there is difficulty raising the debt ceiling, and those who voted for increasing it get thrown out of office in the next election, maybe the next time the vote will succeed.

I prefer the action that brings the most benefit in the long run. If you vote for increasing the debt ceiling to get some cuts, never in your life again you'll have the moral high ground to criticize someone who votes for increasing the debt ceiling.

You should study Ron Paul. His career shows how always voting based on his principles is beneficial in the long run. Taking into account who is his father, I don't believe for a second that Rand Paul is as short-sighted as you are.

[Brett85]

If people vote against raising the debt ceiling they will be forced to. If there is difficulty raising the debt ceiling, and those who voted for increasing it get thrown out of office in the next election, maybe the next time the vote will succeed.

I prefer the action that brings the most benefit in the long run. If you vote for increasing the debt ceiling to get some cuts, never in your life again you'll have the moral high ground to criticize someone who votes for increasing the debt ceiling.

You should study Ron Paul. His career shows how always voting based on his principles is beneficial in the long run.

Ok. We just disagree on methodology. I'm simply predicting that Senators like Rand, Demint, and Coburn will vote against raising the debt ceiling if there's no substantial spending cuts to go along with it, and they would reluctantly vote to increase the debt limit if there were substantial spending cuts to go along with it. But I don't know for sure how it will all play out. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Brett85]

ITaking into account who is his father, I don't believe for a second that Rand Paul is as short-sighted as you are.

Fine. Just don't be too surprised if Rand ends up being more pragmatic on issues like this. Rand and Ron aren't the same person, and Rand shouldn't be thrown overboard if he takes a compromise like this.

[low preference guy]

Ok. We just disagree on methodology. I'm simply predicting that Senators like Rand, Demint, and Coburn will vote against raising the debt ceiling if there's no substantial spending cuts to go along with it, and they would reluctantly vote to increase the debt limit if there were substantial spending cuts to go along with it. But I don't know for sure how it will all play out. We'll just have to wait and see.

I'm pretty sure that Rand won't give up the moral high ground and renounce the credibility he might have in his criticism of the government going into debt for the rest of his life.

This is what will happen if Rand votes to increase the debt ceiling in exchange of some cuts:


Voter: So why are we so indebted? Because fucking Rand Paul voted to increase the debt ceiling!

Rand: But otherwise, the government would've collapsed!

Voter: That's the same thing Boehner said when he voted for the bailout! You said we shouldn't believe it. Why would I believe you now?!?!?

LOL. I am sure that won't happen.

[klamath]

Lot of fools. Yeaw we are going too cut the budget 1.3 trillion in one year. Some of you sat around on the computers to much or didn't vote at all. Seems the democrats have 54 seats in the senate and last time I checked Obama was still president. All it will take is 6 Olympia Snow's joining the democrats and the great filibuster is over. The republicans don't even have the same majority in the house that the democrats now have. Shut the government down and it will be those that override the filibuster and sign the 1.8 trillion budget deficit budget that will be the heros to the american people. Those that shut the governement down will be packing their bags come the next election.