PDA

View Full Version : Ron: "If new Congress raises debt ceiling in 2011, then the status quo has prevailed"



Matt Collins
11-29-2010, 12:12 PM
Ron: "If the new Congress raises the debt ceiling in 2011, then the status quo has prevailed and it'll business as usual in DC... this issue will be the litmus test."


YouTube - Ron Paul to Congress: Refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYe4QkBtgmM)
MRoCkEd
11-29-2010, 12:19 PM
Ball's in your court, Rand!
TheDriver
11-29-2010, 12:22 PM
It doesn't matter what Ron or Rand say, the debt ceiling will be raised.

Most members of Congress want to keep their jobs, and forcing the US into insolvency won't help them do that.
:D


But, it is nice to have a few that won't support this robbery.
RonPaulCult
11-29-2010, 12:24 PM
Ball's in your court, Rand!

He has already said he won't vote to increase it.
Anti Federalist
11-29-2010, 12:25 PM
Ball's in your court, Rand!

If you thought you were gonna get "a pass" just because I'm yer' old man, well, think again.

:D
TheBlackPeterSchiff
11-29-2010, 01:39 PM
Basically. But it will be raised. No one there has the guts to do it.
jmdrake
11-29-2010, 01:44 PM
Basically. But it will be raised. No one there has the guts to do it.

Let em raise it. Then target every republican who voted yes with serious primary challengers. And meantime Rand needs to be working hard on that balanced budget proposal so that those who vote no can honestly say they had something to vote "yes" to.
jmdrake
11-29-2010, 01:48 PM
It doesn't matter what Ron or Rand say, the debt ceiling will be raised.

Most members of Congress want to keep their jobs, and forcing the US into insolvency won't help them do that.
:D


But, it is nice to have a few that won't support this robbery.

I don't get why people say that would "force the U.S. into insolvency"? Maybe I'm missing something here. If you can't raise the debt ceiling then you just vote to live within your means. End the the wars, close all the foreign bases, repeal the prescription drug benefit (and statutorily shorten the life of drug patents), get rid of a some federal agencies that do more harm than good (take your pick), and "insolvency" is solved.
georgiaboy
11-29-2010, 01:54 PM
litmus test 2.0
cswake
11-29-2010, 02:09 PM
He has already said he won't vote to increase it.But, he could filibuster it to get cuts. Ron doesn't have that...
low preference guy
11-29-2010, 02:15 PM
But, he could filibuster it to get cuts. Ron doesn't have that...

I think it takes 41 Senators to filibuster something.
cswake
11-29-2010, 02:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_U.S._Senate

Takes 41 to uphold a filibuster. He could still do it on a matter of principle even if all 46 other Republicans don't support.
reagle
11-29-2010, 03:05 PM
YouTube - Debt Ceiling Balanced Budget (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HhGHXzKqc)
TheDriver
11-29-2010, 04:04 PM
I don't get why people say that would "force the U.S. into insolvency"?

You've somewhat answered your own question. These programs get no funds = insolvency (for those programs).


get rid of a some federal agencies


But someone could push the angle if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can't pay the interest owed to foreign governments on our debt, which would severely downgrade our credit-rating and possibly hurt the value of the dollar (more). Which, theoretically, could lead to a total US Gov meltdown aka insolvency.
aravoth
11-29-2010, 04:24 PM
He has already said he won't vote to increase it.

True enough, but you know what would be the most awesome thing you or would ever see?

Rand Paul Filibustering the debt ceiling, by reading the book, "Atlas Shrugged" Very slowly.
TheDriver
11-29-2010, 04:26 PM
True enough, but you know what would be the most awesome thing you or would ever see?

Rand Paul Filibustering the debt ceiling, by reading the book, "Atlas Shrugged" Very slowly.

He should probably save that for the next round of bailouts.... :p
teacherone
11-29-2010, 04:28 PM
True enough, but you know what would be the most awesome thing you or would ever see?

Rand Paul Filibustering the debt ceiling, by reading the book, "Atlas Shrugged" Very slowly.

that thing's a brick-- he could speed read and still take a month.
Feeding the Abscess
11-29-2010, 05:20 PM
If Rand has the opportunity to filibuster and passes, I'm done supporting him.

Time to put the man pants on, to paraphrase the witch.
Matt Collins
11-29-2010, 05:28 PM
If Rand has the opportunity to filibuster and passes, I'm done supporting him.Filibustering would be 1 thing, doing it when it wouldn't be ineffective is another.
awake
11-29-2010, 05:42 PM
If some one is kidnapped, when is the best time to make a break for it? Moments after the act, in the trunk or at the dump-site?

My point is: there is no better time to make it happen. The longer you wait the less chance you have.
cswake
11-29-2010, 06:05 PM
Filibustering would be 1 thing, doing it when it wouldn't be ineffective is another.

Couldn't disagree more. Just the very action is effective since it would require a certain percentage of Republican Senators to override his filibuster, and thus identifying the ones that aren't fiscal conservatives.

=> 2012 RINO targets that would make it easy for Tea Party challengers. <=

If he just flatly votes no and gets no concessions on spending redutions, balanced budgets, etc. then I'll be concerned...
jmdrake
11-29-2010, 06:41 PM
You've somewhat answered your own question. These programs get no funds = insolvency (for those programs).


Right. I don't consider programs = U.S. ;) It would be like I was broke so I had to cancel cable and perhaps even my telephone. I'm still not insolvent.



But someone could push the angle if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can't pay the interest owed to foreign governments on our debt, which would severely downgrade our credit-rating and possibly hurt the value of the dollar (more). Which, theoretically, could lead to a total US Gov meltdown aka insolvency.

Yeah someone could push that angle. It wouldn't be right though. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm fairly sure that we can cover all of our debt payments and pay for all our current entitlements just by cutting the Dickens out of discretionary spending. (And yes, military spending is discretionary, especially with regards to elective wars).

Anyway, a lot will depend on Rand and the balanced budget he proposes.
cswake
11-29-2010, 06:56 PM
I haven't run the numbers, but I'm fairly sure that we can cover all of our debt payments and pay for all our current entitlements just by cutting the Dickens out of discretionary spending.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267390

If we just pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt interest payments, there is ~$100 billion left over for everything else. This will get worse every year from now as more Boomers get older.