The Glade 4.0

You haven't seen the tantrum yet. There is part of me that hopes the Reps continue to stonewall and force a default, and then watch the **** fly when things really start to collapse. All because they are unreasonable.

Be careful what you wish for...

Threatening SS and Veterans Benefits is throwing a tantrum, especially when he has no intention of actually following through with it, since it would be political suicide...

It's interesting that you perceive Obama as the one making the threats. The Republican position here is basically, "Give us the policy changes we want or we'll deliberately crash the economy." Obama's just pointing out what the tangible consequences of that will be.

It's interesting that you perceive Obama as the one making the threats. The Republican position here is basically, "Give us the policy changes we want or we'll deliberately crash the economy." Obama's just pointing out what the tangible consequences of that will be.

If granny doesn't get her check its because Barack decided to not pay her. Not because of any Republicans.

RD Obama has yet to pen an offer. He's talking (out both holes) a good game but is still trying to stay above it. He's not asking to split the difference, or give the Republicans any advantage, he's looking to increase taxes, spending and the credit limit. He's using fearmongering while decrying fearmongering.

Republican Democrats it doesn't matter. Cut spending. Cut taxes. Pay obligations to interest payments. Watch money roll in.

We take in more than enough to service the debt. The only crash would be Democrat poll numbers as the government would be forced to meet its constitutional requirements first and then fund their other programs with what is left. If granny doesn't get her check its because Barack decided to not pay her. Not because of any Republicans.

Obama has penned an offer, he offered to cut spending by over $4 trillion, including cuts to Medicare, but only if the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy were also allowed to expire. The Republicans refused that and that's why we're in this situation.

In that scenario, would you really still say the President is just fear-mongering? That he's throwing a hissy fit and could (should?) fix it with a stroke of his pen (i.e. by giving the Dems their tax-and-spend wish list)?

You might be a king or a little street sweeper, but sooner or later you dance with the reaper.

Not quite. He promised to cut spending in the future if the Republicans would allow the increased taxes and debt ceiling now... which is great idea if you actually think there would be any cuts later. For a president so adamant this is the time to make the hard decisions, postponing the spending cuts, is not actually making hard decisions. And I don't believe for a minute that once this "crisis" has passed, spending cuts would be revisited in any meaningful manner.

The debt limit should not be increased, spending should be cut, and taxes should not be raised.

That would be unreasonable RD.

The debt limit should not be increased, spending should be cut, and taxes should not be raised.

Why would it be unreasonable in that case, Mus? What's the difference?

Any spending cuts would be a "promise." How else would it work? We can't cut the $4 trillion right now.

Do the libs actually pay attention? Lot's of people on this board and large groups of people in this country don't want to continue this spend, spend, spend crap that has gone on way too long. Less government, less taxes, more economic freedom, more job creation.

And what about the roughly $500 billion in debt maturing in August? If the debt ceiling isn't raised, do you really think all those debt holders are going to be willing to just roll their debt over? What percentage do you think will prefer to just take their chips off the table until the political crisis is done? 5%? 10%? There's an extra $25-50 billion we have to pay in August alone. Even if most/all of that debt does get rolled over successfully, it'll be at a significantly higher interest rate, which would also eat up a good chunk of the revenue stream.

And besides, it's just back-of-the-napkin budgeting to say the government could theoretically cover x, y, and z programs alone. Are we just going to stop paying every other bill in the meantime? Shut down the FBI, empty the federal prisons, open up the borders, stop paying active duty soldiers, ground the Air Force? I don't think so. And even if that kind of total prioritization of a handful of programs was feasible, where does the President get the power to decide which bills to pay and which ones to ignore? Congress appropriated funds for all those programs and directed the Executive Branch to spend the funds accordingly. From a "checks and balances" perspective, I'd say the most Constitutionally sound approach would be an across-the-board cut to all programs. In practice, we'll probably get a mix of across-the-board cuts and Constitutionally-dubious program prioritization with cuts ranging from 30% to 60% depending on the program.

In short, Obama's comment wasn't fear-mongering; it was just fact. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will create an immediate cluster-f*ck of ginormous proportions, and everyone, including SS beneficiaries, will get nailed.

(Btw, I love that the spell-check recognizes "ginormous" as a word. )

Because Republicans will do all of this?

Please don't mistake this for snark. I'm curious as to whether or not you legitimately think Republicans, if given the power to do so, will actually enact all of these desires. While the Democrats obviously won't, history doesn't commend this to the Republicans, either.

Please don't mistake this for snark. I'm curious as to whether or not you legitimately think Republicans, if given the power to do so, will actually enact all of these desires. While the Democrats obviously won't, history doesn't commend this to the Republicans, either.

The debt limit must be raised..

...the revenue side must also be addressed, because it is currently not equitable and fair.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.