Glenn Beck: Raising the debt ceiling is the beginning of the end for Republicans

posted at 9:48 pm on January 4, 2011 by Allahpundit

A surreal clip, not because they don’t understand the consequences of failing to raise the ceiling but because they do — and Napolitano, at least, seems prepared to accept them. From the myopic standpoint of what’s more likely to bring about the end of the GOP, I’m guessing that an economic collapse triggered by a Republican-driven federal default is slightly more likely to cause trouble for conservatives than voting to raise the ceiling in return for, say, a balanced-budget amendment or other heavy debt-reducing concessions. But beyond that, and I ask this in all sincerity, how exactly is it “fiscally conservative” to willingly default on your obligations? The ceiling is just a ceiling. A Congress committed to solvency could raise the limit now to preserve the stability of global markets and then get cracking on real budget cuts — and entitlement reform — to start moving us away from that ceiling, never to return. This idea of letting the government default because it’s the only way to make Americans get serious about the debt reminds me of some liberals shrugging off spiraling gas prices a few years ago on grounds that they would finally make Americans get serious about alternative energy. In both cases, because the final “crisis” is supposedly inevitable, the point is to bring it about ASAP and make people suffer until they’re willing to agree to dramatic change. Ironically, it reminds of the Cloward-Piven strategy: If you want meaningful reform to an unjust system, the best thing to do is overwhelm it until it crashes and then rebuild it in the ashes more to your liking. Beck’s not quite willing to go that far here, but Napolitano? You tell me.

As companion viewing to this, head over here and watch Jim DeMint encourage freshman Republicans not to vote for raising the debt ceiling because “it’s not a problem they created.” Where does that principle begin and end? A lot of Democrats elected to Congress in 2006 and 2008 didn’t vote for war in Iraq either, but the party continued to fund the mission anyway because a gradual drawdown was more responsible than simply pulling the plug. Why does that logic not apply in this case? Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Raising the debt ceiling…..dropping the spending floor, is not going to mean very much when China de-pegs.

How long can China go on funding our never ending need for borrowed money, and when will they finally stop? That is the question. Whether or not China pulls the plug is hard to predict, but all signs point to an eventual cancellation of our ChinEx Visa and significant depegging of the yuan from the dollar.

Inflation, double digit inflation and the likelihood of hyperinflation (and thus, economic collapse) may be in our very near future.

Be prepared.

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM

It is a practical impossibility to maintain the government without doing it

So? Why do we need to “maintain the government” again?

When an entity cannot control itself and continues to spend (our) money it doesn’t have, then it needs to be cut off from the trough.

We don’t just need a balanced budget amendment, we’re in debt people! We need to make a budget that reduces spending so drastically that we can eventually pay off our debt. Reducing the size/cost/power of the federal government is the actual MANDATORY move that we must do now…not raise the debt limit. It is far too dangerous (fiscally) to allow a centralized body to have the ability to bankrupt our country.

Geministorm on January 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

As companion viewing to this, head over here and watch Jim DeMint encourage freshman Republicans not to vote for raising the debt ceiling because “it’s not a problem they created.”

More irresponsible grandstanding for DeMint.

I’m waiting for him to get down to actual rational legislating, instead of just playing up to the Tea Party crowd.

Vyce on January 5, 2011 at 10:11 AM

The phrase “raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure” definitely applies today.
Carl on January 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I don’t get your argument. The Socialist-in-Chief was right? He was making a statement for political expediency (and voted “present” 2 other times on the same issue). There was a premeditated effort to make him appear to be a moderate deficit hawk. He didn’t turn out that way, did he?

PappyD61 on January 5, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Gosh, I wonder where you got those talking points.

How dare we focus on our children when we should be going in to crisis mode! No more dance lessons or other earthly delights while we wait for the coming apocalypse. Are you ready to hunker down, dude? Got your larder filled? If not, you better get crackin’.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Vyce on January 5, 2011 at 10:11 AM

+1. I just noted what an annoyance he is becoming at the RINO traitor Rubio hired 3 Mitt staffers thread.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Our economy is currently on life support provided by an endless flow of debt financing from China, and by non-stop digital money creation by the Federal Reserve. These purchases are the means by which China maintains the relative value of its currency against the dollar. As the dollar comes under even more downward pressure, China’s purchases must increase to keep the renminbi from rising. By maintaining the peg, China enables our politicians and citizens to continue spending more than they have and avoiding the hard choices necessary to restore our long-term economic health.

De-pegging will force the hand of U.S. politicians toward pursuing realistic policies. The Chinese will come to their senses eventually because it is in their interest to do so. Meanwhile, the longer the peg is maintained, the more indebted we become, the more out of balance our economy grows, and the more our industrial base shrivels. In short, the longer they wait, the steeper our fall.

Assuming this assessment is correct, and depegging would cause cardiac arrest in the USA, and the longer the peg continues, the harder we fall, then I suspect the Chinese have a strong motivator to keep the peg going as long as possible.

This is economic warfare folks. This is SERIOUS business.

They will pull the plug and stop funding our debt at a time of their choosing. Seems to be a solid strategy from the perspective of the Reds. They choose the battlefield. They choose when the final attack will come.

The Chinese are not doing this because they want to help us. The exact opposite is true.

I firmly believe we are engaged in a global war. No missiles have been fired yet, but perhaps at some point in the future they will be. Or, it may end similar to the Cold War, where the USA completely destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union through a variety of methods, namely by forcing them to spend billions to keep up with our defense spending. Eventually, the Soviets were bankrupted.

Sound familiar?

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

The right way for Republicans to approach this is to agree to raise the debt ceiling with specific conditions attached that require moderate future spending reductions and entitlement reforms that will begin the process of reigning in the Federal budget. It will never be acceptable to the American voters to create a major crisis through legislative overreach. At the end of the day, we still have a Senate and a Chief Executive that will reject radical changes from the current norm and who will then blame the Republicans for the mayhem that is created when government programs begin shutting down. This approach plays into the hands of progressive Democrats who want to resume control of government two years from now. If Republicans attach conditions that incorporate such moderate spending reductions and reforms and the Democrats reject these conditions, then the Democrats will own the mayhem that results and will pay the price for failing to accept compromise. My opinion is that Democrats will have no choice but to accept the conditional approach to raising the debt ceiling, if they want to survive politically. The reality is that we cannot bring about more radical changes unless the American voters see an honest effort by Republicans during the next two years to reign in spending and then reward them by once again giving them the control of government that they will need to reform and shrink our system of government to where it needs to be to support long-term growth and security.

NuclearPhysicist on January 5, 2011 at 10:20 AM

THE PAPPY PLAN

1. Seal the border.

2. Cut all Federal spending “FAIRLY” across the board.

Proble solved.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM

fairly means 10%

Fiscal Problems solved.

PappyD61 on January 5, 2011 at 10:22 AM

When your comment finally made it through the filter…. what a joke,

I read it and thought…. yup.

Ryan’s got the right idea. Will anyone listen?

Kini on January 5, 2011 at 6:25 AM

What about it is a joke?

Bear in mind I did write it between 0100-0200 and now that I am much more rested and awake again I realize that the very last part is not necessarily true.

SgtSVJones on January 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Oh please! The consequences of defaulting on the debt limit is more debt because it will have disastrous effects on the economy. Ever heard the phrase “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”? It’s apt in this case.

You’re looking at things in a similar way to Dems who use static economics to explain their budgetary Utopias (like, “Hike taxes on the rich and increase revenue so we can fund our social programs”) instead of taking the counter-intuitive, but historically proven, position that lower taxes increase revenue.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Being responsible means paying for the things you buy. It also means living within your means. The new Congress should raise the debt ceiling, but pass legislation which triggers automatic spending cuts each time the debt ceiling needs to be raised.

hawksruleva on January 5, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I firmly believe we are engaged in a global war. No missiles have been fired yet, but perhaps at some point in the future they will be. Or, it may end similar to the Cold War, where the USA completely destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union through a variety of methods, namely by forcing them to spend billions to keep up with our defense spending. Eventually, the Soviets were bankrupted.

Sound familiar?

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Very. One thing the ChiComs are very good at is copycatting, and they’re using our own playbook against us to great effect. Turnabout is fair play after all.

I can almost hear Stalin’s ghost laughing itself silly. This is a textbook example of being hoisted by one’s own petard – and we walked right into their trap.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Reducing the size/cost/power of the federal government is the actual MANDATORY move that we must do now…not raise the debt limit. It is far too dangerous (fiscally) to allow a centralized body to have the ability to bankrupt our country.

Geministorm on January 5, 2011 at 10:07 AM

You make it sound like we can solve our financial problems in a day or a week. If we don’t raise the debt limit, we won’t be able to cover our existing obligations. That means we start handing out IOUs like California does. That doesn’t solve our problem. It’s not responsible, it’s the cheap way out.

What we do need is to work to cut spending to the point that raising the debt ceiling becomes a moot point. Withotu serious cuts now, the debt ceiling is likely to become irrelevant anyway, as our debt will reach the point where investors no longer believe we’ll be able to repay it. At that point, we’re just as screwed as if we hadn’t raised the ceiling.

hawksruleva on January 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM

OK, I’d like to screw Scarlett Johansson next time she magically appears in my hammock next time I go hiking. toliver on January 5, 2011 at 12:28 AM

You stay classy, hear?

Akzed on January 5, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Hey, at least I’m not an “evil” homosexual.

Anyway, me having hammock relations with Scarlett Johansson overlooking a mountain lake in the Sierra Nevada is about as fantastical as Republicans unilaterally cutting enough spending to make the debt ceiling a non-issue.

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM

I can almost hear Stalin’s ghost laughing itself silly. This is a textbook example of being hoisted by one’s own petard – and we walked right into their trap.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Actually, we created the trap for ourselves and gave them the keys, technology and instructions on how to operate it.

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM

From my business experience we had to make drastic cuts in budgets…regularly. First reaction, “How? Can’t be done!!!”
Next day: “OK let’s get to work and figure it out!”
Not that hard!

winston on January 5, 2011 at 6:09 AM

Exactly. They won’t do it until they have to. And once they have to, they’ll find a way to do it. He just have to make the ‘have to’ happen, cause with this ability to raise the debt limit they will never have a ‘have to’.

miConsevative on January 5, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Actually, we created the trap for ourselves and gave them the keys, technology and instructions on how to operate it.

PatriotRider on January 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Said it better than I did.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 10:36 AM

A lot of Democrats elected to Congress in 2006 and 2008 didn’t vote for war in Iraq either, but the party continued to fund the mission anyway because a gradual drawdown was more responsible than simply pulling the plug.

Eh, I have a hard time buying this line of reasoning anymore. Wingnut warmongers (a term of endearment, natch) still argue we can’t pull out or Iraq or Afghanistan because of some ill-defined but completely horrible consequences to national security. Whatever, dude, the scare tactics just aren’t plausible anymore. As far as the wars go, the only alternative to withdrawal seems to be eternal occupation. At this point, a lot of us are willing to take our chances with the catastrophe our elected officials always promise when they want to spend more money and acquire more power. Neverending war is just not an acceptable alternative.

I apply the same thinking to this debt ceiling business. Seriously – the same people who always say a crisis is coming really really really mean it this time? Whatever, dude. We’ve piled $4 trillion on the debt in like two years. Piling on another $1 trillion is just not an acceptable alternative. The only people threatening that there will be another economic crisis either don’t really know or don’t have any credibility. So bring on the crisis already.

Enrique on January 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM

From my business experience we had to make drastic cuts in budgets…regularly. First reaction, “How? Can’t be done!!!”
Next day: “OK let’s get to work and figure it out!”
Not that hard!

winston on January 5, 2011 at 6:09 AM

We have an old saying: Can’t lives on Won’t Street

darwin-t on January 5, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I don’t totally agree with the China analysis that others have put forth here. China is moving to use the debt card to extract concessions from us, like having us look the other way when they want to go forward with the re-unification of China (otherwise known as the conquest of Taiwan). If we continue our march toward unsustainable debt, we will be vulnerable to being financially forced or coerced into abandoning our allies that lie in the regions about China. This will subsequently enable them to take advantage of our declining presence by extending their control in that region, much as the Russians did after WW II. But, for the time being, China’s robust economy depends on us buying their products. So, it’s in their best interests to perpetuate this relationship until they build their economy to the point where they don’t need us anymore. When that happens, look out, but I think that we still have maybe 15-20 years to get our house in order before this scenario would play itself out.

NuclearPhysicist on January 5, 2011 at 10:56 AM

blink on January 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I meant the trap we walked into of cheap Chinese plastic cr@p. They didn’t have to bomb one factory; we closed them ourselves and shipped the jobs to peasant slaves.

The ‘shiny beads to the natives’ trick has been pulled before, by trading tea for English silver. The only solution left to Britain in the end was a war of conquest, which we are in poor condition to try with a nation of China’s size and resources.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 11:16 AM

They can cut spending and reduce the ON BUDGET items, but until this pack of thieves in DC get every ‘gubbmint’ expenditure ON BUDGET they are only pissin’ against the wind.

Could you run your household with things ‘On Budget’ and some other things ‘Off Budget’? Like the car payment is ‘On Budget’, but Johnny’s and Mary’s entertainment is ‘Off Budget’. Does that mean that you have reserves to cover Johnny’s or Mary’s trips to the mall, or their overuse of texting or cell phone minutes with their friends…or maybe Johnny left home then decided to move back in because he couldn’t make the rent playing video games all day instead of finding an f’n job?

The USGovt is wildly out of control, like a rabid animal, and needs to be controlled. Raising the debt ceiling is not controlling the beast, making it give up things, like Johnny’s and Mary’s cell phones, or the recent legislation that increased spending. The longer you wait to do it the harder it is to do.

belad on January 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Cut all federal salaries over $50K by 10% immediately, and no raises until the deficit is gone and unemployment is down to 4.5%.

Then cut the federal workforce by 10% through phasing out redundant programs, agencies, needless regulators (EPA going after carbon, etc.), attrition, etc.

Lower the federal trough ceiling.

That’s the key.

profitsbeard on January 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Glenn Beck: Raising the debt ceiling is the beginning of the end for Republicans

Yesterday it was the beginning of the end for the Democrats

Today it is the beginning of the end for the Republicans.

Every other day is the beginning of the end of the republic

Every day it is the beginning of the end of the world.

The beginning of the end is everywhere these days.

rukiddingme on January 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM

The best thing for America and our economy are austerity measures. Liberals who claim the otherwise are peeing into the winds of history. Fiscal responsibility is the way out of the mess created by big-government Democrats and RINO’s alike.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Cut all federal salaries over $50K by 10% immediately
profitsbeard on January 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Bad idea – right out of the Marxist progressive tax playbook. It’s better to tell each department it has to make 10% cuts and let them decide how to implement it.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM

This is not a situation which can be rectified without a big blow up – either hyperinflation to debase the currency and allow payment of the debt with devalued dollars or default. The Republicans should push the button by refusing to raise the ceiling and start the painful process of getting this over – as should have been done in ’08.

Oh, and I find your lack of faith…disturbing.

Hucklebuck on January 5, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Bad idea – right out of the Marxist progressive tax playbook.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Force-quit shillingfortherich.exe and THINK already.

“Federal” salaries. As in “paid for by your tax dollars.” Not “what Joe Schmoe earns in the private sector.”

One sure-fire way to stop this madness is to quit allowing the feds to pay themselves obscene salaries.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Federal” salaries. As in “paid for by your tax dollars.”
Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM

DUH! But do you think it’s good to get on Obama’s train when he says he only wants to raise taxes on people earning x dollars? Policy should not be based on salaries. I loathe this “punish the higher earners but don’t touch the little guy” mindset.

Meanwhile, do you have a problem with letting them implement their own cuts or do you want it to be micro-managed from the top like a good bureaucrat?

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Hey, if screwing Scarlett Johansson ain’t classy, then I don’t know what is. Modern day Marilyn Monroe, in my opinion.

MadisonConservative on January 5, 2011 at 11:55 AM

DUH! But do you think it’s good to get on Obama’s train when he says he only wants to raise taxes on people earning x dollars?

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM

When Obama says that, it always means putting the screw to the people who actually earn their own wages. That I do not want.

But when we’re talking the salaries of people who ‘earn’ their money from people like YOU, and never seem to earn enough? D@mn straight I want some limits. The American public has a right to demand that.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Arbitrary salary caps and cuts are not the solution. Pensions & Benefits (some of which are downright outrageous) are a bigger problem and should be addressed with a scalpel. I’m fine with eliminating entire entities and departments, but people who do a good job and have the proper credentials for essential services should be paid well – just like it works… in… the private sector. As tempting as it is to believe it, not all public sector jobs are useless or unnecessary. For example, I certainly expect and desire great people to work in the CIA and FBI – just to name one area where it would not be wise to encourage top people to flee for private sector jobs.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Since it’s “inevitable” then we should give the new GOP members a shot at doing something serious about cutting spending before we default, IMO. I get the cold turkey argument. It’s my natural inclination, but in this case I think AP et al are right.

As an aside, I can’t stand Beck. I am an apostate to the Beck popularity band wagon. I used to enjoy him on radio back when he was funny. Since he became a mega tv star and entered into his working through psychotherapy and figruing it all out on national tv stage, combined with the ego trip he seems to be on (anyone else notice how the uneducated rodeo clown has become Mr. Know-it-all, overly confident about his conclusions?), his succession of plans to save America (which are now for sale) but never seem to work out thus leading to another ‘plan’, the way he conflates Christianity with his politics, the schmaltz and verklemptiness, the sheer hucksterism of Elmer Gantry and Lonesome Rhodes, the has to be the the center of attention narcissism on display, and the facts intersperses among his paranoid ‘Black helicopters are after us’ style over reaction apocalyptic doom and gloom predictions, I’m completely turned off to the guy.

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM

WRONG

You will never get the required cuts on the government dependency crowd until the non-dependent understand its unsustainable. The government default whether now in a controllable circumstance or around 2014-2020 when SS collapses the gov in a mess it can’t just borrow out of Default is coming.

Lets deal with it NOW not tomorrow. The Repubs want to be the big boys its time to make some big boy decisions and hard cutting ones. Whole swaths of dependents will have to be told the free ride is over time to carry your own weight.

Time for balls not more business as usual lets just shape the corners and not cut deep or eliminate that may piss people off. The boss gets paid to make the unpopular ugly decisions that piss people off, Repubs want the boss job act like it.

C-Low on January 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM

The Republicans may be able to extract serious concessions on this, but even if we don’t, it has to be raised. Wrap your tiny little brains around it.

Adjoran on January 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Since it’s “inevitable” then we should give the new GOP members a shot at doing something serious about cutting spending before we default, IMO. I get the cold turkey argument. It’s my natural inclination, but in this case I think AP et al are right.

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Even if you agree with AP it would be appreciated if you guys would at least play along for a while. Thanks to your attitude that that of AllahPundit and so many others, we are now in a much weaker position to bargain for cuts than before. Now the Democrats know full well that all of the wimpy Republicans are going to turn tail and run and not put up a real fight.

We can’t do this alone guys, some help would sure be appreciated even if you get cold feet later in the process.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Now the Democrats know full well that all of the wimpy Republicans are going to turn tail and run and not put up a real fight.

…And the fight hasn’t even begun yet; the first shot hasn’t even been fired and you guys have already thrown down your rifles and surrendered.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Thanks to your attitude that that of AllahPundit and so many others, we are now in a much weaker position to bargain for cuts than before.
FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Wow! Who knew that Hot Air commenters had so much power!

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 1:15 PM

I am hopeful today that Republicans will be able to split the baby, so to speak.

Of course the ceiling will be raised. (Allahpundit and Beck have the exact same position on this issue… Allah is confusing the Judge’s stance and Beck’s position.)

Of course the ceiling will be raised. It would be direliction of duty to not raise it. The Judge would raise it too if he were the deciding vote, he has the luxury of not having any consequence for his views.

The real question is what happens before now and then to make it palable. To make it possible to actually get spending under control to make it possible that we don’t ever have to raise that ceiling again.

This should be the goal. America should be out of debt. The possibility of debt should be held in reserve for true emercencies!

Families try to get to the point where they have no debt.

Debt is slavery. For people and for countries.

With out wealth being in debt is simply unacceptable, and a sign of truly incompetent leadership.

petunia on January 5, 2011 at 1:17 PM

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Respectfully, I think you over estimate the influence of HA commenters on what Congress will be doing on this matter. The Dems can assume that we here have this kind of influence, especially on a matter that will require such immediate action, but they will be mistaken to do so IMO and ultimately to their own detriment. I saw a number of new House Repubs interviewed on Hannity last night. Did you catch it? They were not sold on the idea of not raising the debt limit when asked directly what they would do. They wanted to review all the facts before making their decision.

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 1:19 PM

out=our

With our wealth we should not be in debt. It is moral weakness that we are in debt.

petunia on January 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM

I didn’t see anything in your essay that pegged you as a proponent of reduced spending. Is that your liberal side shining through?

ultracon on January 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Respectfully, I think you over estimate the influence of HA commenters

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I wasn’t talking about HotAir commentators, I was talking about every Republican that has given up this fight before it’s even begun.

And you’re wrong about the importance of our comments here. Democrat opposition researchers no doubt peruse this and other sites to gauge our consensus. Now they know that our efforts to cut spending are futile because the left flank of the Republican party has already thrown down their rifles and surrendered, so it stands to reason that the Republicans will not have any unity in this fight, thus they can safely hold out against our efforts.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Boehner needs to put out a bill ASAP with the most popular spending cuts. Even if it’s only 25 or 50 billion of the most popular cost cutting measures, it will redirect the national debate away from the deadline back to matters at hand, cutting spending.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I didn’t see anything in your essay that pegged you as a proponent of reduced spending. Is that your liberal side shining through?
ultracon on January 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Groan. Why don’t you do some research and find some pieces to prove (or disprove!) your allegation instead of just tossing around stink bombs?

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 1:47 PM

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Oh please. Get over your histrionic hissy fit and over the top, over reaction about myself and others ‘giving up the fight’. Nonsense.

What’s really got you bugged? And at me in particular? Is it because I am a Beck apostate?

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM

What’s really got you bugged? And at me in particular? Is it because I am a Beck apostate?

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Sorry if I created the impression I was aiming at you in particular—it’s nothing personal, I don’t know anything about you and that’s the first I learned you are a Beck apostate—but the fact remains that you guys have already abandoned ship and the iceberg is still two months away.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I’d play chicken here. Push a bill through to immediately fund the government at 2007 levels, and every affected department just needs to make those job and cost cuts to match next day, up to and including cutting social security bennies and medicare costs.

I’ve been in private sector jobs where when the CFO and CEO finally pull their heads out of their arse and see that the difference between shutting up shop and continuing business requires massive and immediate cutback in spending. That then translated into massive layoffs the next day for 10 percent of the workforce, and I’ve seen the pain of fellow employees heading to the door with their cardboard box (and I’ve been both the guy seeing the door, and the guy leading people to it. Not pleasant in either scenario). That being said, it helped the company save the 90% of jobs and restructure for another day with better management.

that’s what’s needed here. Not to be callous, but I wouldn’t shed too many tears at seeing Department of Energy, Education, HUD, and Transportation employees streaming out of their gleaming new office buildings Jan 20th, cardboard boxes in hand. Better yet, cut those useless agencies entirely, tomorrow. Let the government finally experience what the rest of us have had to these past couple years.

The money just isn’t there. Period.

AttilaTheHun on January 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM

but the fact remains that you guys have already abandoned ship and the iceberg is still two months away.
FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Ha! So, it’s better to stay on the boat, hit the iceberg and drown in icy waters? Maybe you need to start over with the metaphor

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM

“The conservative way” is not to let government continue to flaunt their power in ways that ordinary people can not. When ordinary people can not pay their debts, they get calls from collection agencies. They get sued in small claims courts for damages. And if worse comes to worst, they declare bankruptcy.

“Raising the debt ceiling” should not be an option for congress as long as it’s not an option for “we the people.”

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM

But beyond that, and I ask this in all sincerity, how exactly is it “fiscally conservative” to willingly default on your obligations?

To answer AP’s question a little more directly:

It’s conservative in the same sense that conservatives generally desire people to be responsible for their own actions/inaction, up to and including bankruptcy.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM

“Raising the debt ceiling” should not be an option for congress as long as it’s not an option for “we the people.”
gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM

I think I’m going to have to read Beck’s Arguing with Idiots . Perhaps there will be hints there as to how to respond to your comments.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I think I’m going to have to read Beck’s Arguing with Idiots . Perhaps there will be hints there as to how to respond to your comments.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Considering that it’s Beck saying that raising the debt ceiling would be bad for Republicans, you must either join him in hoping for the demise of the Republican party, or it’s more likely that you’re full of…erm…hot air, for lack of a better description.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Buy Danish, please tell me what obligations will necessarily remain unmet if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

blink on January 5, 2011 at 3:36 PM

He can’t, because there are none. If taxes stay the same and the debt ceiling stays the same, assuming a static economy, government will function just the same. To say there is more that government should be doing that it isn’t? That is most certainly NOT conservative.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:39 PM

That’s not how the budget process works.

blink on January 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I’m not referring to the regular budget process.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM

The existence of offshore manufacturing capacities hasn’t been our downfall.

No…not until the suits discovered they could pay and treat their offshore employees like cr@p and get away with it, because China doesn’t even pretend to give a rip.

The most disgusting part is we let it happen mostly without a peep. Our so-called guardians collaborated with the robbers and the unions have long since grown rotten.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

The most disgusting part is we let it happen mostly without a peep. Our so-called guardians collaborated with the robbers and the unions have long since grown rotten.

Dark-Star on January 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

So maybe if we make our business environment more inviting, businesses will be less likely to leave? Naw, that’s too goddam simple, isn’t it?

For me, it hearkens back to all the brouhaha about “special interests” and “lobbyists.” I don’t care who you are — you belong to an interest group. Every last one of us does from the moment we turn 18 (and most of us even before then). The reason lobbyists lobby for their interests is because government has power over those interests.

Vis-a-vis the offshore businesses locating elsewhere, they do so because government is openly hostile to them. When you locate offshore, you’re a terrible corporate citizen — and when you locate onshore, your CEO is overpaid. Who the hell decides this crap?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:49 PM

The two political parties are already dead, zombies without agendas other than borrowing and squandering $2 trillion a year to prop up their fiefdoms, maintain the monopoly cartels which fund them and distribute bread and theatrics to keep their respective audiences idle and distracted in between “get out the vote” campaigns to whip up the Coliseum spectators’ Monster Id.

Rae on January 5, 2011 at 3:56 PM

This isn’t exactly true. The US government is obligated to pay interest and principal on it’s debt. The US government is obligated to make payments to those that were promised pensions and other retirement benefits. Etc.

But no defaults will necessarily occur just because the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

blink on January 5, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Those payments remain constant, Blink — assuming that the government is not allowed to take on new obligations, which would necessarily require an act of congress to allocate the funds. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would have only one immediate practical effect — it would freeze spending at current levels and make raising taxes or spending politically untenable propositions.

We’ve been complaining for months that upon election, the Republicans would probably offer only “token resistence” to the Democratic agenda. Now they have a chance to do something real with consequences, and we’re turning around and giving them a bunch of reasons they shouldn’t? Sounds fishy to me.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM

but the fact remains that you guys have already abandoned ship and the iceberg is still two months away.
FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Ha! So, it’s better to stay on the boat, hit the iceberg and drown in icy waters? Maybe you need to start over with the metaphor

+1

AttilaTheHun on January 5, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Blink you forget one key faact: the country needs to borrow not just to refinance principle outstanding, but also to pay interest, ie, we have to borrow the interest. We also have to borrow to make payroll, both civilian and military. So not raising the ceiling brings the government to a halt, forces us to default on our promises to pay interest and principle when due and leaves our soldiers in the field without pay for their wives and families to live on. It’s a dumb-as-shit idea not to raise the debt ceiling. By all means lets cut federal spending, but lets do it after debate and with a plan in mind. Let’s not do it by crashing into a brick wall just for the hell of it.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Without exception, every single reason I’ve read in this thread to raise the debt ceiling will be used every single time they want to do it again. They will never stop, period.

But go ahead, believe they will cut spending in any meaningful way. You know as well as I do they won’t ever do that. No matter who holds the speaker’s gavel. No matter who is in the white house or senate. It will never happen.

As an example (I’m looking at you Rod), the big news here locally was that the nasty republicans in DC were going to cut the budget by 100 billion dollars. The leftists were apoplectic that this could even be considered, let alone acted upon. But all here know full well that such a number is meaningless in a single year, or even the next 2 combined (assuming it happens at all, and there is no evidence it will).

The media will have a field day telling us how evil and stingy the republicans are, trotting out sad sack examples, one after the other (and they ain’t hard to find these days) until we wake up the day after election day 2012 to see that democrats are once again in total control of the govt. No amount of spending cuts between now and then (phantom as they will likely be) will have made any difference under those circumstances.

What I’ve outlined above has happened too many times to just be shrugged off anymore. It’s now well within the realm of “pretty well guaranteed”.

So believe if you like, but don’t get all pissy later when you get disappointed again. And if I’m wrong, I’ll be just thrilled.

runawayyyy on January 5, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Then please explain the mechanism which could be used to procure the cuts you described.

blink on January 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Boehner apparently plans to introduce a spending cut initiative each week or month, (I don’t recall which), until gradually reaching 100 billion this year. The first such installment should begin immediately.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM

but the fact remains that you guys have already abandoned ship and the iceberg is still two months away.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Ha! So, it’s better to stay on the boat, hit the iceberg and drown in icy waters? Maybe you need to start over with the metaphor

Seriously? You would abandon a perfectly good ship two months before it hit an iceberg? I would just change course.

FloatingRock on January 5, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Buy Danish, please tell me what obligations will necessarily remain unmet if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
blink on January 5, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Better yet, why don’t you tell us what discretionary spending will be affected since you say there’s plenty of discretionary dollars to go around?

Considering that it’s Beck saying that raising the debt ceiling would be bad for Republicans, you must either join him in hoping for the demise of the Republican party, or it’s more likely that you’re full of…erm…hot air, for lack of a better description.
gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 3:38 PM

My use of Beck’s book as an example was intentionally ironic. You just presented a totally false choices. I do not hope for the demise of the Republican party. One of the things I can’t stand about Beck is his preposterous “Republicans are just as bad as Dems argument”. I take issue with your suggestion that if we can’t raise our debt limits then the government shoudn’t be able to either. It’s a simplistic argument, and ignores things like, oh, funding wars and stuff.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 6:08 PM

1. Refusing to raise a debt ceiling doesn’t restrict you from refinancing.

If you borrow $500,000 to repay a $500,000 loan, then your debt ceiling can still be $500,000.

the country needs to borrow. . . to pay interest
2. This is 100% untrue. The country can pay interest from normal cash inflows without borrowing another cent.

You are wrong, plain and simple. Refinancing principal and interest requires new borrowing. Making military payrolls requires new borrowing.

Tax inflows come unevenly throughout the year, despite withholding. The government cannot finance itself without borrowing, until such time as we cut spending.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Tax inflows come unevenly throughout the year, despite withholding. The government cannot finance itself without borrowing, until such time as we cut spending.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Cut the spending then.

Look – I’m all for raising the debt ceiling – but only after all avenues to cut spending have been exhausted.

What are we waiting for?

HondaV65 on January 5, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Glenn Beck and other pundits don’t seem to understand how things work in Congress before they open their mouths that this is the beginning of the end for Republicans. Beck’s program is starting to be sent packing by blow torch stations so maybe they have come to the conclusion that just maybe he goes off on rants on things he doesn’t understand.

Tired of DeMint always grandstanding as well.

PhiKapMom on January 5, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Being responsible means paying for the things you buy. It also means living within your means. The new Congress should raise the debt ceiling, but pass legislation which triggers automatic spending cuts each time the debt ceiling needs to be raised.

hawksruleva on January 5, 2011 at 10:26 AM

A reasonable outline.

As an aside, I can’t stand Beck. I am an apostate to the Beck popularity band wagon. I used to enjoy him on radio back when he was funny. Since he became a mega tv star and entered into his working through psychotherapy and figruing it all out on national tv stage, combined with the ego trip he seems to be on (anyone else notice how the uneducated rodeo clown has become Mr. Know-it-all, overly confident about his conclusions?), his succession of plans to save America (which are now for sale) but never seem to work out thus leading to another ‘plan’, the way he conflates Christianity with his politics, the schmaltz and verklemptiness, the sheer hucksterism of Elmer Gantry and Lonesome Rhodes, the has to be the the center of attention narcissism on display, and the facts intersperses among his paranoid ‘Black helicopters are after us’ style over reaction apocalyptic doom and gloom predictions, I’m completely turned off to the guy.

JimP on January 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I agree with much of that, but hey, at least he ditched that awful intro music.

Blink you forget one key faact: the country needs to borrow not just to refinance principle outstanding, but also to pay interest, ie, we have to borrow the interest. We also have to borrow to make payroll, both civilian and military. So not raising the ceiling brings the government to a halt, forces us to default on our promises to pay interest and principle when due and leaves our soldiers in the field without pay for their wives and families to live on. It’s a dumb-as-shit idea not to raise the debt ceiling. By all means lets cut federal spending, but lets do it after debate and with a plan in mind. Let’s not do it by crashing into a brick wall just for the hell of it.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Another guy that gets it.

Without exception, every single reason I’ve read in this thread to raise the debt ceiling will be used every single time they want to do it again. They will never stop, period.

runawayyyy on January 5, 2011 at 4:33 PM

The new Congress can do some cutting, with more to come if we win in 2012. What you propose is disaster.

You are wrong, plain and simple. Refinancing principal and interest requires new borrowing. Making military payrolls requires new borrowing.

Tax inflows come unevenly throughout the year, despite withholding. The government cannot finance itself without borrowing, until such time as we cut spending.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 7:25 PM

True.

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I’ve never claimed there was plenty of discretionary spending dollars to go around. I claimed that the budget can be balanced (or certainly, the debt limit can be avoided) by only cutting discretionary spending.
blink on January 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Really? Detail the discretionary spending cuts please. The GOP is talking about $100 billion in cuts in the calendar year. If you can balance the budget in the short period of the time between now and the Debt Ceiling vote you must have some great ideas you should share with us. I don’t know of anyone who is saying we can do this in such a short time (without inflicting tremendous damage)and I don’t know anyone who says it can be done without touching entitlements. f.w.i.w. I also oppose a balanced budget amendment.

I’m simply asking you to tell me what obligations won’t be met. I’m waiting.

This has already been explained to you. Obviously we need to demand concessions from Obama before we agree to raise the debt limit, but raise it we must.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Tax inflows come unevenly throughout the year, despite withholding. The government cannot finance itself without borrowing, until such time as we cut spending.

MTF on January 5, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Then we cut spending NOW. Not a month from now. Not a week from now. NOW.

We elected those jokers cause we were sick of business as usual. You know when the last time the debt ceiling went down was?

1963

It’s been almost 48 years, but it has been done. It can be done. I reject the premise of the arguement that the debt ceiling has to be raised one more time because if it is, and it’s still business as usual, we’ll all be scratching our heads wondering why.

I know how congress works well enough to know that they’re held to a different standard. Theft, bribery, racketeering, ponzi schemes, they get away with a shitload of stuff that average people can’t get away with — including defaulting on their debts. That’s what you debt ceiling apologists don’t seem to get. They’ve already defaulted. They just haven’t admitted it to us and the world yet.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 10:50 PM

This has already been explained to you. Obviously we need to demand concessions from Obama before we agree to raise the debt limit, but raise it we must.

Buy Danish on January 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

So what happens when Obama welches on his concessions? Or what if he gives in knowing that we won’t get any concessions from Harry Reid and the senate? You can’t possibly be that naive.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Then we cut spending NOW. Not a month from now. Not a week from now. NOW.

We elected those jokers cause we were sick of business as usual. You know when the last time the debt ceiling went down was?

1963

It’s been almost 48 years, but it has been done. It can be done. I reject the premise of the arguement that the debt ceiling has to be raised one more time because if it is, and it’s still business as usual, we’ll all be scratching our heads wondering why.

I know how congress works well enough to know that they’re held to a different standard. Theft, bribery, racketeering, ponzi schemes, they get away with a shitload of stuff that average people can’t get away with — including defaulting on their debts. That’s what you debt ceiling apologists don’t seem to get. They’ve already defaulted. They just haven’t admitted it to us and the world yet.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Congress does not have dictatorial powers. Really, educate yourself about the default that would happen if we do not raise the debt ceiling.

Are you a Palin supporter [for Prez in 2012]?

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Congress does not have dictatorial powers. Really, educate yourself about the default that would happen if we do not raise the debt ceiling.

Are you a Palin supporter [for Prez in 2012]?

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Correction — Congress does not have dictatorial powers authorized to it by the constitution. If you believe that they don’t exercise unauthorized dictatorial powers as it is, then you have no place in the debate while you call yourself a “conservative.”

I’ve educated myself about what will happen if the government admits default. It’s no worse than what will happen when the rest of the world decides we’ve defaulted and goes on to another reserve currency without our acknowledgement. But will failure to raise the debt ceiling cause default? You’d better watch out how you answer that. You may come dangerously close to agreeing with “Awesome” Austin Goolsbee if you haven’t already.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Are you a Palin supporter [for Prez in 2012]?

toliver on January 5, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Funny you should have to ask that, Tol. If you haven’t figured that out by now, I’m not going to let you make this into another Sarah Palin thread.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Not one single person in this thread has suggested that spending shouldn’t be cut.

There is still over $100 billion before the ceiling is reached. That’s more than enough to deal with any lumpiness of inflow and outflow.

blink on January 5, 2011 at 11:49 PM

In fact, at least one person in this thread (myself0 has suggested that we put real money on the chopping block ASAP, before the debt ceiling even comes up for a vote. It disappoints me in the extreme to see how many self-professed “conservatives” accuse me of having my priorities ass-backwards.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM

No, nobody has outlined the obligations which will definitely default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

blink on January 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Although there have been a few utterly pathetic attempts to parrot Austin Goolsbee and tell us what the administration opines we’ll default on if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. Way to go, fellers!

/facepalm

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Are you definitively stating that it’s physically impossible to balance the budget prior to reaching the debt ceiling? (Notice that I didn’t ask if it’s impossible to efficiently balance the budget.)

blink on January 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Blinky, come on. What about my three-part plan?

1. No new spending. NONE

2. No new taxes. NONE

3. Leave the debt ceiling exactly where it is until such time as the budget is balanced beneath it.

Efficient? Probably not. But that’s all it would really take. Just #2 alone would remove a lot of the uncertainty that is a current impediment to economic growth.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:09 AM

If you borrow $500,000 to repay a $500,000 loan, then your debt ceiling can still be $500,000. There is not requirement to raise the $500,000 debt ceiling in order to refi the $500,000 loan.

Ever hear of interest?

Funny you should have to ask that, Tol. If you haven’t figured that out by now, I’m not going to let you make this into another Sarah Palin thread.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I’m asking because she doesn’t support the kamikaze approach to the debt ceiling.

Dude, you simply don’t know how the government is financed.

Do you think Paul Ryan is knowledgeable on this? He was on Hewitts show today. Sure, most Republicans will talk tough now to negotiate, but most are not stupid.

And tell me how you’ll explain the big cuts to medicare that you would have to enact [among other things].

This problem was a long time a’comin’, and it won’t be solved by ignorant actions. When you’re out in the wilderness with little provisions, don’t move fast – it’ll get you killed.

toliver on January 6, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Dude, you simply don’t know how the government is financed.

toliver on January 6, 2011 at 12:10 AM

All I need to know is that the government is financed on the backs of its people, by means that would be criminal if private citizens were to engage in them.

The debt ceiling has not been lowered since 1963. It has been raised six billion dollars to 1.9 trillion. If you think holding government to the same standards as the people it rules is “unreasonable” or “ignorant,” then you deserve another four years of Obama.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM

From six billion to 1.9 trillion. Pardon me.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5