The House passes a clean debt ceiling bill

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

The House passed a no strings attached bill to hike the debt ceiling for a year. After John Boehner brought the bill to the floor 28 Republicans (Boehner included) joined with the minority democrats to pass the bill.

A few things about this peak my interest, first off John Boehner allowed this to go to the floor at all which very well could signify moving towards working with all members of congress rather than simply a majority of the majority. This might mean that more stuff actually starts getting done. Second this was not an "eleventh hour deal" meaning Boehner did not wait until the last second to embrace this bill. And third hopefully this means no longer using the US. credit rating as leverage to gain political points.

Does anyone else think this could be a step to returning to sane law making or am I way off base?

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/11/275371498/house-to-vote-on-clean-debt-limit-bill

#2 Edited by ristactionjakso (5627 posts) -

Ya it's great to have more debt.

#3 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -
#4 Edited by ristactionjakso (5627 posts) -
#5 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@ristactionjakso: Would you prefer that we not pay the bills for the services that we already received? Because that is what raising the debt ceilling does.

#6 Posted by ristactionjakso (5627 posts) -

@ristactionjakso: Would you prefer that we not pay the bills for the services that we already received? Because that is what raising the debt ceilling does.

That's just kicking the can further down the road. There are many things that can happen to help fix problems we have, but this isn't one of them. How about cutting off all the foreign aid to countries that hate us for a start?

#7 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@ristactionjakso:

How much of the budget do you think goes to foreign aid (percentage wise) and how much do you think should really go to foreign aid?

#8 Edited by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

Or you could just say how much you prefer to see the US to contribute to foreign aid rather than making a guestimation on what it actually is.

#9 Posted by Master_Live (13635 posts) -

which very well could signify moving towards working with all members of congress rather than simply a majority of the majority. This might mean that more stuff actually starts getting done.

Does anyone else think this could be a step to returning to sane law making or am I way off base?

Off base. This got done for two reasons:

  1. Republicans couldn't coalesce behind one demand to force a concession out of the President so rather than ask for something a majority of Republicans would back, get hurt politically because the caucus wouldn't be in lock step and then cave anyway under pressure they decided to surrender without the political damage (not on the right, many are fuming at Boehner).
  2. Republicans know they have an excellent chance at retaining the House and a good chance of gaining control of the Senate at the midterms. Instead of making themselves the issue (Boehner owns words) they will keep the focus on what is precisely giving them the chance at gaining control of the Senate: the Obamacare fiasco.

If you doubt me just look at what happened at the immigrations "principles" the House leadership released a week ago and got killed 2 days later by the conservatives.

And that is that.

#10 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -
#11 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
which very well could signify moving towards working with all members of congress rather than simply a majority of the majority. This might mean that more stuff actually starts getting done.

Does anyone else think this could be a step to returning to sane law making or am I way off base?

Off base. This got done for two reasons:

  1. Republicans couldn't coalesce behind one demand to force a concession out of the President so rather than ask for something a majority of Republicans would back, get hurt politically because the caucus wouldn't be in lock step and then cave anyway under pressure they decided to surrender without the political damage (not on the right, many are fuming at Boehner).
  2. Republicans know they have an excellent chance at retaining the House and a good chance of gaining control of the Senate at the midterms. Instead of making themselves the issue (Boehner owns words) they will keep the focus on what is precisely giving them the chance at gaining control of the Senate: the Obamacare fiasco.

If you doubt me just look at what happened at the immigrations "principles" the House leadership released a week ago and got killed 2 days later by the conservatives.

And that is that.

That, and their popularity got even worse the last time they held the country hostage and allowed the shutdown to happen. With elections coming up, they want the public to forget that as soon as possible--which they can't do by doing it all over yet again.

#12 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7691 posts) -

Good to see it. There's no need to take the country hostage again. I'm thinking that some reps probably supported it to alleviate some blame if it impacted the US negatively again seeing as the midterms are coming up.

#13 Posted by comp_atkins (31109 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: Would you prefer that we not pay the bills for the services that we already received? Because that is what raising the debt ceilling does.

That's just kicking the can further down the road. There are many things that can happen to help fix problems we have, but this isn't one of them. How about cutting off all the foreign aid to countries that hate us for a start?

congrats.. you saved .003% of the budget. what's the next idea?

#14 Edited by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: Would you prefer that we not pay the bills for the services that we already received? Because that is what raising the debt ceilling does.

That's just kicking the can further down the road. There are many things that can happen to help fix problems we have, but this isn't one of them. How about cutting off all the foreign aid to countries that hate us for a start?

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

And it's an important question because when a party demands a concession in return for raising the debt ceiling, the implication is that they want to default on the debt.

#15 Edited by ferrari2001 (16677 posts) -

I think this is more of an indication of the decreasing power of the tea party within congress then it is a change in John Boehner. It seems to me that the group most responsible for the lack of passing bills in congress is the tea party who has had significant sway over the voting public and various members of the republican party. I think what we see is their power and influence beginning to diminish. Hopefully this will allow congress to actually get more things done this session.

#16 Posted by Barbariser (6704 posts) -

I was under the impression that to actually block the debt ceiling this time round, you would need something like a 60% majority due to a clause they put in last year. Not even the Republicans are foolish enough to start a fight with absolutely no chance of victory.

#17 Posted by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

I was under the impression that to actually block the debt ceiling this time round, you would need something like a 60% majority due to a clause they put in last year. Not even the Republicans are foolish enough to start a fight with absolutely no chance of victory.

I don't think that passed. In fact, Senator Ted Cruz demanded a filibuster vote in the Senate this time around which passed 67 to 31.

#18 Posted by Barbariser (6704 posts) -
@mattbbpl said:

@Barbariser said:

I was under the impression that to actually block the debt ceiling this time round, you would need something like a 60% majority due to a clause they put in last year. Not even the Republicans are foolish enough to start a fight with absolutely no chance of victory.

I don't think that passed. In fact, Senator Ted Cruz demanded a filibuster vote in the Senate this time around which passed 67 to 31.

Yep, I did some more reading and the Default Extension Act expired a few days ago. I think his filibuster was quashed, not passed by that margin though.

#19 Posted by comp_atkins (31109 posts) -

was listening to mark levin the other night freaking out over this. always makes me smile when that douchebag loses his mind.

#20 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

Damn Boehner and McConnell voted for this legislation. Fun times for McConnell I'm sure, especially with an upcoming election.

#21 Posted by the_bi99man (11028 posts) -

Why even bother cleaning that ceiling? It's just gonna get filthy again.

#22 Edited by Netherscourge (16327 posts) -

@ristactionjakso said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: that's not what raising the debt ceiling does.

They do it to spend more. It's a fantastic plan.

They raise the ceiling so that current bills can continue intact.

#23 Posted by the_bi99man (11028 posts) -
#24 Posted by JimB (143 posts) -

What need to happen is to pass a budget. The senate has not passed a budget in five years. Every department need to be cut by ten percent for starters. Then we have to get some people in the government that actually know what they are doing and have some common sense.

#25 Posted by The-Apostle (12108 posts) -

And the frivolous overspending continues...

#26 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

So the House passed the dirty debt ceiling that Obama wanted? How much is the new debt ceiling at? We'll probably reach $20 Trillion by the end of Obama's tenure, but at least this year the deficit is projected to be at about $500 billion, a little higher than Bush era levels but not quite the $1 trillion dollars we've been seeing since FY2009.

#27 Edited by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@ristactionjakso:

How much of the budget do you think goes to foreign aid (percentage wise) and how much do you think should really go to foreign aid?

It's less than 1 percent.

#28 Posted by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

The way this was handled in the Senate is an excellent lesson in politics. Republican senators are cursing Cruz under their breath right now.

#29 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso:

How much of the budget do you think goes to foreign aid (percentage wise) and how much do you think should really go to foreign aid?

It's less than 1 percent.

you are correct sir.

#30 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

The way this was handled in the Senate is an excellent lesson in politics. Republican senators are cursing Cruz under their breath right now.

Honestly Cruz had better not have any scandals of his own in the future, the GOP establishment would come down on him incredibly hard.

#31 Posted by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

The way this was handled in the Senate is an excellent lesson in politics. Republican senators are cursing Cruz under their breath right now.

Honestly Cruz had better not have any scandals of his own in the future, the GOP establishment would come down on him incredibly hard.

Yeah, he hasn't made many friends there, that's for certain.

#32 Posted by ristactionjakso (5627 posts) -

@Netherscourge said:

@ristactionjakso said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: that's not what raising the debt ceiling does.

They do it to spend more. It's a fantastic plan.

They raise the ceiling so that current bills can continue intact.

which involves spending more money...

Dude, don't bother. They don't understand why it's bad to spend more money and to constantly raise the debt ceiling.

#33 Edited by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@Netherscourge said:

@ristactionjakso said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: that's not what raising the debt ceiling does.

They do it to spend more. It's a fantastic plan.

They raise the ceiling so that current bills can continue intact.

which involves spending more money...

Dude, don't bother. They don't understand why it's bad to spend more money and to constantly raise the debt ceiling.

raising the debt ceiling is paying for what you bought, if you want reductions in spending (which by the way has been on a downward trend throughout the Obama administration) you gotta do that well before you reached the limit.

#34 Posted by Master_Live (13635 posts) -

@ristactionjakso said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Netherscourge said:

@ristactionjakso said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: that's not what raising the debt ceiling does.

They do it to spend more. It's a fantastic plan.

They raise the ceiling so that current bills can continue intact.

which involves spending more money...

Dude, don't bother. They don't understand why it's bad to spend more money and to constantly raise the debt ceiling.

raising the debt ceiling is paying for what you bought, if you want reductions in spending (which by the way has been on a downward trend throughout the Obama administration) you gotta do that well before you reached the limit.

Yep, gotta thank the sequester for that.

#35 Posted by Barbariser (6704 posts) -

Dude, don't bother. They don't understand why it's bad to spend more money and to constantly raise the debt ceiling.

Ahahah no. People who want to raise/eliminate the debt ceiling have a far better understanding of fiscal and economic policy than those who don't. You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant and/or stupid to think that defaulting or slashing 500 billion+ dollars off annual government spending is worse than raising the debt ceiling.

#36 Edited by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Netherscourge said:

@ristactionjakso said:

@Serraph105 said:

@ristactionjakso: that's not what raising the debt ceiling does.

They do it to spend more. It's a fantastic plan.

They raise the ceiling so that current bills can continue intact.

which involves spending more money...

Dude, don't bother. They don't understand why it's bad to spend more money and to constantly raise the debt ceiling.

raising the debt ceiling is paying for what you bought, if you want reductions in spending (which by the way has been on a downward trend throughout the Obama administration) you gotta do that well before you reached the limit.

Yep, gotta thank the sequester for that.

Except that the deficit started it's downward trend after 2009, and the sequester didn't take effect until 2013. I'm not arguing it wasn't part if it though.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

#37 Posted by Master_Live (13635 posts) -

Change in deficit when compare to the previous fiscal year:

  • 2010: -119
  • 2011: +6
  • 2012: -213
  • 2013: -407*

*Sequester went into effect. And now Obama goes around taking credit for the deficit reduction, when he never wanted the sequester in the first place. Democrats can be such rats sometimes. Doesn't matter, we are about to get some real deficit reduction after 2014.

#38 Edited by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

Change in deficit when compare to the previous fiscal year:

  • 2010: -119
  • 2011: +6
  • 2012: -213
  • 2013: -407*

*Sequester went into effect. And now Obama goes around taking credit for the deficit reduction, when he never wanted the sequester in the first place. Democrats can be such rats sometimes. Doesn't matter, we are about to get some real deficit reduction after 2014.

like I said, the downward trend began after 2009 and the sequestration began in 2013. Not all that difficult to understand really.

#39 Posted by Barbariser (6704 posts) -

Change in deficit when compare to the previous fiscal year:

  • 2010: -119
  • 2011: +6
  • 2012: -213
  • 2013: -407*

*Sequester went into effect. And now Obama goes around taking credit for the deficit reduction, when he never wanted the sequester in the first place. Democrats can be such rats sometimes. Doesn't matter, we are about to get some real deficit reduction after 2014.

The sequester only cuts $85 billion a year (and of that, only a reduction of 42 billion in FY2013), the deficit reduction in FY2013 would still have been 300-350+ billion dollars without it. You're ignoring the reason why Democrats didn't want it - it cost the U.S. $90-95 billion in G.D.P. and 700, 000 jobs in the process.

#40 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

Change in deficit when compare to the previous fiscal year:

  • 2010: -119
  • 2011: +6
  • 2012: -213
  • 2013: -407*

*Sequester went into effect. And now Obama goes around taking credit for the deficit reduction, when he never wanted the sequester in the first place. Democrats can be such rats sometimes. Doesn't matter, we are about to get some real deficit reduction after 2014.

The sequester only cuts $85 billion a year (and of that, only a reduction of 42 billion in FY2013), the deficit reduction in FY2013 would still have been 300-350+ billion dollars without it. You're ignoring the reason why Democrats didn't want it - it cost the U.S. $90-95 billion in G.D.P. and 700, 000 jobs in the process.

Name calling ensues when the number don't read the way Master_Live wants apparently.

#41 Edited by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

The way this was handled in the Senate is an excellent lesson in politics. Republican senators are cursing Cruz under their breath right now.

Honestly Cruz had better not have any scandals of his own in the future, the GOP establishment would come down on him incredibly hard.

Speaking of which:

@Article said:

Conservative Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, suggested on a radio show Thursday that the 12 Republican senators who voted to proceed with debate on the bill to extend the nation’s borrowing authority -- and thereby helping Democrats break Cruz’s filibuster -- misled their constituents about their true intentions.

“I recently had my staff print out a list of three pages of Republican senators — I might note all the people that are running around the press saying nasty things about me — saying ‘We will stand on the debt ceiling and fight for it,’” Cruz said on the Mark Levin show. “And then a few months later, it’s like they think the American people are just a bunch of rubes, that we don’t remember what they say.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-republicans-are-misleading-voters-on-debt-limit/

#42 Posted by Serraph105 (27580 posts) -

@mattbbpl:

I hate to praise the man, but that's rather awesome of him. Would be more awesome if I thought that choosing to default on the debt was the right thing to do.

#43 Posted by mattbbpl (10553 posts) -

@mattbbpl:

I hate to praise the man, but that's rather awesome of him. Would be more awesome if I thought that choosing to default on the debt was the right thing to do.

Even a wrong clock is right twice a day, as they say.

He was saying the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I applaude the moment of unanticipated honesty just the same.