Threatening not to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling -- the amount of debt the country is legally allowed to issue -- is "like playing with fire," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"If we didn't renew the debt ceiling ... We might permanently threaten confidence of the credit markets in the dollar, which could create a recession worse than the one we have now or even a depression," he said.
Republican Senator Tom Coburn also predicted a dire outcome if lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement to put the country's fiscal house in order.
"If in fact the bond vigilantes come after the government bonds in the next two to three years, we will have such bigger pain than not raising the debt ceiling," Coburn said on the same television program.
The Obama administration is under pressure to put a cap on spending to curb its $1.3 trillion budget deficit.
Coburn said he thought he would vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling only if there was a specific amount of spending cuts on the table.
However, Coburn said he believed the administration and lawmakers could reach an agreement before the U.S. hits the debt ceiling.
Now anything that has both Tom Coburn and Chuck Schumer on the same side is going to pass easily. The only question is how much the Republicans will be able to demand in spending cuts and other legislative issues before the debt clock goes boom and takes our economy with it.
So yeah, this is going to be another hostage situation like the Bush Tax cuts expiring, although that had a hard deadline of December 31, the debt ceiling is a bit more nebulous. Still, I fully expect the Republicans to push for as much as they can possibly get in the next six weeks, up to and including repealing health care reform, before they'll agree to letting this happen.
How much with Obama and the Democrats give in? We're about to find out.
Posts
11 comments:
So yeah, this is going to be another hostage situation like the Bush Tax cuts expiring,...
Still using violent rhetoric? I sure hope nobody uses your words to do something violent, because you would have to own up to your own responsibility for such a thing, wouldn't you?
Stevie-poo, you have a... REMARKABLY low bar for violent rhetoric. Try not to play limbo with it, you'll probably need a steamroller.
Zandar is describing a situation AS a hostage situation. You know, in the sense of taking legislation hostage to force concessions? (Or actually, preventing legislation from going through, of which not passing could create heavy problems for the nation.) It's not an actual call for progressives to take human hostages, or even suggesting that progressives take legislators hostage, which would be actual violent rhetoric.
Again, Stevie-poo proves that the right specializes in "throwing shit until it sticks", and that he is a moron. Thank you for the validation, although I didn't particularly need it.
Again, Stevie-poo proves that the right specializes in "throwing shit until it sticks", and that he is a moron.
Project much? Here's a restatement of the facts from Don Surber:
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.
Thanks to lefties "throwing shit until it sticks", the CNN poll shows 56% of Democrats believing Palin was even somewhat responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon. That's getting close to the percentage of Democrats who are 9/11 Truthers.
I may be a moron, but I'm a genius compared to you.
You're saying more than 56% of Democrats are "9/11 Truthers"? Really?
Yes.
I take Ramussen about as seriously as I take Free Republic and World Net Daily.
That is, not at all.
That said, looking at the link...
Oh, for fucks sake. Not only has set a low bar on "violent rhetoric", he's set a low bar on "truther" too.
This is what's not behind the subscriber wall:
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
SteveAR, a Truther is someone who believes that Bush and company had a direct hand in the attacks, either through operatives or commissioning such an attack. A truther is not someone who believes that the Bush administration had information that an attack was imminent.
OR, as a note, took advantage of the attack to push their agenda through.
It's the difference between negligence and outright malice.
Christ.
StarStorm, first off, you and the rest of the left are not the final arbiters about the definition of words and phrases. I'll show why below
Second, do you not read plain English? Read that first line from the poll: "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance." That is a specific statement, George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Not terrorist attacks in general, or that Bush knew terrorists would attempt some kind of attack at some as-yet undefined point in time, but specifically the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For anyone, anyone, to think this is so, they would have to be one of two things: delusional, or someone of no integrity willing to lie about what Bush knew about those attacks. It's an accusation of malice, just as those who say Bush had a direct hand in the attacks. One is an implicit accusation, the other is explicit; but both are accusations of malice.
Those making either of those implicit or explicit accusations are 9/11 Truthers.
Hi I'm Steve and I define anyone who doesn't like Republicans as 9/11 Truthers.
Guy's a joke.
@event horizon
yeah, most of us here figured that out pretty quickly.
Event Horizon:
Hi I'm Steve and I define anyone who doesn't like Republicans as 9/11 Truthers.
Aw, poor thing. Liberals spent more than a week slandering Palin and conservatives by trying to tie them to the tragedy in Tuscon and Event Horizon is upset that most Democrats are shown to be 9/11 Truthers. Which, by the way, Loughner was as well. Call the Waah-mbulance.
Post a Comment