Economics

CPAC Talking Points: Raising the Debt Ceiling Is Still Debatable in the GOP

|

The rebellion by congressional Republicans against the party leadership doesn't seem likely to stop with yesterday's PATRIOT Act vote. In his CPAC speech this morning, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) continued to beat the drum for stopping the growth of the national debt. Calling a vote to raise the debt ceiling "the most irresponsible" thing Congress could do, Toomey isn't letting this debate peter out without a fight.

Peace purchased at the expense of bankruptcy

This excerpt from Toomey's hometown paper, the Allentown Morning Caller, sums things up:

The possibility of default is the Obama administration's strongest case for raising the debt limit before it's reached this spring.

Some economists agree with Toomey that not raising the debt limit doesn't have to mean the U.S. would default, because there is enough money to pay off debt if other spending cuts are made. But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.

Over half the GOP senators have signed on to Toomey's debt-capping amendment, but Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has studiously avoided the question while Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has admitted the ceiling will be going up. In his talk this morning, McConnell offered a string of red meat platitudes—he even mentioned Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) as part of the great, new team that will take on spending and the debt, despite his displeasure with Paul's stance on Henry Clay. And one of the big applause lines was "bucking the trend is in our (e.g. conservatives') DNA." Soon enough, we'll see how serious McConnell and Boehner are about bucking the trend towards bankruptcy. 

More from Reason on the debt here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

125 responses to “CPAC Talking Points: Raising the Debt Ceiling Is Still Debatable in the GOP

  1. The rebellion by congressional Republicans against the party leadership doesn’t seem likely to stop with yesterday’s PATRIOT Act vote.

    At least, let’s hope so!!

  2. it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.

    Name ’em. Time for adult decisions.

    1. They’re ALL important!

      1. Good. That makes cutting *much* easier.

        1. Yup. Cut ’em with a wrecking ball.

    2. I don’t understand how economists are necessarily any better at determining which federal agencies are important than anyone else. In fact, I’m not sure why economists are consulted on this question at all, since the previous question about the inevitability of default is more related to accounting than economics.

      Is it me, or is the media starting to treat economists as our new High Priesthood?

      1. Kiss my ring, peasant!

      2. You should take note that no names were given and no actual quotes.

        I suspect that the reporter simply pulled it out of thin air.

      3. Honestly, are there ANY “economists” that people should be taking seriously, at least from the Ivy League set? These are the same clowns that are either relentlessly bullish, regardless of the circumstances, and thus are completely stunned when the inevitable downturns happen; or, like Paulie Krugnuts, are incapable of producing more than party-line propoganda, especially when their political team of choice happens to be in the majority.

  3. “In his talk this morning, McConnell offered a string of red meat platitudes ? he even mentioned Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) as part of the great, new team that will take on spending and the debt, despite his displeasure with Paul’s stance on Henry Clay.”

    Now THAT’s a red meat platitude if I’ve ever seen one!

    1. More like a potato platitude.

        1. Idaho, but maybe Sarah does. Alaska.

          1. Talladega pit. A deep one.

            1. While shooting elephants in Africa, I found the tusks very difficult to remove. But in Alabama, the Tuscaloosa.

    2. Just for the record: Fuck Henry Clay.

  4. “Some economists agree with Toomey that not raising the debt limit doesn’t have to mean the U.S. would default, because there is enough money to pay off debt if other spending cuts are made.”

    Plus we have Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke and the Paper Mill!

    “But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.”

    And obviously, the Morning Caller editorialist wrote this without even questioning the wishy-washiness and subjectivity of the term “too many.”

    1. Also “important”

      1. Also “federal agencies”!

        1. [While we’re at it…]

          Also “force”

          Force?

    2. There only was a small typo in there

      … it would force important cuts at many federal agencies.

  5. “Some economists agree with Toomey that not raising the debt limit doesn’t have to mean the U.S. would default, because there is enough money to pay off debt if other spending cuts are made. But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.”

    Is this supposed to suggest the ‘other economists’ don’t agree with the ‘some economists’? The first sentence is factual, the second is a value judgment.

  6. Please, it’s a platypus, and it’s controlling him from underneath the table…

  7. Does anyone else think Mitch McConnell bears a striking resemblance to Tippy the Turtle?

    Less pandering, more cutty-cutty of the credit cards, Mitch!

    1. More like Miss Hathaway from The Beverly Hillbillies.

      1. She was in politics once, and Buddy Ebsen appeared in an ad against her.

        1. She later came out as gay, BTW.

          1. Because of Buddy’s betrayal?

          2. Acknowledging the obvious is not a revelation.

            1. I always thought she was doing Mr. Drysdale.

    2. More like a catcher’s mitt with glasses.

  8. China doesn’t even have a debt ceiling. That’s because they are too busy DOING things that they don’t have time to worry about whether or not they have enough money. They will make America their BITCHES. Instead of arguing about this, we need to be getting shit DONE.

    1. The Truth hurts.

      1. We have two options. Either we keep arguing and let China continue to kick our asses, or we can start spending on GRAND projects like national high speed rail and green energy. Did the Founders worry about money when they were fighting the British? No because money doesn’t matter when you are thinking of the BIG PICTURE.

        1. Far be from me to complain about a free service; reasonable is completely awesome. But, sadly, it doesn’t work on Chrome on Mac. It has bored me greatly to have to read this moron’s nonsense all day.

          Wishing Anonotroll would drown in cat piss.

          1. But…but…BIG PICTURE, SugarFree!!!1!

        2. YELLOW PERIL!!!

          1. I think Nutrasweet dumped cat piss on annoyingbot

        3. Did the Founders worry about money when they were fighting the British?

          Umm, actually, yes. Constantly.

          1. That was Alexander Hamilton’s biggest concern: funding for the fledgling states and wrote most prolifically on the subject of national finance. In between promoting monarchy and centralized government, that is.

            1. Don’t spoil his fascist concern trolling with facts!

          2. Yes, that made me chuckle.

        4. The truth sucks.

    2. I wonder if The Truth has even been to China.

    3. Screw the long run, we have to live in the now, is that what you’re saying?

      “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

    4. Tiger Mom?

    5. You really are Thomas L Friedman, aren’t you?

      That or Eric Cartman.

      1. Screw you guys – I’m goin’ home

      2. He’s definitely doing something to his ass.

      3. Cartman is way to utilitarian and evil to be The Truth. My money is on Friedman.

    6. Comments like this remind me of the protest guy who called into Chatterbox FM in GTA3. It’s all about giving the power back to the people, Lazlow.

  9. Mubarak said he’s not stepping down BTW.

    1. Re: Heller,

      Mubarak said he’s not stepping down BTW.

      Cue the army….

    2. Those are some angry mofo’s in Tahir Sq. after that fail of a speech

  10. http://www.sj-r.com/top-storie…..crash-case

    There is your daily kick in the nuts. Motherfucker was doing 128 mph while texting and emailing and killed two teenage girls. he gets 30 months probation and has the fucking balls to file a workman’s comp claim.

    Do I even have to mention he is fucking cop?

    1. John, for the love of fuck, are you Radley’s devil spawn or something?

      Fuck me – that’s awful….

      1. “We are going to do it on the sly with no press,” [Arbitrator Jennifer] Teague wrote in an e-mail to her court reporter.

        _

        Hopefully she didn’t sent that email while doing a buck twenty-six down the highway.

        1. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!

          *gouging at eyes with forks*

    2. Oh my god. Words don’t even describe.

      This calls for some vigilante-justice, tar-and-feathering type remedy

    3. Are you fucking kidding me?

    4. John, please limit those to Fridays. Please.

      My poor nuts.

    5. That is an OUTRAGE!!!! No doubt the pork knuckle will get his stupid pension too!

      Thanks John…my ovaries.

    6. I love you, John, but Radley covered this back in September:

      https://reason.com/blog/2010/09…..sm-roundup

      1. BTW, this is who this fucker killed:

        http://images.google.com/imgre…..h:1&itbs=1

      2. The whole “let’s not let on to the public that we’re going to pay this guy for something that would earn them consecutive life sentences” angle is a new twist.

    7. I’m completely ignorant of workers’ comp issues. Does he even have a case? I get that he was on duty, but wouldn’t his negligence eliminate the workers’ comp claim?

      1. NoVA, he’s a cop. Negligence isn’t even possible, legally.

        Consider: when a cop is waving a gun around with his trigger on the figure and puts a round in someone, its never “negligence”. Nope, just an accident. When bad things happen involving machinery that cops are attached to, they are just passive bystanders. “The gun went off”. “The car killed two girls.”

        1. NoVA, he’s a cop. Negligence isn’t even possible, legally.

          Consider: when a cop is waving a gun around with his trigger on the figure and puts a round in someone, its never “negligence”. Nope, just an accident. When bad things happen involving machinery that cops are attached to, they are just passive bystanders. “The gun went off”. “The car killed two girls.”

          One must wonder why we need cops in the first place.

      2. thanks, I just threw up a little.

    8. Re: John,

      Are you channeling Will Griggs??

  11. Also, can someone comment on dipshit’s looks so Tanya will come troll here? She’s still back on the Reason Cruise thread, and I want her to come play.

    OH, all right, I’ll do it….

    “Mitch McConnell is certainly an unattractive human being, which I only note because he is a white male. I’ll not make mention of other people’s looks, only Mitch McConnell’s, because he’s a white male, and we don’t want female psycho bitches (and others) to feel excluded here because we’re all lookist or something. OK, back to my online porn….”

    Let’s see….waiting for Tanya in 3, 2,….

    1. As a woman, I’m just embarrassed for her.

  12. The person who has posted on this thread so far is a spoofer. But boy, does it look like I struck a nerve.

    Anyway I hope they don’t raise the debt limit. Let’s see the US default on its debt and the dollar collapse..you know, just because!

    Nothing would prove to the world more how unfit the US is for world leadership.

    1. EVERY THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CHINA. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      1. Did I say anything about China until now.

        Nope. That was the spoofer. Yell at him.

        But once again, please default on the debt.PLEASE!

        1. “Did I say anything about China until now.”

          Why yes. Look up:

          https://reason.com/blog/2011/02…..nt_2129492

        2. The Truth|2.10.11 @ 4:55PM|#
          “Did I say anything about China until now.”

          Does it matter? Brain-dead stupidity is, well, brain-dead stupidity regardless of the subject.

    2. Being boring isn’t “striking a nerve.” It’s just be boring. You should be aware of this, considering how profoundly boring you are.

      I’m too bored to continue.

      1. I’ve grown tired of his antics as well. to promote teh civility, I will no longer post under the truth, instead I’m Viva Mao!

        If you see The Truth anywhere, you can be damn certain he is a fraud.

      2. In China, no blog commenter is too bored to continue.

        The US is toast, bitches!!

    3. The guy above is the goddamn spoofer. I would never use a phrase as trite as ‘struck a nerve’.

      Viva Mao!

      1. The Truth|2.10.11 @ 5:13PM|#
        “I would never use a phrase as trite as ‘struck a nerve’.”

        You’ve never approached anything as ‘intelligent’ as that.

  13. Hurr Durr Hurr unfit Hurr collapse Hurr Durr society

    /stoopid

  14. bucking the trend is in our (e.g. conservatives’) DNA.

    I hope this was all quote, as the correct Latin abbreviation would be i.e. not e.g. Or you could just say “that is”. I don’t think you were giving an example of what “our” could be.

    1. And the editorial comment should be in [square brackets]; and the abbreviation, e.g., i.e., should be set off by a comma.

    2. And I’m sure it wasn’t all quote.

      1. Right, I was just trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt. I don’t recognize the name.

    3. It hardly needs to be said, but i.e. and e.g. should be italicized as well.

      And yes, that should be i.e. (id est, or that is), not e.g. (exempli gratia, or for example).

      1. I cannot abide the misuse of either. I’m forever inserting commas or changing the whole thing to the correct one.

        And don’t get me started on people who use EST as shorthand for Eastern Time. Rat bastards.

        1. I’ve just about given up on people using per se correctly ever again.

          Sometimes I wonder why we even have dictionaries anymore.

          1. I must feed, per se.

        2. Damn dead language debates.

          1. No debate. There is either correct. . .or correction.

        3. Off the off-topic:

          What about using ‘aughts’ when you are talking about the years between 2000 and 2010? I got a lecture yesterday because I like to type out ‘aughts’.

          The guy said that oos is correct and is pronounced ots. I countered that that is not common knowledge, consequently someone might read what I wrote thinking that I am the sort to say: “back in the ohs.” I don’t want to be thought of as one of those fuckers that say ‘ohs’.

          I am an ot man.

          1. It’s pronounced “oot.”

          2. The guy said that oos is correct and is pronounced ots.

            I’m pretty sure there’s no consensus on what’s correct. That’s the most common written designation I’ve seen (though you do see 2000s as well, which is likely to be unsustainable in a few decades) but the spoken designation is completely up for grabs.

            1. Is it? It was aughts at the beginning of the last century, and it’s double-ought-whatever in firearms (spelling aside, both words are pronounced the same way and refer to 0).

              1. I can’t wait to sit in my Lazy Boy and tell my grandkids what it was like back in aught-nine.

                1. Exactly.

      2. And please don’t forget the period in “et al.“.

        Without it, the expression is meaningless.

      3. “I.e” and “e.g.” are Latin abbreviations, but their use in English is common and they ought not be italicized.

        Sources:
        Various dictionaries, which render it in non-italic.
        about.com
        Grammar Girl

        1. HTML links here seem to not be working; they used to, I think. And now, listing the links verbatim, I’m limited to two. For the dictionary entries, see dictionary dot com.

          Sources:
          http://ancienthistory.about.co…..ievseg.htm
          http://grammar.quickanddirtyti…..oh-my.aspx

        2. Links, how do they work?

          1. Pardon my late sarcasm.

        3. Feh. Back when I was still trimming my quill pens with a straight razor, we italicized ’em, dammit.

          Now get off my lawn!

  15. How does a movement defined by its embrace of tradition have “bucking the trend” in its DNA?

    1. Because the trend has been moving away from tradition. Or something. Look! Gays!

    2. Uh, because the trend is against their tradition?

  16. -BREAKING NEWS-

    Social Networking Lays An Egg. Rumors of Mubarak’s departure grossly exaggerated.

    Cairo, Egypt – Disappointed tweeters experienced disbelief and cynicism Thursday as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in a speech to the nation, said, “Just kidding! Not going anywhere!” One disillusioned protester, responding to Mubarak’s speech, tweeted, “I’ll never trust Facebook again.”

    1. “I’ll never trust Facebook again.”

      Blah blah, democracy blah. I’m getting gay-oriented ads on facebook after I put “man interested in men” in my ‘About Me’ page. I’ve been Digitally Outed!!!

      1. Are you saying I’m gay? Are you threatening me?

  17. FYI, the paper is The Morning Call, not the Morning Caller.

  18. Boehner’s been a part of the problem since his and Bush’s prescription Medicare benefit…

    He was one of the champions of TARP!

    Boehner’s as much a part of the problem as the Democrats are.

    Boehner’s gotta go.

  19. But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.

    Why are economists saying anything about this?

    Are they making the argument that cutting agencies will hurt the economy?

    Or more likely they like the agencies and programs and they don’t want to see them go….which in that case why are they being quoted (anonymously I may add) as being economists….aren’t they just acting in their capacity as statist partisans and not as economists?

  20. OK, I will buy that, it makes pretty good sense dude.

    http://www.anonymize.edu.tc

  21. But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.

    Isn’t “important federal agencies” an oxymoron?

    1. In China, every federal agency is important.

      Losers!

      1. In China, the agency come to you!

  22. The last time Republicans tried to do something about spending back in 1995, they were trashed by the network media.

    Jeff Jacoby explained why shutting down the government was not bad, and yet the media continued to blame Republicans as if it was something that was blameworthy in itself.

  23. But other economists say it would force too many cuts at important federal agencies.

    And what makes them important?

  24. Yo, FUCK Pat Toomey. He was part of the coalition that had all third-party candidates removed from statewide ballots in PA. Fuck him. Fuck him hard with a big, razor sharp, dildo. I hope his dick falls off, if he has one.

  25. who are these economists?

    does anyone know who they are?

  26. 10% of Republicans in the House voted against the Patriot Act extension, and some may change their votes after they get 5 hours of debate sometime in the near future.

    Sad

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.