jerseyhoya wrote:He's not mixing anything up. You're misreading what he is saying. If the debt ceiling is hit, it doesn't mean we automatically default on our obligations. It just means we can't borrow any more money. The federal government would continue bringing in revenue, and he's suggesting there should be a law that requires the repayment of interest on the debt to be prioritized over all other spending. Until the debt ceiling was raised, the federal government would be forced to run a balanced budget because it wouldn't have the statutory authority to borrow money.

JFLNYC wrote:Defaulting on payments to defense contractors, soldiers, employees, vendors, etc., would be OK by him, I guess.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Defaulting on payments to defense contractors, soldiers, employees, vendors, etc., would be OK by him, I guess.

If we defaulted on our debt, we certainly wouldnt be able to borrow anymore at favorable rates. What do you think would then happen when our borrowing costs shoot up? How easy do you think it would be to pay vendors/soldiers/contractors then? It's not an either/or proposition, where we say "Hey, we like soldiers, and we don't really care about bondholders. Let's just pay soldiers." It's the fact that defaulting on a single debt payment would cost us tens of billions dollars in extra interest every year for the next X years, where X is beyond the political careers of most of the loons in Congress. That's why such a law is not unreasonable.

You'd think the liberals on this board would appreciate a law that would constrain a group of short-term Congresspeople who don't have a long-term plan. If Reid proposed this, you guys would jump onboard about how it was necessary to combat crazy right wingers from ruining the country. Paul proposes it, and it's an awful idea.

pacino wrote:why is this even the new debate? he helps shut down the government then proposes conservative-leaning ideas about 'paying down the debt' to solve the shut down he helped cause. i mean, come on. you would think someone who helped create the problem wouldn't be the one to offer a solution to it.

i do like that paul suddenly found a need for the federal government, though.

“Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things,” said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday’s GOP bills. “You can’t deal with ’em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can’t figure out how to admit it.” Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn’t? “You can’t say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn’t a Solomonic decision,” McDermott said. “So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin’ lost.”

traderdave wrote:
It is like the fireman that sets your house on fire so that he can be the hero to put it out.

JFLNYC wrote:

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Defaulting on payments to defense contractors, soldiers, employees, vendors, etc., would be OK by him, I guess.

If we defaulted on our debt, we certainly wouldnt be able to borrow anymore at favorable rates. What do you think would then happen when our borrowing costs shoot up? How easy do you think it would be to pay vendors/soldiers/contractors then? It's not an either/or proposition, where we say "Hey, we like soldiers, and we don't really care about bondholders. Let's just pay soldiers." It's the fact that defaulting on a single debt payment would cost us tens of billions dollars in extra interest every year for the next X years, where X is beyond the political careers of most of the loons in Congress. That's why such a law is not unreasonable.

You'd think the liberals on this board would appreciate a law that would constrain a group of short-term Congresspeople who don't have a long-term plan. If Reid proposed this, you guys would jump onboard about how it was necessary to combat crazy right wingers from ruining the country. Paul proposes it, and it's an awful idea.

You completely missed the point.