U.S default is possible this Friday.
— Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA (@GRDecter) May 23, 2023
Treasury has $60 billion left.
If spending continues at current elevated pace, the balance will be NEGATIVE $18 billion by Friday. pic.twitter.com/QE7TVyvyDt
Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
Yes, default is the answer, 100%!Civilized said:caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
What do you think they should have realistically held out for?
Do you think they should have allowed default, if that's what it took to get what they were gunning for?
I first encountered the full text of Patrick Henry's speech as a high school student. I was so moved that over the next three days I memorized the entire speech, which I still remember to this day. This is not the entire speech, but it is the bulk of it, and captures its spirit. pic.twitter.com/N5rw75hm0m
— Abraham Ash (Francis Marion Respecter) (@Historycourses) August 10, 2022
Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
Actually, what I'm hearing is that we would have been better off just raising the debit limit, by 1.5 T. Because, based on this deal, we will see a much higher debt increase, then just just increasing the debt limit, with no attachments.Civilized said:caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
What do you think they should have realistically held out for?
Do you think they should have allowed default, if that's what it took to get what they were gunning for?
Byron Donalds on the #DebtCeiling ! 🎤 🔥 pic.twitter.com/14salz4PCM
— The REAL Politically Savvy (@patriot_savvy) May 30, 2023
Biden economic adviser @BharatRamamurti: @SpeakerMcCarthy's debt offer "locks in" our "remarkable progressive accomplishments" pic.twitter.com/9L9L5COX2n
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 30, 2023
What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think it's time for Republicans to take a stand and quit worrying about their next election.hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
Rep. Massie puts forward debt bill amendment, which would "require the Treasury to prioritize payment of obligations using a five-tiered payment structure if total debt subject to limit is at the statutory maximum." pic.twitter.com/ODD7dfdZpO
— Olivia Beavers (@Olivia_Beavers) May 30, 2023
They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I am voting NO on passing down trillions more in debt to our children and grandchildren while giving Democrats a blank check to pay for their radical agenda, including the weaponization of federal agencies.
— Rep. Diana Harshbarger (@RepHarshbarger) May 30, 2023
Its time to get our fiscal house in order and rein in wasteful spending
That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
Absolutely no one wants to default but this current deal is unacceptable. I have read this bill twice and as the language currently stands, I will be voting no to raise the debt ceiling.
— Kat Cammack (@Kat_Cammack) May 30, 2023
I fought hard to get our bill, the REINS Act (which is the largest regulatory reform in… pic.twitter.com/meRpUQR7OY
A vote for this bill is a vote for reinforcing Washington’s wasteful spending habits.
— Rep. Vern Buchanan (@VernBuchanan) May 30, 2023
I will be voting NO. Enough is enough! (2/2)
Washington is broken.
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 30, 2023
Republicans got outsmarted by a President who can’t find his pants.
I’m voting NO on the debt ceiling debacle because playing the DC game isn’t worth selling out our kids and grandkids.
"Republicans got outsmarted by a President who can't find his pants."caryking said:
Just read what she says, in her tweet…Washington is broken.
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 30, 2023
Republicans got outsmarted by a President who can’t find his pants.
I’m voting NO on the debt ceiling debacle because playing the DC game isn’t worth selling out our kids and grandkids.
You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Hokie, I don't give a rats ass who is voting for this deal. If they vote yes on this, then they all should be primaried! First and foremost, in 2016-2018, the majority of those people were Paul Ryan Republicans. That said, who, in the Republican Party do you even like?hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
I believe McCarthy was misled, not malicious in signing onto this deal. But the deal simply does not do what its proponents claim it does—not even close. It’s time to go back to the drawing board or, even better, go back to what the House already passed. https://t.co/nHhfjMdZtN
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 30, 2023
Lol dude there are only like 35 members of the freedom caucus, no shot they can do anything with those numbers but you knew that.hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
but they hold all the leverage!!! Lol, thanks for proving my point.jkpackfan said:Lol dude there are only like 35 members of the freedom caucus, no shot they can do anything with those numbers but you knew that.hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
And Biden wouldn't even meet with McCarthy for months on this so he was basically wanting total surrender from the pubs. You can't believe everything coming from mainstream media and that goes for Fox as well.hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
Lmao huh? I said they had no shot of getting anything done in response to your comment about where were they in 2016-2018 and getting nothing done. It's not a big enough caucushokiewolf said:but they hold all the leverage!!! Lol, thanks for proving my point.jkpackfan said:Lol dude there are only like 35 members of the freedom caucus, no shot they can do anything with those numbers but you knew that.hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
The Freedom caucus isn't enough. It's going to take others to make something happen. Those others are the ones that need to get onboard.jkpackfan said:Lmao huh? I said they had no shot of getting anything done in response to your comment about where were they in 2016-2018 and getting nothing done. It's not a big enough caucushokiewolf said:but they hold all the leverage!!! Lol, thanks for proving my point.jkpackfan said:Lol dude there are only like 35 members of the freedom caucus, no shot they can do anything with those numbers but you knew that.hokiewolf said:You put bad candidates on the ballot, you get what you deserve. The same thing is going to happen in 2024. A sure victory will be snatched by the jaws of defeat because we want to own the libs instead of focusing on the real issue that is "careening the US towards bankruptcy" - entitlements, defense spending, and debt servicing. Neither side wants to address those issues regardless of the theatrics and saber rattling.caryking said:That's just stupid! They have the house and that's enough. Hokie, don't act like a conservative, libertarian, or whatever and make dumb comments.hokiewolf said:Could have had the House and Senate and had real leverage to strike a better deal, but instead they bricked a slam dunk for Senate majoritycaryking said:They hold the House! Republicans always campaign as conservatives; however, rarely govern that way…hokiewolf said:What exactly is the leverage that the House Republicans had to get a "better deal"? Take the messaging war win and move forward, you're not going to change things overnight.caryking said:Hokie, you need to do more research. They have put no caps on spending, and no threshold on the debt limit, for this timeframe. It is being said that the debt could increase, and probably will, by 4-5T.hokiewolf said:Better then raising spending, which is what happened from 2016-2020…..caryking said:
Rino's folded like a cheap suit…
This is complicated stuff.
I think you are one of the people that says… we can't look backwards, we can only look forward, when discussing election irregularities during the 2020 election. Now, you want to look backwards. Come on man, you're smarter than that.
Cutting discretionary spending is great and all, it will slow down the rock rolling down the hill, but it's not going to stop it.
Where were these Freedom Caucus folks when in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2016 - 2018 did nothing to decrease spending and actually voted for increases?
Additionally, if the basis for negotiation was using Limit, Save Grow as the baseline, why are they all now disappointed that using that as the baseline did not produce the result they wanted?
This whole thing is about nothing. The House Freedom Caucus wants total surrender from Biden. What world was that going to happen? Certainly not the real one.
If they're serious about this, then the first step is to remove McCarthy as speaker. That should be tomorrow morning's first business. If they don't do that, then you have fallen hook line and sinker for the worst kind of BS - BS that makes you think they care, when they actually don't want to do the hard job of actually being a legislator. And sometimes that means taking a deal that isn't the best or even close to the best and moving forward.
This is what happens when you force out all others for the sake of ideological purity. Eventually, you will no longer be relevant. This is why populism is so dangerous.
Probably some; however, some (at least the ones I support) are principled…. When it's obvious they are no longer principled, that's when I'll start *****ing about them, as well…TheStorm said:
The people lining up to vote no, know that their votes aren't needed for it to pass... just more of the same.
Werewolf said:
Comical to watch an attempted honest discussion on this topic. Do we really believe that DC is remotely a "Govt by the People for the People"? Can we please come to terms with what we really have?
