McConnell Admits GOP Nothing More than Hostage Takers in Debt Crisis

McConnell Admits To Taking Debt Ceiling ‘Hostage’: It’s ‘Worth Ransoming’ | In a stunning bit of candor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in the Washington Post today that his party had taken the debt ceiling “hostage,” and that some of his colleagues were willing to “shoot[]” it:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”​

The Post added that McConnell “said he could imagine doing this again.” Indeed, he has promised he will do so. (HT: Taegan Goddard)

 

YAY!

 

Well I guess the tactic sure was worth costing this country the triple A rating we've had since, well ever. The Tea Party is just that kind of stupid and now it's going to cost this country and many ordinary citizens a lot of extra money we just don't have. Nice going Tea Party!

 

For WHAT? Not holding hostages longer so there would be bigger cuts? I case you did not notice, we were downgraded because we are spending too much not because we are not spending enough.

 

Partially correct but revenues played their part.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed

 

In case you didn't notice....

Official reasons given, one official says, will be the political confusion surrounding the process of raising the debt ceiling, and lack of confidence that the political system will be able to agree to more deficit reduction. A source says Republicans saying that they refuse to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal will be part of the reason cited.

When you are unable to raise revenues from your only source of income, it sort of says that you don't have enough capital coming in to pay your bills. I think that it is pretty clear that the cons have screwed the pooch here.

 

It is only clear to idiot liberals like yourself. Everyone else blames Obama and his spending. Besides, you already admitted in a previous post that when Democrats raise taxes, they have no intention of reducing the deficit, they just want to increase spending. The S&P wanted 4 trillion in cuts. Raising our self imposed credit limit had nothing to do with it.

And how much should we trust S&P anyway, their numbers were off by over 2 trillion dollars. IMO, we should do everything we can to destroy them.

 

I "admitted" no such thing. You simply preferred to read it that way. Besides, the fact that a country has a debt does not get its credit downgraded. It is only the perception real or unreal that that country cannot pay back its debt that gets it downgraded. Not raising our debt limit and defaulting on our obligations would have more to do with losing our triple AAA rating than some amount of spending cuts S & P was looking for.
The fact that additional revenue through taxes was not even considered as an option probably gave them reason to re-evaluate our fiscal situation more than anything. Cutting spending is never going to add to the economy recovery process but that is the only option that ever seems to be on the table. And who is pushing that line of reasoning? The Debt, the deficit, the economy, the jobs outlook, the stock market, taxes, end every other economic factor can never be addressed by spending cuts alone but tell the Right that.

S & P is untrustworthy I agree but they may have had a point here.

 

This site is aptly named since it is Parisian enough to argue about why they downgraded us when they clearly stated why they downgraded us. Problem is that neither side likes one of the reasons because they contain the words 'cuts to entitlements' and 'raising revenue'. lol

As far as the 2 trillion dollar S&P mistake, I really have to wonder about that. The government is not the first source I would want checking someone's math. They tend to use a lot of imaginary numbers when they should stick to real numbers. It could be that they aren't buying the cost of the healthcare plan or that the Obama Bush tax cuts will expire or that they don't think the 'war savings' will materialize as savings if they materialize at all. Was it 2 trillion off out of the 35 trillion in spending that will probably happen over the next 10 years? Was it 2 trillion off on the probably 23 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years? Was it 2 trillion off of the 12 trillion in debt that could be added over the next 10 years? Was in 2 trillion off in the 61 trillion in unfunded liabilities we currently have? 2 trillion sounds like a lot but it might not be with the realities of the debt, spending and liabilities.

But, again, even if there was a problem with the numbers, they stated their reasons in the report...which boils down to them not believing the likelihood that there will be meaningful cuts (especially to entitlements) or an increase in revenue in the near term. In other words, more of the same. I find that hard to disagree with.

 

Here is another quote I found interesting in the report.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that
we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also
observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the
U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others.
...
However, in contrast with the U.S., we project
that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to
decline, either before or by 2015.

 

I think it was Einstein who said that the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. Well, compound interest is what we are paying when we have to borrow money to pay the interest on our current debt, and then borrow more money to pay the interest on the money we borrowed to pay the last interest.

Until we balance our budget it doesn't make any difference what else we do, the outcome will always be the same. And I don't trust our politicians to cut spending or raise taxes sufficiently to balance the budget without a constitutional amendment forcing them to.

 

Are you really that dumb? The debt ceiling is artificial and means nothing. It would mean something if we had to convince someone (other than ourselves) in order to raise it. If the debt ceiling were not raised, all of the creditors of the US would still have been paid and you know it. There was never a danger of the US defaulting on it's debt. You claim that not raising our debt limit and defaulting has more to do with the credit downgrade than spending cuts, yet we raised the the debt ceiling by the deadline and they still downgraded our credit rating. That should tell you that the debt ceiling means nothing. I don't know the exact criteria that the S & P was looking for, and quite frankly, I don't think they know either. But I promise you that it had more to do with the debt to income ratio than a some self imposed credit limit. They wanted big budget cuts in combination with tax increases. The President wanted the same thing, but he couldn't pull it off. When they were informed of their $2 trillion dollar error, they agreed with the error but we were so far away from what they were expecting, they downgraded us anyway.

 

Really!? Even if we defaulted on our financial obligations, we'd still pay our debts? I'm really not sure that I can argue with that kind of statement. You seem to have a very "unique" perspective on financial matters that I cannot relate to. I think I'll just back way slowly.

 

Yep!! He is really that dumb.

 

It is really simple. We would have still paid our creditors, like China and Japan, etc so there would have been no default. We take in enough money to do that without raising the debt ceiling and, the way I read it, the Constitution says our creditors would have been paid first (which is probably why the President never pursued the Constitutional angle that was talked about for a while).

Now, who wouldn't have been paid? Seniors, vets, fed employees, retirees, etc. But they do not hold our debt. And that is not a default. That is a budget cut.

If I don't buy my kids the new toy I promised them because I got fired, that is not a default. If I don't pay my mortgage because I got fired, that is a default.

 

When you make posts like this, it gives the appearance that you don't have the requisite intellect to understand what is really happening and that your are simply here to parrot the talking points of the liberal media. But I thank you for answering my question.

There is no need for me to attempt to educate you since Stujoe has already explained it.

 

Wow! Can you ever re-write history, even recent history. We had the Tea Party types out there saying that it would be OK to default and threatening to do exactly that right up to the moment they were cut out of the process in the 11th hour by the Senate and Boner who passed a debt limit increase without their votes. Except that the damage was already done and the S & P downgrade was the result. You can't have people out there saying that it would be fine to default on our obligations simply for political gains. This is the first time that raising the debt limit has ever been held hostage and the first time people in congress actually walked around saying that it would be OK to default. And now the entire US economy is paying for their stupidity.
Essentially, every time a politician promises some corporation a tax break on the state level or a tax loophole on the federal level, our tax base is undermined and these sleazy politicians get one more campaign contribution. It is so widespread and common that we are unable to even pay our bills at the same time these very corporations are paying nothing in taxes and reaping record profits. If that isn’t a broken system, I don't know what is.

 

There is no reason to rewrite their reasons for the downgrade. It is more that clear enough when using their own words contained in their report. They lowered the rating because...

near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed.

 

I am sure that you can find someone from the Tea Party who said "that it would be OK to default", but the vast majority were simply saying that the media forecast default would not happen. And guess what......
Secondly, they just interviewed the S&P's spokesman and he admitted that USA would not have been downgraded if the Tea Party's "Cap and Balance" had been passed. Now, if you remember correctly, it was not the Tea Party who opposed that bill. In fact, you don't even know if the dips would have permitted it to pass. One man kept it from even getting a vote - and he was not a member of the Tea Party.

 

I can believe you or the Speaker of the House. Hum?

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) admitted yesterday that “a lot” of House Republicans want to push the country into default in order to create “chaos” and push through conservative priorities.