Skip to comments.The Word That Changed the Debt Ceiling Debate
Posted on 02/12/2014 5:47:31 AM PST by lbryce
When Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently gave notice that the federal government would once again hit the debt ceiling in February, the response from congressional Republicanswho twice took the nation to the brink of defaultwas decidedly muted.
The official line? We believe that defaulting on our debt is the wrong thing, says House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). We dont want to do that. On Tuesday, the House duly voted to raise the debt limit without conditions, sending the action over to the Senate.
This move represents a 180-degree turn from the previous strategy of trying to extract concessions from Democrats by threatening to send the country into economic chaos.
Why such a stark softening of the party line? Republicans retreat from the debt-limit battlefield, which they entered so boldly in the spring of 2011 and again last year, began with a shift in the Democrats rhetorical strategy. A simple turn of phrase turned the tables on the GOP.
The short history of debt-limit brinksmanship offers a useful lesson in the power of a word to reframe a national debate and drive public opinion in a new direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Why does ‘defaulting on existing debt’ = ‘authorizing new debt’?
Seems like I can repay obligations without incurring new obligations?
Unless, of course, you’re already insolvent and merely staving off bankruptcy with creative financing for as long as possible.
Of course, not raising the debt ceiling would not currently cause a default...but it is interesting how shallow many people are with very strong emotion.
The clueless are an issue...but the angry clueless are dangerous.
There is no way the GOPe should let the debate be conducted on the terms of Dingy Hairy and is ilk.
“Raising the debt ceiling is an action completely divorced from more borrowing.”
Yes, but the reason they raised the debt ceiling is so they could raise the amount of borrowing. Ergo, they do go hand in hand, at least from a politician’s point of view in which their ‘income’ is affected by how much more they can spend.
That begs the question: Are most of the p9oliticians in WDC insane?
I will certainly remember this come Nov 2014 - there now is NO OPPOSITION party in the District of Corruption. Hey GOP win your seats in 2014 without my help.
>>The clueless are an issue...but the angry clueless are dangerous.
And the voting angry clueless are extraordinarily dangerous.
Please remember it in your primary this year.
What I don't get is how few Republicans know how this game is played. The Democrats respond to Republicans quickly and most of the time seem to have even been able to predict Republican response to the Dems' plans and have the next move charted out. The Republicans seem to be completely surprised by every Democratic response.