Trump Says ‘a Lot of Good Reasons’ to Get Rid of Debt Ceiling

Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time2:31
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
 
Trump Sees 'Good Reasons' to Get Rid of Debt Ceiling

Trump Sees 'Good Reasons' to Get Rid of Debt Limit

President Donald Trump said Thursday there are “a lot of good reasons” to get rid of the U.S. debt ceiling as Senate Democrats began exploring a possible deal with the president to end the recurring fiscal standoffs.

“For many years, people have been talking about getting rid of debt ceiling altogether,” Trump told reporters Thursday at the White House. “And there are a lot of good reasons to do that, so certainly that’s something that will be discussed. We even discussed it at the meeting that we had yesterday.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Trump agreed during an Oval Office meeting Wednesday to pursue a negotiation aimed at permanently ending the brinkmanship over a possible default on the nation’s debt, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Schumer broached the idea with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in a meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Republican congressional leaders where Trump sided with Democrats on a deal to combine a short-term debt limit extension with a hurricane relief bill.

“We have a great respect for the sanctity of the debt ceiling,” Trump said. “Chuck does and Nancy does and we all do. So that will never be a problem.”

He didn’t mention the Republican leaders by name -- House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell’s office declined to comment. But the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, said Thursday he was opposed to abolishing the debt limit.

Senate Vote

The Senate on Thursday passed a legislative package that includes a suspension of the debt ceiling through Dec. 8. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had asked Congress to act by Sept. 29 to avoid a damaging default.

The U.S.’s rating companies have long noted that the structure of the U.S. debt limit is very unusual in the way it separates congressional spending decisions from the mechanisms needed to finance them.

“They should abolish congressional approval for the debt ceiling,” said John Chambers, former chairman of Standard & Poor’s sovereign rating committee who was there when the firm downgraded U.S. debt during a 2011 debt limit fight. He said that when Congress passes spending bills that will require additional debt, lawmakers should simultaneously “vote for a higher amount of debt outstanding.”

Eliminating the debt limit altogether would be very difficult for many Republicans to swallow, particularly in the House. Republican Representative Bill Flores of Texas called it a “horrible idea.”
Conservatives have used the ceiling on borrowing authority as a negotiating point to try to force broader government spending cuts.

"You’re going to have trouble getting people to agree to having it raised automatically," said Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona.

The conservative Republican Study Committee on Thursday released a list of 19 policy suggestions aimed at reining in federal spending that could earn their support on a measure to raise the debt ceiling.

“While some have advocated for a ‘clean’ debt limit increase, this would simply increase the borrowing authority of the government while irresponsibly ignoring the urgency of reforms,” Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, who chairs the group, wrote in a letter to Ryan. Walker noted that the last vote in the House to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions only attracted the support of 28 House Republicans.

Ryan Opposed

Ryan told reporters Thursday that he wouldn’t support suspending the debt limit entirely because “there’s a legitimate role for the power of the purse and Article One powers” in the Constitution.

Even so, there are a number of Senate Republicans who would support such a move.

"I want to get rid of it," Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah said Thursday.

Republican Senator David Perdue of Georgia said Thursday that the debt ceiling has been "ineffective" and he will work on a conservative proposal before December to scrap it and overhaul the process.

"It’s an unpopular vote that nobody likes taking,” John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican, said Thursday. “There is probably some support on both sides for that. But I hope the president will be talking to Republican leadership about that."

Pelosi also backed the idea.

“Why don’t we just do away with it?" she told reporters Thursday. "We’re not going to let the government default."

Democrats Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mark Warner of Virginia approached Schumer earlier this summer with the idea of jettisoning the debt limit, asking them to consider raising it with Trump, according to a Democratic aide.

At the Wednesday meeting, Schumer raised the idea, nothing that it had the support of both liberal and moderate Democrats, according to the aide. He suggested that all sides go back and talk to their respective party members to see if they could agree on a specific proposal to add to an end-of-the-year deal. Trump responded positively to the suggestion, the person familiar with the discussions said.

Trump said Thursday that the debt ceiling is a “sacred trust” and “as long as it’s there, it will never be violated.”

The federal debt limit was created in 1917 to make it easier to finance World War I by grouping bonds into different categories, thus easing the legislative burden on Congress. Before that, lawmakers approved each bond separately. 

Over the years, lawmakers started using the limit as leverage to obtain other concessions. 

The most significant standoff occurred in 2011, when conservatives forced a showdown that rattled financial markets and prompted S&P to downgrade its rating on sovereign U.S. debt. The battle resulted in $2 trillion in budget cuts.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-07/trump-says-a-lot...

Views: 38

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And middle class taxpayers are supposed to pay for this ?

Without going to the Fair tax, the lower income/handout people still pay nothing. The rich still have their loopholes.

WE the People — screwed, more and more and more.

Yes, guess which one swallows up the rest...?

Trump has now abandoned any restraint on spending by the Federal Government... What happened to a balanced budget Pres. Trump?  The President sounds like a progressive Democrat... embracing Keynesian economics, a key element in a socialist system.  Cloward and Piven would approve.

Eliminating the Debt Ceiling... the only program currently restraining Congressional spending is not the mark of a fiscal conservative. .The Debt Ceiling, at least, requires Congress to consider the ramifications of extending our National debt, and the wisdom of expanding government without fiscal restraints. Without a Debt Ceiling, members of Congress, would not be on record (VOTING) for more debt. Thus, making it difficult to identify the big spending, financially reckless, liberals in Congress.

This is one more progressive goal Pres. Trump apparently supports?  Why?  More betrayal  by the President, as he crosses over into la, la, land, abandoning fiscal responsibility.  Pres. Trump seems to be rushng to embrace the Democrat Party and its socialist doctrine.  He is now officially on record supporting Big Government with no limits to spending. He is officially embracing Keynesian economics! 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service