TexasCHLforum.com

This thread is temporarily locked while the Moderators and I consider the future of the Political subforum. It was started in response to Members' requests for a separate forum to discuss gun-related political issues. This limitation is expressly stated in the forum's description.

It didn't take long for that limitation to be ignored and it has become a favored target of people who love to start controversial threads more for the fight than substance. When discussions are over the decision will be publicized and this thread will either be opened or not.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Unless they have the military might of the United States. "Those with the guns make the rules" is a truism, like it or not, and I happen to love it.

Chas.

No actually. If you default on the debt your economy crashes, utterly and completely. Military is irrelevant. Enjoy the toys though, because there won't be any more stealth fighters coming off the assembly lines in the US for a couple of decades if you default.

Yes, actually. The debt default will be on foreign debt first and that will be sufficient to shore up the U.S. economy. There is nothing that the U.S. needs that we don't have or cannot take. I know as a "moderate Democrat" you don't like hearing that, but that's a fact.

Chas.

Thats not how it works. There is no debt marked "foreign owned debt, default on them first." Default on one issuance and the remainder will lose value quickly, and it will spiral. Want to borrow more debt? Be prepared to pay multiple digit interest.
Everyone who owns bonds will watch the value of those bonds plummet. Municipal and state bonds would also be hit hard, including the ability to reborrow.

Further, if its a hard snap this could trigger a liquidity crisis not only in the government but in the banking sector in similar fashion to 2008.

Again this isn't speculation. This is history. And there's no reason for it. Most people can balance their books without going bankrupt.

There's no point in trying to discuss this with you when you refuse to recognize Congressional power to disavow foreign dept.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:. . . but if this entangles the debt ceiling issue and creates a default scenario then thats an excellent way to implode the economy ala Argentina.

The debt ceiling is far different from Obamacare. The Republicans absolutely should hold the line and force the Democrats to reduce spending. This is an issue that far more people on both sides of the isle are concerned about and it's a loser for Obama and the Democratic Party.
Chas.

You can hold the line on spending, but if you default on the debt everything gets hammered. Thats reality and history. Other countries have made that mistake and failed as a result. Further, if we implode the rest of the world gets hammered to.

I didn't say hold the line on spending, I said "Republicans absolutely hold the line and force the Democrats to REDUCE SPENDING." I'm not the least bit interested in maintaining current spending levels, I want them slashed starting with and focusing primarily on the very programs that have made the Democratic Party the darling those who look to the government for everything. No funding of any programs from the Social Security fund, other than retirement benefits and Medicare. No benefits for illegal aliens, no free public schooling for illegals; slash the federal workforce across the board.


The reality that you continue to ignore is that foreign debt will be the first to be disavowed/defaulted and that will be sufficient. Will that cause worldwide repercussions? Sure! But other than Israel, I don't care what happens to other countries. That's also why the old adage guns and rules is so accurate. Your solution is to raise the debt ceiling and continue with the status quo. That will bring about the precise conclusion you predict, only slightly further down the calendar.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Unless they have the military might of the United States. "Those with the guns make the rules" is a truism, like it or not, and I happen to love it.

Chas.

No actually. If you default on the debt your economy crashes, utterly and completely. Military is irrelevant. Enjoy the toys though, because there won't be any more stealth fighters coming off the assembly lines in the US for a couple of decades if you default.

Yes, actually. The debt default will be on foreign debt first and that will be sufficient to shore up the U.S. economy. There is nothing that the U.S. needs that we don't have or cannot take. I know as a "moderate Democrat" you don't like hearing that, but that's a fact.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:. . . but if this entangles the debt ceiling issue and creates a default scenario then thats an excellent way to implode the economy ala Argentina.

The debt ceiling is far different from Obamacare. The Republicans absolutely should hold the line and force the Democrats to reduce spending. This is an issue that far more people on both sides of the isle are concerned about and it's a loser for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Unless they have the military might of the United States. "Those with the guns make the rules" is a truism, like it or not, and I happen to love it.

Chas.

bizarrenormality wrote:

The only thing worse than losing the fight to defund/kill ObamaCare would be losing the House to the Democrats, losing Republican-held Senate seats to the Democrats, and putting a Democrat in the White House.

Listening to real people, not the media, it sounds like the surest way for Republicans to lose seats is giving in to Obama.

You must have missed the 2012 election. Obama was reelected and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate. Those "real people" you reference did that.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So whats the end game for the Republicans now?

Lets assume that the Senate and Obama approve nothing but a clean CR.

What happens now?

Appeal to Hispanics who are natural born Republicans because of our shared core family values. There is far more common ground than issues that divide us. Hispanics are taken for granted by the Democratic Party and so far they have had every reason to do so. We neither need nor want liberals or people who prefer to vote for a living rather than work for a living who make up the core of Democrat voters, other than Hispanics.

Chas.

atticus wrote:Charles,
If you are suggesting that Ted Cruz will be responsible for losing the House to democrats, I would point out the 2010 election that took the House away from the democrats. It was a similar wave of conservative enthusiasm that resulted in Cruz defeating Dewhurst in the primary last year. Without the base that elected Cruz, where will the Republican party be in 2014?

Don't read more into the post and related article than is written. A "shutdown" of the government will not work to the advantage of Republicans and/or conservatives. Cruz isn't to blame for a shutdown, nor did Cruz have anything to do with the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

2010 was a mid-term election year when the party in the White House traditionally loses seats in the House. To make matters worse for the Democrats, public backlash against the Democrats' for the passing of Obamacare and Pelosi's record unpopularity as Speaker of the House, resulted in the largest midterm change of seats since the 1930's. Republicans gained 63 seats and became the majority Party in the House. They also picked up 6 seats in the Senate. Ted Cruz was not a factor.

Just two years later, in 2012 the Republicans lost 8 seats in the House. They lost 2 seats in the Senate at a time when the Democrats had almost three times as many incumbents up for reelection as did the Republicans. After four years of Obama, with the implementation of Obamacare looming on the horizon, and in spite of political pundits predicting that the Republicans would pick up seats in the Senate and possibly take a majority, we lost ground in both the House and Senate. Some who share my strong conservative beliefs claimed that the Republican candidates in 2010 (McCain) and 2012 (Romney) were not conservative enough to get conservatives to the polls. While this was somewhat true in 2010, it's absolutely false as it relates to the 2012 election. White voters turned out for Romney in record numbers, undoubtedly to vote against Obama more than to vote for Romney. Nevertheless, Obama won and the Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate.

I don't think the Republicans are going to lose the House, but with only a 17 seat margin, it's certainly possible, and some Republican consultants are clearly worried. As the article I referenced indicated, a governmental "shutdown" will likely benefit the Democrats, but it will undoubtedly hurt the Republicans in 2014. At the end of the day, Obamacare is still the law, it's still funded, Democrats hold the majority in the ever-so-important Senate, and Obama is still President. Until and unless the Republicans take control of the Senate and White House, and retain a majority in the House, Obamacare will not be repealed or defunded. Anything that makes it more difficult to obtain the necessary Republican control is counterproductive.

I don't like this one little bit, but these are the hard cold facts. Many of the folks who ignore these facts are the some people who loudly and proudly proclaimed that it would be impossible for Obama to be reelected in 2012.

Chas.

A rousing, heart-pounding speech before a coming battle can be the difference between victory and defeat -- if the battle is even winnable. Here is a portion of an article on http://www.FoxNews.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; discussing who wins and loses if the government shuts down. The entire article can be read here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09 ... -shutdown/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only thing worse than losing the fight to defund/kill ObamaCare would be losing the House to the Democrats, losing Republican-held Senate seats to the Democrats, and putting a Democrat in the White House. If that happens, a Democrat will put at least two new Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and Heller will be overturned. Focusing on one battle and losing the war will be a disaster for gun owners and Americans in general.

Chas.

Government by Gridlock: Why Some Want a Shutdown wrote: . . .

President Obama: It’s not exactly the worst outcome for the Democrats if the government shuts down, especially if it’s only for a few days. Having hammered the Republicans as blackmailers for recklessly risking a shutdown, Obama would have a dramatic example to drive home the point. See? They actually pulled the trigger.

As the pain mounted, the Republicans would inevitably have to agree to a compromise that doesn’t defund ObamaCare, allowing the president to declare victory. Of course, both sides will look bad. But polls show that more people will blame a shutdown on the GOP.

- John Boehner Republicans: The House speaker very much wanted to cut a deal to avoid the shutdown drama, but was undercut by his Tea Party wing. Now he’s in a box, needing to maintain control of his caucus while knowing his party will bear the brunt of the political fallout.

But if the government is forced to close, it’s the conservative crusaders who will feel the heat to relent, without Boehner having to lift a finger. Once they start hearing from constituents back home, it may be easier for Boehner to cobble together a compromise.

. . .

KHOU Ch. 11 in Houston just included a news report that Sen. Cruz's popularity is soaring among Republicans.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Some would say he is playing politics and using political doublespeak.

There absolutely is political game playing; I don't deny that. However, when a Forum Member with a history of inflammatory statements makes a false allegation, it's as bad as political-speak.

Chas.

And the dems/liberals appear to be much better at it. Many, including me, see voting for cloture as giving up the only true leverage the conservatives may have had to force the dems to negotiate. If I'm totally off base, I am open to more explanation.

I wasn't referring to your posts.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Mr. Cotton, if you read this, I am truly puzzled why Senator Cornyn voted for cloture. I just can't see any good from him voting that way.

I agree. Read my preceding post.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:Some would say he is playing politics and using political doublespeak.

There absolutely is political game playing; I don't deny that. However, when a Forum Member with a history of inflammatory statements makes a false allegation, it's as bad as political-speak.

Chas.

MikeHoncho wrote:http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/friendsw ... 12722.html

Okay, maybe you can help APynacel show me where Sen. Cornyn voted to strip the defunding provision from the House Bill.

Chas.