Can somebody please explain Jon Kyl's logic?

[opebo]

You haven't been paying attention opebo. The debt interest has to be paid first by law, and will be. Default on the debt was never in the cards.  That is just Dem hype. Having said that, slashing 30% in spending overnight, means much of government will close down. But there will be no default.  Got it?

So while the basis upon which I posed my question is inaccurate, it is just as salient, because slashing 30% in spending overnight and closing down the government will be easily as bad as default for the economy.

[The Mikado]

For Torie: Joe is right in that Twitter's biggest problem is that you can't express more than a sentence at a time.  However, you can link to a 5,000 word essay you wrote on a subject!

The Twitter Republican Presidential Debate last week was one of the most hilarious things ever.  Watching people try to talk about the economy, debt ceiling, Libya, etc. in 148 character blurbs is hilarious (and it's no wonder Mitt Romney was too smart to participate!).

Twitter is a rare example of a new technology that has become more popular with the older people than younger people, and in an even rarer turn, many of the early adopters (including prominent members of the "twitterati" John McCain and Chuck Grassley) are prominent Republican leaders.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes, px, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

I'd say that the Paul Ryan plan was a GOP attempt to forcing the Democrats to deal with the debt. Republicans were selling the plan as the solution to all of our problems until they found out it was extremely unpopular with the voting public. I'd say that the debt ceiling is the only real way for them to confront the President on entitlements in a significant way. Without the threat of a shutdown, there's no way the President or Reid would ever be talking about raising the Medicare/SS eligibility rate or cutting Medicaid significantly without the GOP blackmail.

So the debt ceiling is finally to be used as it was intended, if we had a responsible government it would be an unnecessary mechanism. Arguably it is, but the inane nature of movement conservatism has made it impossible to solve deficits by raising revenues or even reforming the tax code without offsetting tax cuts.

[anvi]

It would have been just as easy to bring Obama and Reid to the table over next year's budget talks and a threatened government shutdown.  The GOP everaging their agenda with the debt ceiling, even if it worked, perhaps especially if it worked, sets a very bad precedent.  From now on, if the opposition party, Pubbie or Dem, controls one chamber and wants something bad enough, they can just leverage it with the debt ceiling, not merely symbolically, but in fact.  The country's full faith and credit is now and henceforth just another political tool.  Not good.  JMO

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jon Kyl's economic views are pretty much identical to that of a robber baron, so who cares what he says.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, px, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

Time. This was here, and immediate so it got used. Most of them probably intended to use both. To keep using these impossible to not pass items as "leverage points" to force through cuts. After the anger over the deal in March though, it was impossible for them to pass this up without insisting on more cuts in the deficit.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We have elections for a reason. If you don't like divided government, than work to change it.

Divided government works when both parties actually want to govern. Republicans stopped caring about governing about 10 years ago.

Yes, Greece is the perfect example. 

[BigSkyBob]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.

Da Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. It is discretionary spending, including medicaid, that will be cut due to "blackmail." The Republicans simply don't have the underlying desire to slash social security and medicare that the Democrats do.

The Democrats know the math. The two programs are black holes that will devour all other government programs if not checked. It's the Democrats whom want those other programs, and, thus, want social security and medicare to be slashed. They just want it to be a two-fer: Republicans take the hit for slashing the programs, while the Democrats gain the benefit of diverting the funds into even more government programs.

[King]

Da Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

[Landslide Lyndon]

We have elections for a reason. If you don't like divided government, than work to change it.

Divided government works when both parties actually want to govern. Republicans stopped caring about governing about 10 years ago.

Yes, Greece is the perfect example. 

Does that make any sense?

Anyway, if you mean what I think you mean, we are a parliamentary democracy, so the concept of divided government doesn't exist. And judging by our parties, perhaps for the better.