You're wrong, krellin. Debt ceiling increases in the past, before 2011, were always routine measures and often times, they were attached to spending bills, not as a condition, but because procedurally, they would just raise the debt ceiling when they also passed on a spending bill or a budget. It made sense to do both at once, but it was always understood as madness to insist on conditions not to be a banana republic. Until now.

Actually, the Democrats have never held the debt ceiling hostage for political gain: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/09/30/no_democrats_never_really_held_the_debt_limit_hostage.html

@Stackelberg -- also, retard, what give you the idea that the Republicans are obligated to increase the debt ceiling? They ARE NOT obligated to do so.

IN fact, the government takes in 10x the revenue required to service the debt -- so we could NOT raise the debt ceiling, still service the debt (i.e. we do NOT have to default on debt - if we did, that would be Obama's choice to do so).

so again...you are just an ignorant and/or stupid fool with all your blather.

You seem to think that Obama is Emporer, and whatever he utters he must recieve. Truly pathetic....you are just another sheep being led to the slaughter, and I pity you.

I wonder...when bush was President, did you demand that the Democrats blindly follow every wish he had? Or did you require the Democrats to fight him tooth and nail, you pathetic hypocrite?

Krellin, I hope you don't own a house, or have any investments in the stock market, or have an education fund for your kids, or a job that depends on the financial system (ie an employer with a loan or line of credit of any kind). If the Republicans don't stop trying threatening to destroy the financial system, you will likely lose all of those in short order.

Stackelberg -- again...debt ceiling increases have OFTEN had conditions attached. You'r just fucking ill-informed - willfully, I suspect - do your fuckign research ass clown.

@ StackelbergFollower et al

The House of Representatives has the constitutional authority and the constitutional responsibility/mandate to write and pass funding bills. If the House decides that Obamacare isn't worth funding, guess what? They don't have to fund it!

Constitutionally speaking, their side is the right side of this argument. It would be irresponsible of them to make irresponsible allocations such as Obamacare. Furthermore, the House of Representatives is the house of the people. The people don't want Obamacare. The HoR is merely reflecting this wish. If the Democrats won't compromise to keep the country's finances afloat, that's not the HoR's problem.

Boehner is right to ask for serious spending cuts as a condition to a debt ceiling increase. As the Speaker of the House, it's more or less HIS job to write and pass responsible budgets. The government needs to have a surplus by this time next year or we're fucked.

@Stackel -

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58360

Even the fucking CANADIANS realize you are an ass clown liar sheep when you make such ridiculous claims

@Gunfighter - nice try, except these ass clowns view the Constitution with contempt and disdain.

Krellin, are an expert in the treasury payment systems? I would bet the entire market capitalization of the S&P 500 that I am much closer to being an expert in payment systems than you are.

The treasury payments consist of two systems, and a subordinate system: (1) pays the military, (2a) pays debt service claims, and (2b) pays everything else. This system processes 80 million payments a month. If there is not enough money to do (2a) and (2b), nobody - NOBODY - actually knows if the payments can happen at all. Most likely, none of them occur. Why is it designed like this? Because it is madness that you would not pay a bill you can afford to pay, just to make a point.

The treasury payment system is designed to do one thing 100% accurately: pay every bill on time, in the order it comes up. They're not going to fuck around with it just because a bunch of lunatics decided they're unhappy they lost the last election, and they probably couldn't if they wanted to.

@ Krellin: your article only proves that sometimes they pass bills that do more than one thing. That is not the same thing as demanding a condition.

@ Gunfighter: you make a stronger point. The truth is, political scientists and sociologists for decades have predicted that a republican system, where the legislative and executive branches can be held by different parties both claiming to represent the will of the people, is just inherently unstable and doomed to collapse. I think you're right, but it is much worse than you say: this is a constitutional criss, and it may well be the end of the American republic.

However, you're wrong about Obamacare. It reduces the debt, in fact, according to the CBO when it was passed. And if the people didn't want Obamacare, maybe they should have elected Governor Romney, who campaigned on a promise to repeal on day one of his administration.

@Stackelberg - you are a lost, pathetic sheep. Keep stroking yourself, dumbass...yes, *EVERY* other time there were conditions attached to a debt limit increase it was *ONLY* because Congress was being efficient and doing more than one thing at a time. And I have a fucking bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, ass clown.

You aren't worth the time talking to anymore. I despise people like you with such little intellectual integrity. Pathetic...

Gunfighter: If the people didn't want Obamacare, then why did they re-elect Obama?

I mean, it kind of punches a hole in your entire theory.

Plus, yes, the House has the purse strings. But it has to be approved by the Senate and the President.

So no, they don't get to unilaterally decide what is funded and what is not.

They're holding the entire economy hostage because they didn't like the result of the last election.

Which is the act of petulant children.

@Stackelberg -- if Congress and the President want to fund debt payments, they would fund debt paymetns, fucktard. there is *nothign* in teh Constitution that says a,b,c must be paid before debt payments. CONGRESS sets the budget...so if they want to pay debt service, and Obama wants to agree, they would, fucktard.

Also, Krellin, can you stop frothing at the mouth and try to spell correctly? Its even harder to take you seriously when you can't go a line without mangling a word. Take your time, breath into a bag or something, and then write.

Just kidding. I wouldn't take you seriously even if you did.

@Jack Klein - if the people want Obamacare, then why did they elect a Majority in teh House of Reps.

You are such an ass clown. Exactly how retarded are you, Jack Klein?

All of your childish arguments work equally well against you - are you truly too stupid to see that? Ass clown.

Yes, krellin. That's actually what happened. No one really believes this bullshit that conditions have happened before. I read what every analyst on Wall Street says every morning and it is well understood that the situation we are in is 100% unprecedented.

And, no, the treasury payment system is not in the constitution. But that doesn't speak to what I said: no one is convinced they even have the *ability* to prioritize payments, even if ordered to do so by Congress and the White House in a duly signed law.

Heh, krellin, you know Democratic candidates got more total votes than Republican candidates in the House? There's a majority because of gerymandering, plain and simple.

Except the whole part about how a million more people voted for Democrats in the House than Republican.

So actually, the only reason there is a majority Republican house is that they gerrymandered the shit out the last House redistricting to have a majority in the House without a majority support in the Nation.

So no. You fail. Again.

Shocking, I know.

"if the people want Obamacare, then why did they elect a Majority in teh House of Reps."

Gerrymandering, mainly.

@Stackel - keep stroking yourself, ass clown. How about a LINK to this data.

So you're saying that the People's House should have a Democratic majority, because we had a majority of Democratic voters.

So the Republicans stole an election. Glad you're with me on that, Krellin.

Now wipe the spittle from your lips and try not to hyperventilate any more.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

"House Democrats won a plurality nation-wide by over 1.7 million more votes (1.4%),[6] but the Republicans were able to retain a 17-seat majority due in part to their gerrymandering in the congressional redistricting process following the 2010 United States Census,[7][8][9] and because many Democratic votes were concentrated into urban and minority districts.[10] "

Sorry for using Wikipedia as a source, but I am lazy and I know facts don't persuade people who live in their own world, anyway.

"So strike that. Terrorism is perfectly apt. Its hostage taking, and its ethically bankrupt."

Bullshit. Nobody has been taken against there will. Hostages are people, not processes. It is blackmail and extortion, nothing more. And the response by the Executive Branch has been to hurt the people of the US instead of negotiate.

Game, set, and match.

We should have a majority Democratic House, so therefore, the American people support the ACA, and therefore the Republicans are being terrorist scumfucks and holding the economy ransom to satisfy their petulant anger over their loss.

And Krellin is cheering them on, because he apparently hates Obama more than he loves America.

Good game, son.

Annnnnnd...wahhh......gerrymandering....so what? It's the law of the land. You don't complain when it nefefits you...so again, mronic ass clown hypocrites....what's your point? The law is the law is the law...isn't that what you say about Obamcare? Which, incidently, was NOT passed by a straight up vote, but using parlimentary procedures.

So, all you fucking self-righteous ass clowns...if you are SOOOOO interested in prim and proper rules adn votes...then you should offended as hell at the way Harry Reid passed Obamcare.

So really, shut the fuck up, whiny little bitches. lol God it's fun to mock you and use your own moronic arguments against you over and over and over again. What a bunch of ass clowns.

And yep.

Thats how you can tell you've checkmated Krellin.

He starts REALLY ranting and making no sense.

Thanks for playing. Nice to know you're still so gracious in defeat. :)

Obamacare got a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate. That's not enough to pass a law in your books? The Constitution only says it needs a majority in both houses.