Both the Judge and Beck (somewhat anyway) seem to agree that, despite terrible consequences, the debt ceiling should not be raised any higher, which could begin the ‘difficult times’ that we know are coming. But then it ended like this:
Judge: I think they’ll get the debt ceiling through because the President will buy off the Republicans with some nonsense.
Beck: And that will be the beginning of the end of the Republicans.
Here’s the full segment and it’s in the first half of the clip. Be sure and watch it to get the proper context.
I’m not sure I agree with Beck here. Obviously there would be dire consequences to not raising the debt ceiling, but it’s because of those consequences, along with the fact that Republicans haven’t had the chance to pass any legislation into law – to reform the government that badly needs reform – that would give me pause before passing judgement on them at this point. This particular problem has been created in large part by the tremendously excessive spending of the Democrat party over the last four years and if we have to raise it one more time to give the Republicans a chance to get our house in order without having detrimental consequences, then I’m ok with it. After all, people tend to agree that Paul Ryan’s roadmap would set us on the right course without killing the benefits of those who are currently receiving benefits from programs like Social Security.
At this point it would be 2013 before Republicans would have an opportunity to actually reform government, so let’s hold off on the “Republicans are going to be the Whig Party” talk. We knew when we elected them this time that all we could hope for is gridlock. And that’s what we want. But unless there is some unforeseen solution out there somewhere, they may have to participate in raising the debt ceiling again. Even West agrees, though he wants some serious spending cuts attached.
UPDATE: I updated to reflect better Beck’s position on voting for it since he did show a fair amount of hesitancy in picking a side.
UPDATE: Glenn clarified his position this morning and does feel that we should raise the debt ceiling as long as we do it responsibly. However, I will take issue with one thing the article states:
Glenn was surprised that his words were being twisted and misunderstood, so he tried to clarify.
I quoted what he said and put the entire context around it. I did not twist them. Besides, if his position was so clear and easy to understand, then why did it take him two segments and several analogies to clarify it? And even then it was still fuzzy. At the end of the article it states:
Stu was able to summarize Glenn’s position: “Raise it as long as it’s paired with legitimate physical responsibility.”
I would add ‘Stu was finally able to summarize…’ as it took a while to get to that point.