Once unconcerned, Tipton now sounding the alarm about economic consequences of not raising the debt

(Tip-Flop? – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

Along with throwing his support behind House Speaker John Boehner’s plan to raise the debt ceiling, Colorado’s freshman Congressman Scott Tipton changed his tune yesterday about the economic consequences not taking action.

Yesterday, Tipton sounded extremely worried about the economic impacts of not raising the debt limit, but two days previously not so much.

As the Grand Junction Sentinel reported today:

“I don’t think I can overstate” the economic dislocation that would take place if the debt limit isn’t increased, Tipton said.

A reduction in the nation’s credit rating would affect all Americans because no individual can have a higher credit rating than the nation. Mortgage, credit-card rates and other forms of borrowing would immediately become more expensive, he said.

Contrast this with what Tipton told the Durango Herald Tuesday:

Tipton, however, argued that Obama overstated the consequences and that enough revenue would be coming in so that most of the United States’ bills, including to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, would be paid. “We do have the ability to meet those obligations,” he said.

Tipton also told KVOR-AM 760’s Jeff Crank July 16 that the U.S. could meet its financial obligations, even if the debt limit was not raised. Listen to the audio here.

Crank: Let’s hope we can hold the line much like was done on health care, where really every Republican stayed firm and solid on that point and that we don’t have people getting nervous. This President and the media is very complicit in this, trying to equate a vote on the debt limit increase to the defaulting-the US government defaulting. Those are two very different things and we need, I think as conservatives to do a better job at education that those are different things. Just because the debt limit isn’t raised does not mean that the United States government automatically defaults on its obligations.

Tipton: The revenue that’s going to be coming in just over the balance of this month not only has the ability to cover the other areas we talked about just earlier but also be able to pay all of our interest payments as well. We have numerous economists, and I think maybe the most telling thing that ought to drive a lot of our decisions finally came out of S & P and Moody’s, the rating organizations. It isn’t a matter of just increasing the debt ceiling. They say that there has to be real reform, cuts up to $4 trillion, so that they can give a AAA credit rating to the United States. They understand, finally, at these credit rating agencies that if we don’t get our fiscal house in order we are in the pathway of Greece.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but Tipton appears to be the only Member of Congress who’s flipped his views on if extending the debt limit matters, and reporters should find out what changed his mind on this.

27 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. gertie97 says:

    very, very slowly again and again and again.

    • Ray Springfield says:

      just saw a Karl Rove lie ad on channel 7.

      • Libertad says:

        With Obama carrying a -18 approval rating, you know the independents have cut bait.

        • dukeco1 says:

          Is there some reason you can articulate that makes you think ANYONE here is interested in seeing your phony Obama disapproval numbers?…again? It seems as though you post them here daily.

          Is it just a bad habit, or do you think it will actually influence…well, someone?…anyone?

          Perhaps you think it will make all us liberals want to slit our wrists in despair…uh, no.

          Actually, every time you post those numbers, contrived as they are, I get remotivated to work as hard as I can to get the President re-elected.


  2. ClubTwitty says:

    Asking him to be consistent is a bit of a high bar.  

    In his statement yesterday he talks up his great work in going along with the GOP tea-masses in voting for the Ryan plan and CC&B, which he touts as the responsible approach, apparently without irony:

    The House of Representatives has led the charge to find a solution to our nation’s debt crisis from the beginning, passing a responsible budget earlier this year and a plan just last week to Cut, Cap, and Balance spending.


    But what would the ‘responsible’ Ryan plan or CC&B accomplish?

    Forgive me for pointing this out over and over again, but the budget the House GOP passed with great fanfare in April would run up trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade, while still leaving a $440-billion deficit in 2021. And the “cut, cap and balance” bill the House passed also fails to identify a single program to cut. Instead, it limits total spending to a gradually declining percentage of the economy through 2021, with no guarantee that federal revenues will come anywhere close to those levels.


    Like his worthless pandering pledge to cut government spending by 50%, Tipton has yet to specify what he would cut in supporting CC&B.  Instead he supports the Ryan pixie dust plan.  

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    . . . because no individual can have a higher credit rating than the nation.

    Methinks that our AAA credit rating is probably already a lost cause, and our assclown leaders know it.


    It seems likely to me that much of the sturm and drang of this past month is because our leaders all know we’re losing that rating — you simply can’t achieve the deficit reductions needed to avoid downgrade without some tax increases.  What the hell would we expect the IMF to tell any other country except lower some spending and increase some revenue? — and have been busily positioning themselves so that when this eventuality does occur, they can, as they always so helpfully do, point their fingers at the other side.  

    • Car 31 says:

      In addition to all the bad stuff that would happen, the USA would prbably only get a four out of five chihuahua rating! OR, maybe even a three chihuahua rating.

      F**K! This really just got serious and I’m glad Tipton is aware of the threat of losing chihuahua.

  4. Gardnerpath says:

    Gardner has consistently said there will be no default, as recently as this Wednesday. I think he’ll be changing his tune as the weekend moves on, so he can push the blame toward the president for ruining the economy.

    “There will be no default! There will be no default!” default “Why didn’t you compromise to prevent the default!”

  5. allyncooper says:

    when Bubba was president, the economy was smokin’,  there was a budget surplus, and interns made sure the whole process ran smoothly ?

  6. Mark G. says:

    You cry for redistribution but when it comes along, such as the violent wealth exchange that is about to occur, you vehemently oppose it.

    You economic ignorance and duality is mind numbing.

    A deal like this will NOT destroy wealth. It will simply move wealth to a more equitable location.

    Just admit it, Colorado Pollsters want government to own it all.

  7. TimothyTribbett says:

    Validity of public debt

    Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, several English and French banks had lent money to the South during the war.[48] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”[49] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the president unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[50]

  8. ClubTwitty says:

    Somehow I missed Libby’s fine work, if he did in fact author the quote you claim for him…

    So I have a question.  Referring to redneck Caucasians by the term that also means a crunchy, generally baked, snack is a bannable offense…but referring to Latinos with a term that also means a family of legumes is not?  

    Just want to make sure I understand which foodstuffs/slang for certain ethnicities (or a subset of that ethnicity as in the case of the crunchy snack) are TOU offenses and which are not.

    Thanks for the clarification.  And for the record, I have found that a zesty white bean dip on stone ground wheat crackers is a delight in the summer time.  

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      is quick, heathful, and tasty (and likely non-prosecutable IF one is extremely careful about remarks made about p_ta chips).

      I don’t know for certain, but as an unwritten Pols general rule all legume references appear honky-dory and fair game.  For wheat based-products I would avoid directly referencing anything much crisper than lightly-browned t_ast.  (This may be, however, one of the several discretionary powers permitted FPEs.)

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.