The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2012, 04:12 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Dear Republicans: The debt ceiling? Again?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/us...imit.html?_r=1

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner on Tuesday set the stage for a bruising election-year showdown on fiscal policy, vowing to hold up another increase in the federal debt ceiling unless it was offset by larger spending cuts.

[...]

Mr. Boehner’s stance threatened to throw Congress back into the debt-limit stalemate that consumed Washington in 2011, but this time at the height of a campaign that Republicans are trying to make a referendum on Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy.

“A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation,” Mr. Romney said, “and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve.”

The Boehner comments, made at a fiscal summit meeting in Washington, were the first public shot in what promises to be the most consequential budget fight in a generation. On Jan. 1, nearly $8 trillion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts are scheduled to take effect.

Mr. Boehner said he would not allow Congress to duck tough decisions with another round of short-term measures. He also said the House would pass an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts before the November elections, and he urged lawmakers in both parties to reach a long-term deal on spending and tax changes — but no additional taxes — to head off a fiscal calamity.

[...]
...Could you get any more transparently partisan and idiotic? Come on, this is just pathetic. It was stupid partisan posturing in 2011, and now it's even more obvious. Not really sure if there's anything more to say about this than that the Republicans have, once again, put politics above sound policy.

Yeah, they're bringing back the debt ceiling debate. What the fuck?! What the fucking fuck?! Is there any reason other than bloody-minded political bullshit to do this? It was retarded in 2011, and it's only going to be more retarded now, a few months before the election. There is nothing to be said about this that cannot be summed up with the following statement: The republican party is a cancer upon our nation, and we would all be better off if they died in a plane crash.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:11 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,004
Let's not forget that the 2011's unconstitutional fight resulted in a downgrade of the US's credit rating. WWII couldn't do it, but Boehner did.

How is all of this unconstitutional? Cue the music:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
By refusing to raise the debt ceiling, the Republicans made our debt questionable, as exhibited by the credit professionals at S&P. I call for Boehner to either pledge allegiance to the constitution or tender his immediate resignation.


Boehner also is a weasel and a deal-breaker. Last year, they agreed on big automated cuts to defense if they couldn't cut a deal with the Dems on the budget. Now they're just walking away with that. We could trust Boehner's word moving forward. But that would be immoral: trusting those who can't keep their word only leads to bad outcomes.


And let's not forget the deep background. Democrats are willing to discuss entitlements. Republicans rule out tax increases out of hand. And yet pundits say the problem is with "Congress". Nonsense. Democrats have conservatives, moderates and liberals in their coalition. Washington Republicans only consist of loons and those afraid of being primaried by loons. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...uction-warfare
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:22 AM
The Man With The Golden Gun The Man With The Golden Gun is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,136
People around here often say that the Republicans' end goal is to deprive the government of money, starving the beast in other words.

Looks more to me like their end goal is to lose as many elections as humanly possible.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-17-2012, 05:48 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
So your position is that the Constitution requires Congress to vote for any debt ceiling increase that is required?

I don't agree. You misunderstand the difference between obligations as a result of debt and obligations arising from appropriations.

The Debt Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains Congress from refusing to pay "...obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States." (Quoting Perry v. US, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)).

A failure to raise the debt ceiling will impact obligations created through the appropriations process: Medicare payments, salaries of park rangers, payments to universities or researchers for research grants, aid to Madagascar, rent on USDA field offices and the like. Interest on the national debt, T-bills, would still be paid. In other words, Congress borrows money on the credit of the United Staes and uses it to pay appropriated expenses. Congress must repay the money it has borrowed; it has no Constitutional mandate to pay the appropriations it has enacted.

In addition to the Supreme Court language I quote above, the Treasury Department's General Counsel wrote to the NYT when this issue was in the news before, in response to Professor Laurence Tribe chastising Secretary Geither for saying what you just did. The General Cousel's letter clarified that Secretary Geither agreed with Tribe that Congress did not have a Constitutional obligation to raise the debt ceiling... although he certainly felt Congress had an obligation to ensure that the country honored the appropriated expenses, he agreed that only Congress could raise the binding legal constraint that was the debt ceiling.

Letter here.

On this claim, then, you're very wrong.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-17-2012, 06:12 AM
Giles Giles is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,021
The Congress can manage the deficit by authorising (or not authorising) expenditure, and by raising or lowering taxes. Once it has decided to spend $X billion, and to raise $Y billion, doesn't the level of debt follow automatically? The right time to have the debate is when they authorise the spending -- but perhaps that means some actual hard decisions, rather than just posturing.

Last edited by Giles; 05-17-2012 at 06:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-17-2012, 06:15 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Hey Bricker, just to be clear, can we agree that this is a fucking idiotic, partisan, politically motivated move? I know you're a republican, but I assume you're not totally stupid... The only person on this forum whom I'd trust to say "this is a good idea" is Clothahump, and I think he might be clinically retarded.

@MfM: "lose"? Wrong word. The debt ceiling is an amazing political issue to push, because they get to blame any fallout from it on Obama, and a shameful amount of the populace will buy the lie.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-17-2012 at 06:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:00 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Hey Bricker, just to be clear, can we agree that this is a fucking idiotic, partisan, politically motivated move? I know you're a republican, but I assume you're not totally stupid... The only person on this forum whom I'd trust to say "this is a good idea" is Clothahump, and I think he might be clinically retarded.
I endorse this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
The Congress can manage the deficit by authorising (or not authorising) expenditure, and by raising or lowering taxes. Once it has decided to spend $X billion, and to raise $Y billion, doesn't the level of debt follow automatically? The right time to have the debate is when they authorise the spending -- but perhaps that means some actual hard decisions, rather than just posturing.
I'd just clarify that the level of "debt" doesn't follow automatically, because in addition to authorizing itself to spend $X billion, it must authorize itself to raise $Y billion via borrowing. It's that second step that's at issue here.

But the main point you make, Giles, is right on the money (no pun intended): The right time to have the debate is when they authorize the spending.

I agree with you, BPC, that this is politically motivated and partisan move. I'm not sure it's idiotic yet, in that if it's effective, then 'idiotic' might not be a good word, but it's in bad faith. That is, this does not arise from a principled objection to the increased debt; if it did, then the time to object was when the appropriations bill was being debated. It's.... dishonorable... for Congress to agree to spend money and then cut off the spending by refusing to authorize the debt necessary to service it.

In my opinion, anyway.

But note well that dishonorable, just like idiotic and partisan and nakedly political, are all terms with one thing in common: they are not synonyms for "unconstituional."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:12 AM
Shakes Shakes is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas Tx.
Posts: 10,574
I endorse this pitting. But honestly, I saw this coming five months ago.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:29 AM
brazil84 brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I agree with you, BPC, that this is politically motivated and partisan move.
I agree, but as I pointed out in the last thread, this sort of partisanship has been going on for a long time. The earliest reference I could find to it was in 1881 when President Hayes vetoed a debt rollover bill which had attached to it some kind of measure affecting competition in banks.

Is Budget Player Cadet a principled observer who objects to all use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip? Or is he just a partisan hack whose real objection is to Republicans and their goals?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:38 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I agree, but as I pointed out in the last thread, this sort of partisanship has been going on for a long time. The earliest reference I could find to it was in 1881 when President Hayes vetoed a debt rollover bill which had attached to it some kind of measure affecting competition in banks.

Is Budget Player Cadet a principled observer who objects to all use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip? Or is he just a partisan hack whose real objection is to Republicans and their goals?
Who cares? If he's right, he's right. It may well be that BPC wouldn't piss on the GOP if they were on fire. But that doesn't transform the current technique into something honorable.

But what do I know? I'm a Jackass Extraordinaire.

Last edited by Bricker; 05-17-2012 at 09:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:38 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
It's a good political move by Republicans. Just hope they stick to it and don't fold with a transparent cop-out like last time. Well, "hope" is the wrong word. It would be a miracle if they don't fold.

Last edited by Terr; 05-17-2012 at 09:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:40 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Who cares? If he's right, he's right. It may well be that BPC wouldn't piss on the GOP if they were on fire. But that doesn't transform the current technique into something honorable.
You're looking for "honor" in politics?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:43 AM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
You're looking for "honor" in politics?
I think he's hoping (like most people) for honor in governance.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:46 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I think he's hoping (like most people) for honor in governance.
Hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:48 AM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I agree, but as I pointed out in the last thread, this sort of partisanship has been going on for a long time. The earliest reference I could find to it was in 1881 when President Hayes vetoed a debt rollover bill which had attached to it some kind of measure affecting competition in banks.

Is Budget Player Cadet a principled observer who objects to all use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip? Or is he just a partisan hack whose real objection is to Republicans and their goals?
I don't know about Budget, but I, for one, would like to go on record as condemning President Hayes for this maneuver ... which he pulled off 131 years ago.

Now why aren't the current Republicans being petulant assholes in this regard again?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:49 AM
brazil84 brazil84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Who cares?
I care, because if it's just a matter of partisanship then he is being fundamentally dishonest in his criticism. He should just come out and say he hates the Republican goals rather than dishonestly pretending his problem is with their methods.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:54 AM
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Hilarious.
And thus sums up the problem with the modern conservative movement in one pithy post.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:56 AM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'm a Jackass Extraordinaire.

Braggart.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:06 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I care, because if it's just a matter of partisanship then he is being fundamentally dishonest in his criticism. He should just come out and say he hates the Republican goals rather than dishonestly pretending his problem is with their methods.
But that's a classic ad hominem argument -- you're saying that BPC cannot advance this argument because of his other beliefs.

So now I advance the precise argument he was offering: that this move is partisan political grandstanding, and not an honest objection to the debt. Clearly (I hope) I am immune to the charge that I simply hate the Republican goals.

So now can the underlying argument be addressed?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:09 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So now I advance the precise argument he was offering: that this move is partisan political grandstanding, and not an honest objection to the debt.
It can't be both?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:12 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
It can't be both?
Sure it can.

But if it were, as noted above, the time to make that principled objection is during the appropriations process. We have, in effect, already agreed to spend this money. We should honor that agreement, either by borrowing the money or raising our revenue to allow it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:16 AM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
It can't be both?
If it was honest objection to the debt, don't you think that the Republicans would engage in honest debate about how to lower the debt BEFORE it got to this point?

Honest debate would be looking at both sides of the solution to debt - income and expenses - rather than the current Republican strategy which is to ignore income (taxes, which are currently at historically low levels) and not compromise, negotiate, discuss or otherwise act like mature grownups.

<on edit> or what Bricker said.

Last edited by Euphonious Polemic; 05-17-2012 at 10:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:17 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Sure it can.

But if it were, as noted above, the time to make that principled objection is during the appropriations process. We have, in effect, already agreed to spend this money. We should honor that agreement, either by borrowing the money or raising our revenue to allow it.
... and I am sure some made the "principled objection" at that time and were outvoted. Are those allowed to make another "principled objection" at this time as well?

And, of course, some others are utter unprincipled hypocrites and are only playing politics. What I am wondering is why you think the whole group of those who object are one and not the other.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:19 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Bait and switch.

"Big government is the problem".

The problem is perpetuated by one political party (Hayes was a Republican too).

"How naive".

Then on issues such as providing the indigent with healthcare or fundamental rights to homosexuals, we need to oppose big government. Forgetting which party is responsible for the failure of governance.

Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker
you're saying that BPC cannot advance this argument because of his other beliefs...
It's also the two wrongs / tu quoque fallacy. Because Hayes did it / your side did it, it can't be wrong when we did it.

Last edited by gamerunknown; 05-17-2012 at 10:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:20 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
If it was honest objection to the debt, don't you think that the Republicans would engage in honest debate about how to lower the debt?
There is no such thing as "honest debate" during campaign season. Unless you think that bringing up a candidate's history of high school pranks is "honest debate".
Quote:
Honest debate would be looking at both sides of the solution to debt - income and expenses - rather than the current Republican strategy which is to ignore income (taxes, which are currently at historically low levels) and not compromise, negotiate, discuss or otherwise act like mature grownups.
It's funny (to me) that people who lament the lack of "honor" and "principles" in politics turn around and advocate "compromise". "Honor" and "principles", if someone actually has them, cannot be compromised.

Last edited by Terr; 05-17-2012 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:22 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Forgetting which party is responsible for the failure of governance.
Indeed, I heard a member of congress, I think the speaker, bragging about how they would once again drag the country to the precipice of a default and then blaming Obama for irresponsibly bringing us there
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:24 AM
Kimballkid Kimballkid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Who cares? If he's right, he's right. It may well be that BPC wouldn't piss on the GOP if they were on fire. But that doesn't transform the current technique into something honorable.

But what do I know? I'm a Jackass Extraordinaire.
There you go!! Way to own it. You should change your custom title to that.

(I kid of course as I have no opinion on your Jackassedness whatsoever, Extraordinary or otherwise).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:27 AM
Hbns Hbns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
So now I advance the precise argument he was offering: that this move is partisan political grandstanding, and not an honest objection to the debt.
Political grandstanding? In an election year? Say it isn't so!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:37 AM
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
In this thread we can see the gamut of Republican thought. Bricker, knee-jerks to defend a small element, even though he disagrees with the whole. He has an attachment to his side, and their goals, but finds the method distasteful.

On the other side of the spectrum we have Terr, who is so profoundly ignorant of reality and the universe we actually occupy that he thinks destroying the world economy would be awesome because liberty or something.

I'm sure Clothy is shouting at an armadillo somewhere, and will be along shortly.

Last edited by Lobohan; 05-17-2012 at 10:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:46 AM
Ca3799 Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Maybe the Republicans are playing a long game: They can refuse to raise the debt ceiling, cause a Constitutional crisis, cause Obama to either ignore the ceiling or raise it by executive order, take the whole mess to the Supreme Court and then claim the Kenyan Muslim Usurper is now a Tyrant taking over the role of Congress, and finally get a nice, new civil war to pay for thus finally, improving the economy!

Whew. Problem solved!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:50 AM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
T
It's funny (to me) that people who lament the lack of "honor" and "principles" in politics turn around and advocate "compromise". "Honor" and "principles", if someone actually has them, cannot be compromised.
So that would explain why many Republicans stuck to their principles and fought the debt ceiling when Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%?

When George W. Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times for a total increase of 90%?

Were those times OK then? Because I don't recall a peep from those principled Republicans then.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:53 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
... and I am sure some made the "principled objection" at that time and were outvoted. Are those allowed to make another "principled objection" at this time as well?

And, of course, some others are utter unprincipled hypocrites and are only playing politics. What I am wondering is why you think the whole group of those who object are one and not the other.
Well, no. Taking the parties as a whole, at least some GOP support was needed to pass the appropriations bill -- or at least to invoke cloture.

I don't want to construct your argument for you -- are you now saying that some subset of senators had principled objections then and retain them now?

Fine. What, then, of the senators that agreed to cloture? What's their excuse?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:56 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
So that would explain why many Republicans stuck to their principles and fought the debt ceiling when Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times for a total increase of 199%?
Non-sequitur. I don't consider any politician to be "honorable" or "principled". Such people do not run for office to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:57 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
It's hard to determine which is worse-- that the Republicans cling to this nutty tactic, or the fact that a good chunk of the American people think it's a good idea. The yseem to hear nothing but "debt", then immediately shut their brains off. I guess the one follow from the other.

Last edited by John Mace; 05-17-2012 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:58 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I agree with you, BPC, that this is politically motivated and partisan move. I'm not sure it's idiotic yet, in that if it's effective, then 'idiotic' might not be a good word, but it's in bad faith. That is, this does not arise from a principled objection to the increased debt; if it did, then the time to object was when the appropriations bill was being debated. It's.... dishonorable... for Congress to agree to spend money and then cut off the spending by refusing to authorize the debt necessary to service it.

In my opinion, anyway.

But note well that dishonorable, just like idiotic and partisan and nakedly political, are all terms with one thing in common: they are not synonyms for "unconstituional."
Oh, I agree completely. "Unconstitutional" is the wrong ord. But there really needs to be some mechanism put in place to prevent this kind of abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
Is Budget Player Cadet a principled observer who objects to all use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip? Or is he just a partisan hack whose real objection is to Republicans and their goals?
Does it matter? If you're wondering "would I object to the Democrats doing this", then yes, yes I would. This is the wrong time to push an agenda, and even if wasn't an agenda that was disgustingly backwards and wrong. The fact of the matter is, if this is anything like the debates in 2011, the Republicans are going state demands, and hold the full faith and credit of the USA hostage until they get those demands. That is not okay. There are no circumstances under which that would be okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
It's a good political move by Republicans. Just hope they stick to it and don't fold with a transparent cop-out like last time. Well, "hope" is the wrong word. It would be a miracle if they don't fold.
...Wait, you want them to ruin the country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brazil84 View Post
I care, because if it's just a matter of partisanship then he is being fundamentally dishonest in his criticism. He should just come out and say he hates the Republican goals rather than dishonestly pretending his problem is with their methods.
Oh, it can't be both?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:59 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
It's also the two wrongs / tu quoque fallacy. Because Hayes did it / your side did it, it can't be wrong when we did it.
Er... kinda.

This is actually a subtle point, and it's one that I see very often missed or misused on this board.

It might be a tu quoque, or it might not be. It all depends on what the underlying argument is.

In this case, it seems to me Terr made two arguments, but so intertwined that it becomes difficult to separate them and address each one.

(1) BPC's outrage is manufactured, not real, and exists only because the GOP is the actor.

(2) The underlying actions of the GOP have a principled basis.
As to the first argument -- it's not tu quoque to say your side did it too. Because that's the gravamen of the argument: that the objection is not to the tactic, but to the player.

But as to the second argument, it's absolutely a classic tu quoque.

Last edited by Bricker; 05-17-2012 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:00 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Well, no. Taking the parties as a whole, at least some GOP support was needed to pass the appropriations bill -- or at least to invoke cloture.

I don't want to construct your argument for you -- are you now saying that some subset of senators had principled objections then and retain them now?

Fine. What, then, of the senators that agreed to cloture? What's their excuse?
It could be that some had principled objections (well, not really, since, as I pointed out above, people with honor or principles do not run for office), yes. And then some are unprincipled political scoundrels. Those who voted against the appropriations bill and now are objecting to debt ceiling rise are of the second variety. As are those (for example, one whose name rhymes with Bobama) who were all "honor"ably and "principle"d-ly against raising debt ceiling a few years ago and are all for it now.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:13 AM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
I don't want any (R)s dying in an airplane crash

...but I'm old enough to recall a time when opposition to the other party wasn't always an absolute, 'they are the enemy' proposition. We are founded on a 2-party system, so we need a loyal opposition to keep the ship of state from veering off course to badly one side or the other.
I wonder if, in my lifetime, we'll see the classic (R) displaced by a more principled party. I doubt it, but then again I haven't met anybody planning to vote "Whig" lately, either...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:20 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Oh, I agree completely. "Unconstitutional" is the wrong ord. But there really needs to be some mechanism put in place to prevent this kind of abuse.
The problem is that every Congress is in a position to make its own rules, with no more majority required than the majority to make the last set of rules.

The mechanism is ideally the voting public. And I have come to believe that perhaps what the voting public needs here is a dose of reality. In other words, I offered up a list of things earlier that would be at risk with the failure to raise the debt limit -- some trivial, some not.

In this case, the GOP is playing on a public perception of useless bureaucrats. But -- as exemplified by the confused man with the "Get Your Government Out of My Medicare" sign -- the public is not internalizing what a government abdication of these commitments actually means.

As painful as it would be, I think that the public needs a dose of what it actually means to stop paying for appropriattions.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:21 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
It could be that some had principled objections (well, not really, since, as I pointed out above, people with honor or principles do not run for office), yes. And then some are unprincipled political scoundrels. Those who voted against the appropriations bill and now are objecting to debt ceiling rise are of the second variety. As are those (for example, one whose name rhymes with Bobama) who were all "honor"ably and "principle"d-ly against raising debt ceiling a few years ago and are all for it now.
Again -- so what?

The question is: what's the right thing to do? You're trying to make the question about the motives of the Democrats. How is that relevant?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:22 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
We are founded on a 2-party system
A commonly believed myth. Our system of government pretty much guarantees a two party outcome, but many of the founders abhorred the idea of political parties.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:23 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The problem is that every Congress is in a position to make its own rules, with no more majority required than the majority to make the last set of rules.

The mechanism is ideally the voting public. And I have come to believe that perhaps what the voting public needs here is a dose of reality. In other words, I offered up a list of things earlier that would be at risk with the failure to raise the debt limit -- some trivial, some not.

In this case, the GOP is playing on a public perception of useless bureaucrats. But -- as exemplified by the confused man with the "Get Your Government Out of My Medicare" sign -- the public is not internalizing what a government abdication of these commitments actually means.

As painful as it would be, I think that the public needs a dose of what it actually means to stop paying for appropriattions.
Perhaps. I'm not sure it would actually work, though. We go through that regularly in CA, and it doesn't seem to do anything.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:25 AM
Truman Burbank Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
OK

In practice, our federal government operates as a 2-party system...
(yes, I know we could pick nits with that one, too)...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:29 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Again -- so what?

The question is: what's the right thing to do? You're trying to make the question about the motives of the Democrats. How is that relevant?
The right thing to do is not to dicker around with the system as it is, since it is hopelessly screwed up. We're way past the inflection point. The right thing to do is to abolish the system and rebuild it right from scratch. The only way to do that (if we're very lucky and things fall right) is after a full collapse of the current system. Thus the worse it is, the better it is. Maybe.

Of course, the collapse may result in something much worse than it is now. But then doing nothing will probably get us to the same point, just a bit slower.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:33 AM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Non-sequitur. I don't consider any politician to be "honorable" or "principled". Such people do not run for office to begin with.
I'm confused now.

So the Republicans doing this grandstanding are not honorable or principled. Their move last time led to a downgrade in the credit rating. But you support them in doing this anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:34 AM
saoirse saoirse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
The right thing to do is not to dicker around with the system as it is, since it is hopelessly screwed up. We're way past the inflection point. The right thing to do is to abolish the system and rebuild it right from scratch. The only way to do that (if we're very lucky and things fall right) is after a full collapse of the current system. Thus the worse it is, the better it is. Maybe.

Of course, the collapse may result in something much worse than it is now. But then doing nothing will probably get us to the same point, just a bit slower.
You're a loony.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:35 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
The right thing to do is not to dicker around with the system as it is, since it is hopelessly screwed up. We're way past the inflection point. The right thing to do is to abolish the system and rebuild it right from scratch. The only way to do that (if we're very lucky and things fall right) is after a full collapse of the current system. Thus the worse it is, the better it is. Maybe.

Of course, the collapse may result in something much worse than it is now. But then doing nothing will probably get us to the same point, just a bit slower.
So your solution, and what you are advocating for, is the collapse of American society?

Wow. I don't even ...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:37 AM
Terr Terr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I'm confused now.

So the Republicans doing this grandstanding are not honorable or principled. Their move last time led to a downgrade in the credit rating. But you support them in doing this anyway?
Yes. I support the right decision even if done for wrong reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:38 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I've always wanted to live in a post-Apocolyptic world. It looks so fun in the movies!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-17-2012, 11:38 AM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
The right thing to do is not to dicker around with the system as it is, since it is hopelessly screwed up. We're way past the inflection point. The right thing to do is to abolish the system and rebuild it right from scratch. The only way to do that (if we're very lucky and things fall right) is after a full collapse of the current system. Thus the worse it is, the better it is. Maybe.

Of course, the collapse may result in something much worse than it is now. But then doing nothing will probably get us to the same point, just a bit slower.
Ah, so you are indeed hoping to "starve the beast", and you applaud the current crop of Republicans because you see them causing a complete collapse of the country sooner rather than later.

So you're a patriot because you want the country to suffer a full collapse.

Then things will get better somehow.

Jesus wept.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.