# Dear Republicans: The debt ceiling? Again?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 17, 2012, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190 "2012-05-17T08:12:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/21 "2012-05-17T14:12:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/22 "2012-05-17T14:16:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. \ or what **Bricker** said. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/23 "2012-05-17T14:17:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/24 "2012-05-17T14:19:43Z")
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: > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/25 "2012-05-17T14:20:45Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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”. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/26 "2012-05-17T14:22:19Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > 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 :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Kimballkid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5a626/32.png) [@Kimballkid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimballkid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/27 "2012-05-17T14:24:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/28 "2012-05-17T14:27:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/29 "2012-05-17T14:37:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/30 "2012-05-17T14:46:25Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/31 "2012-05-17T14:50:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/32 "2012-05-17T14:53:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … 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? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/33 "2012-05-17T14:56:30Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/34 "2012-05-17T14:57:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/35 "2012-05-17T14:58:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > [@brazil84](#): > > 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. > [@Terr](#): > > 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? > [@brazil84](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/36 "2012-05-17T14:59:04Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > 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_. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/37 "2012-05-17T15:00:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/38 "2012-05-17T15:13:42Z")
…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 ® displaced by a more principled party. I doubt it, but then again I haven’t met anybody planning to vote “Whig” lately, either… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/39 "2012-05-17T15:20:22Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/40 "2012-05-17T15:21:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=3)