So among the recent outrage about Obama’s proposal to deal with the fiscal cliff was outrage at the gall, the unmitigated gall, that Obama would demand that the president be unilaterally empowered to raise the fiscal borrowing limit at will. Now, if I was a republican (and thus had such a tensile grasp on economics that the other stuff Obama proposed made no sense), most of the other things would seem sensible to protest, but…
…This?
…Really?
I have to say, it’d be a no-brainer if this was just coming from the republicans in congress. Duh, they want to hold on to their yearly “do what we want or we fuck the country with no lube” button. But everyday, normal republicans? Who didn’t catch what happened last debt ceiling debate? Do we really want any congress to be able to do this whenever they want? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
You don’t have to go further than this. Everyone* who is against raising the debt limit thinks that we will magically be forced to quote unquote “live within our means” if we don’t raise the limit. If you believe this, you are not connected to reality.
*Of course, there are a very few exceptions like those who actively wish ill upon the current US government and think it will be to their advantage to see the current American way of life be put in jeopardy.
Pro tip: do you really think so little of my writing skills that you did not consider the possibility that I deliberately used that phrasing to draw emphasis to the quote?
Pro tip: the Straight Dope Message Board contains a variety of tools for modifying text, such as italics, and bold. Typing words in all caps is considered rude on the Internet, as is implies that you are shouting.
That only applies to entire sentences. Capitalizing single words is a GREAT way to communicate emphasis. Typing the words quote unquote “before quoting something” is weird and it was really nice of Ethilrist to suggest you stop doing it.
Also, “pro-tip:” is also considered rude. It implies, like I previously mentioned, that the speaker considers themself so a ''pro" to a degree that they feel free to condescend. It’s one thing to nitpick, quite another to imply a lack of grammatical foresight on my part.
Anyway, to answer the question, I think the answer is that the Republicans are not going to have a straightforward debate about policy starting from commonly accepted and verifiable premises. That could easily result in a conclusion other than, quote, “Let’s screw everyone in the country to benefit the rich.” So, they always need some nonsense they can resort to and shout about that will not lead to a straightforward debate, but which will lead to a forced negotiation. Like your typical hostage situation, for example, quote, “2+2=5 I say, and if anyone says any different I shoot this dog!!”
It is very sad, there are still some smart and rational people voting Republican who remain in denial about what the behavior of their representatives really means.
I’m a Democrat, and I don’t love the idea of the government being able to do much of import without at least two bureaucracies agreeing to it (national defense being a possible exception; budget manipulation is not).
I don’t mind Obama having that much power to act unilaterally, but a Norquister…
They are not all pissed, some just want to use this situation to get the President to consider actually cutting spending somehow. It is part of negotiations, and an attempt to get any problems blamed on the President and not Congress if they can’t come to a compromise.
So, yeah, Republicans who at one point wanted to reduce spending are going to play chicken again. The Democratic Party holds the Senate and the Presidency, they do not hold the House. Will the Democrats choose to negotiate or not?
There are some Republicans who have said that they are willing to entertain a tax increase in exchange for spending cuts - like Cole from Oklahoma.
Leave it to the Brickhead to utter a supercilious truism which, when parsed by the sentient, just reduces to his usual meme: If the Pubbies can defecate in public than (by Brickhead logic) they must defecate in public.
By authorizing expenditures of $x and tax rates resulting in revenues of $y, Congress is ipso facto authorizing the borrowing of $x-y. Or would be, in any sane system of government. Did you guys seriously not learn anything from the last go round?
Makes me rather grateful for the Westminster system, it does.
During the Clinton Fiscal Responsibility Era, the debt ceiling was raised automatically when tax and spending bills were passed. They called it the Gerhardt rule, but the practice is near universal among western democracies and has the full support of those familiar with elementary school arithmetic.
Republicans repealed the Gerhardt rule. They should reinstate it. If you don’t want to spending to be a lot greater than taxes then don’t pass budgets that do exactly that. Stop weaseling Senator. Stop dodging responsibility Congressman. Grow a pair. Don’t decimate the US credit rating just to placate some tea-partying cos-players.
Part of me thinks that just letting Bush era cuts expire and then negotiating from scratch just might be the way to go. Christ, every rookie salesman learns real quick that one can only negotiate when you’re willing to walk away from the deal.
:rolleyes: