No no no, you have it all wrong. They don’t want co-ownership of a BAD economy. They are very willing to take complete ownership of a good economy. So they take 100% of the good, and 0% of the bad, and the average is 50% ownership of both. See?
It really is amazing. Apparently they think they can only win if nobody believes their policies have any consequences.
I think they’re right. That’s why cut “waste” and “government excess.” Keep everything abstract so they stay insulated from the consequences of their action.
You have to find someone who can draw and make this cartoon! Or do it in MS Paint! 
As if this issue will be resolved when the debt ceiling is raised, or the fanatics at the controls of the GOP will change their minds about tax increases.
In this, the Republican’s position is intractable and cannot be sold to the American public.
You’re absolutely correct. I misread the story I had skimmed.
This is less clear to me. But since the bounds of the nondelegation doctrine are about as murky as it gets, I’m not sure there’s much to argue. Is the “intelligible principle” something like, “increase the debt limit by this preset amount whenever you find it necessary?” Is that sufficient?
They’d have to have her hunted down, if they could find anyone with big game hunting experie…oh, wait!
Well, to be fair, they’re only following the example of their corporate masters: Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
But think about this.
Why don’t the Republicans want to increase the debt ceiling? Is it because increasing the debt is a bad thing? If increasing the debt is a bad idea, then voting to allow the debt ceiling to be raised, even if you don’t get blamed for raising the debt ceiling, would be a bad idea.
What’s the purpose of governing? I suppose the idea is, we let the Democrats do whatever they like, and eventually the public will get tired of it, and then we Republicans will win some elections, and then we can…well, what? Win more elections while still letting the Democrats do whatever they like? What’s the point of winning elections and putting Republicans in office if they let the Democrats do whatever they like? Wouldn’t electing Democrats be just as effective?
I saw some of this nonsense on the other side in the last election. Liberals saying that they would be fine with McCain winning, because then the public would blame the Republicans for everything bad that happened. Except, the purpose of politics isn’t to let the other guys do whatever they like and then you don’t get the blame. The purpose of politics is to enact public policy that you believe in.
If you believe that not raising the debt ceiling is good public policy, then it’s foolish to vote to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling, even if that means the President will get blamed for raising the debt ceiling.
What this proposal reveals is that the Republican leadership thinks that raising the debt ceiling is good public policy, they just don’t want their constituents to realize that they think raising the debt ceiling is good public policy. Voting to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling is exactly equivalent to voting to raise the debt ceiling. Voting for things you disagree with so the public will get tired of those things and eventually elect you to undo them is the definition of counterproductive. If it’s a bad idea, how about you just don’t vote for it in the first place? Then it never becomes law, and the public doesn’t have to figure out who to assign blame.
The purpose of governing is to enact public policy that you believe in. Say it with me. It is not to continue to win elections while the country goes to hell around you, and you smile and say, “Well, they aren’t blaming me for the country going to hell, so I’m happy.” If electing conservatives to office doesn’t result in conservative governence, what’s the point of electing conservatives? I understand why an elected official wouldn’t care as long as he keeps his office, what I don’t understand is why conservative voters wouldn’t care.
Raising the debt ceiling has been done over and over ,7 times under Bush jr. The party out of power often uses it as a political tool, but they understand why they have to do it. But when the Repubs used it this time, it galvanized some tea baggers and conservative nutcases. The Repubs could not talk them down from the ledge and now they have a serious problem. They are aware that putting the government in default would have serious consequences. They don’t need that on their record if they want to win future elections. But the baggers don’t know better.
The debt ceiling raise allows the government to pay todays bills. It does not give them room to create a bunch of new programs.
freaky?
felons?
feeble?
folksy?
faulty?
flambe?
feline?
fogeys?
futile?