Stop acting like both parties are at fault; that rhetoric is getting OLD

[brazil84]

@D_Odds

, this fiasco was 95% the fault of the Republican hardliners bolstered by Tea Party support.

I’m skeptical of this but willing to consider the possibility: Why exactly was it mostly the Republicans’ fault?

[gonzomax]

@Gangster_Octopus

The refusal for Republicans to discuss the possibility of raising taxes even a dime is why we are in this mes. End of story.

S&P fleshed things out today. The refusal to raise revenue was given great emphasis. They know that fiscal responsibility can not be achieved without raising taxes.

[D_Odds]

@brazil84

I’m skeptical of this but willing to consider the possibility: Why exactly was it mostly the Republicans’ fault?

ne·go·ti·ate/nəˈgōSHēˌāt/Verb

1. Try to reach an agreement or compromise by discussion with others

The Republicans were not negotiating in good faith when they simply refused to address the revenue side of the issue. They played chicken with our debt payments, and the dickless Democrats swerved…over and over. So maybe 90/10.

[crypto]

@Der_Trihs

Well, you know how it is. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

so… you are reality? :dubious:

[Lobohan]

@Stink Fish Pot

so… you are reality? :dubious:

Dogs have feet. I have feet. I’m a dog?

[brazil84]

@Gangster_Octopus

The refusal for Republicans to discuss the possibility of raising taxes even a dime is why we are in this mes. End of story.

Well do you agree with Omg that the Democrats were similarly resolute about cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

@D_Odds

The Republicans were not negotiating in good faith when they simply refused to address the revenue side of the issue

Well do you agree with Omg that the Democrats were similarly resolute about cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

[casdave]

Actually, the ones to blame are the American voting public, you are the ones who gave the tea party the power, you are the ones who voted for a split ticket, you are the ones who voted in a previous regime whose activities are largely responsible for the deficit.

You are the ones who did not keep these people in check, you did not campaign nard enough, you are the ones who respond to scare tactice and vote accordingly - and encourage more scare tactics from your politicians, you are the people, and you are responsible - you will have to lvie with the consequencies - welcome to democracy - not good, not bad, there is no inherant reason why it should produce the best results, its up to you to keep it controlled.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@brazil84

Well do you agree with Omg that the Democrats were similarly resolute about cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

Yes they were resolute about cuts to those programs (good for them), but they were not adamant about NO CUTS WHATSOEVER.

See the difference.

[Who_me_1]

@Gangster_Octopus

Yes they were resolute about cuts to those programs (good for them), but they were not adamant about NO CUTS WHATSOEVER.

See the difference.

No, he won’t. It’s his argument and he won’t let go. Reality isn’t really real to him.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Who_me_1

No, he won’t. It’s his argument and he won’t let go. Reality isn’t really real to him.

His whole world is photoshopped.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@brazil84

I’m skeptical of this but willing to consider the possibility: Why exactly was it mostly the Republicans’ fault?

I’ll quote the view of The Economist magazine (which is conservative and well respected).

The president, it is true, did not lose the fight because he lost the argument. He lost because he was not willing to be as reckless as the Republicans. Increasing the debt ceiling is a routine operation that allows the government to pay the bills Congress has already run up. By refusing to raise it unless they got their spending cuts, the Republicans in effect pointed a pistol at the economy and threatened to pull the trigger if they were denied. An alarming number of them sounded crazy enough to carry out this threat.

<snip>

Any assessment of Mr Obama needs to acknowledge that when he was elected he inherited the in-box from hell: a financial collapse, a prostrated economy, two wars. Now he faces the opposition from hell: a reckless, populist Republican Party whose moderate voices have been silenced by ideologues and which has made throwing him out of office its foremost priority. For these tribulations he deserves a degree of sympathy.

SOURCE: An underperforming president

[brazil84]

@Gangster_Octopus

Yes they were resolute about cuts to those programs (good for them), but they were not adamant about NO CUTS WHATSOEVER.

See the difference.

If that’s true, then there would be a difference. But I am skeptical that it’s true. I found the following with a Google news search:

Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which accounted for 40 percent of President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget, is largely off limits. Democrats made clear from the beginning of the talks that Social Security is not driving the deficit and shouldn’t be targeted in a budget-cutting plan. Democrats say Medicare benefit cuts are also off the table.

“We will continue to look for waste and fraud, for duplication and inefficiency in the system,” Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said at a June 14 news conference. “But we will not go along with any cuts to beneficiaries.”

From Businessweek, June 16, 2011

Schumer: Medicare benefit cuts are off the table

WASHINGTON – A key Senate Democrat said Monday that his party is willing to make a deal on reducing Medicare expenses but drew a hard line in the sand on benefit cuts as part of the debt limit negotiations.

“We’re not going to go along with any cuts to beneficiaries that Republicans want,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democrats’ top liaison for policy and messaging, told reporters on a conference call. “Our goal is to preserve Medicare as it is and to strengthen it for future generations.”

This is from a web site called “The Raw Story” from June 6. I’ve never heard of it before, but it sounds believable to me.

---

So it seems that the Democrats really did take some things “off the table” from the outset, for example benefits cuts in Medicare.

[brazil84]

@Whack-a-Mole

I’ll quote the view of The Economist magazine (which is conservative and well respected).

I’m skeptical that The Economist is “conservative.” I haven’t read it in years but when I did, they were always whining about America’s lax gun control laws.

By refusing to raise it unless they got their spending cuts, the Republicans in effect pointed a pistol at the economy and threatened to pull the trigger if they were denied

So you are saying that using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip is fundamentally illegitimate?

[Gangster_Octopus]

@brazil84

I’m skeptical that The Economist is “conservative.” I haven’t read it in years but when I did, they were always whining about America’s lax gun control laws.

So you are saying that using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip is fundamentally illegitimate?

I can’t speak for whack-a-Mole and I am not sure by what you mean by illegitimate, to be honest, but in essence, yes, it is illegitimate. There is a budget process, this was not it, this was an extortion.

[brazil84]

@Gangster_Octopus

I can’t speak for whack-a-Mole and I am not sure by what you mean by illegitimate, to be honest, but in essence, yes, it is illegitimate. There is a budget process, this was not it, this was an extortion.

See that’s where I disagree. The concept of using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip has been around for a long time. I did a quick Google news search and found instances in 1971; 1944; and even in 1881. Probably it’s happened many other times too.

It seems to me that this is analogous to a filibuster. When a minority party does a filibuster, you can usually count on a partisan from the other side to whine about how the minority party is subverting the democratic process. And yet a few years later, the roles reverse and now it’s the other party doing a filibuster.

[MaxTheVool]

@brazil84

See that’s where I disagree. The concept of using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip has been around for a long time. I did a quick Google news search and found instances in 1971; 1944; and even in 1881. Probably it’s happened many other times too.

It seems to me that this is analogous to a filibuster. When a minority party does a filibuster, you can usually count on a partisan from the other side to whine about how the minority party is subverting the democratic process. And yet a few years later, the roles reverse and now it’s the other party doing a filibuster.

My understanding, and I may be wrong about that, is that in all previous instances it was used purely symbolically, as in Senator X would stand up and say “we can’t raise the debt limit unless Y”, but would do so knowing that he was going to get outvoted, or would back down when push comes to shove. It may not be totally true to say that the debt limit has never been used politically before now, but there’s a big difference between the way it’s ever been used in the past and this.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

As others have said, it didn’t make a difference and nobody really knows why he did it.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.”-- Obama, 2006

In March of 2006, the Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling. The final tally was 52 yay versus 48 nay. But get this.

Every. Last. Senate. Democrat. Voted. No.

Let me say that again. Every last Senate Democrat voted no to raising the debt ceiling. Apparently, they were willing to risk default or ruining the U.S. economy or whatever other line Democrats/liberals like to use in order to make a point. I guess that would make the Democrats terrorists out to destroy the U.S., right? Or do you only trot out said accusations and rhetoric when we’re dealing with Republicans? :rolleyes:

Give me a break. The partisan hackery coming from those on the left is ridiculous.

…And then they kinda did anyways?

Except they kind of didn’t. I hate ThinkProgress but once in a while, they post an oh-so-helpful article.

If the final debt ceiling agreement makes significant concessions to Republicans in avoiding revenue increases and offsetting the increase with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, the Democrats may have at least held the line in protecting entitlement programs from automatic across-the-board reductions. Gone are proposals to increase the Medicare eligibility age or block grant Medicaid spending to the states and in their place are the kind of changes advocated in the Affordable Care Act: reimbursement reductions to providers and insurers participating in the Medicare Advantage program.

The proposed legislation would raise the debt ceiling through 2012 by immediately cutting almost $1 trillion from mostly discretionary spending and establishing a joint congressional committee to recommend more than $1 trillion in further cuts. If the committee’s recommendations are not enacted, Congress would either have to approve a balanced budget agreement or accept an across-the-board cut in government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. But those reductions won’t directly affect beneficiaries:

If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed constitutional balanced-budget amendment.

If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.
Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

Hospitals and doctors will complain about the possibility of future cuts, but as a general sense, it’s difficult to feel much sympathy for providers who will see an increase of revenue as a result of the coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act. They, after all, can rejoice that Medicaid is exempt from the reductions — a great victory given that providers are already underpaid for their services and any additional cuts would further undermine access for beneficiaries. There just isn’t any real meet on the Medicaid bone.

Furthermore, you’re equating the unwillingness to cut two crucial benefits programs that our elderly more or less live on to the unwillingness to raise taxes on anything. Now, if the democrats had demanded, right from the start, “cuts in anything other than corporate incentives are off the table”, then you could equate them fairly. A fair comparison would be the republicans said “no raising taxes on the lower brackets”: a perfectly reasonable demand that, while lowering the options on the table, doesn’t really amount for an unreasonable shortening of routes to take.

That’s nothing short of laughable. I can basically sum up what you said with the following sentence: “Democrats demands were reasonable and Republicans demands were unreasonable”. Apparently all that talk about “compromise” was just talk, since compromise to you seems to be a one way street.

I guess I did. Who did Obama blame?

Probably either Bush or the Republicans in general (someone who watched Obama’s speech earlier today can clarify that). But White House doesn’t just mean “Obama”. White House means his staff. Apparently you missed the White House’s response to S&P downgrading the U.S.’ credit rating.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@brazil84

I’m skeptical of this but willing to consider the possibility: Why exactly was it mostly the Republicans’ fault?

First they decided to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. Then they decided that any revenue increases were off the table, and still demanded massive deficit reduction. Then, even after several reasonable plans were suggested, they waited until the last possible moment to agree to anything.

[brazil84]

@MaxTheVool

My understanding, and I may be wrong about that, is that in all previous instances it was used purely symbolically, as in Senator X would stand up and say “we can’t raise the debt limit unless Y”, but would do so knowing that he was going to get outvoted, or would back down when push comes to shove.

I haven’t researched it extensively, but I did some Google news searches and I think you are wrong. For example, in 1971 the Democrats apparently attached some kind of anti-war measure to the debt ceiling bill to get Nixon to sign it.

In 1944, Congress attached some kind of measure regarding cabaret taxes to the debt ceiling bill.

In 1881, President Hayes vetoed a bill to roll over the national debt because it contained, according to him, an extraneous provision which would have raised barriers to new banks.

This is not supposed to be an exhaustive list, it’s just what I could find in the 10 minutes I was willing to spend on it. If you do a news archive search for the terms “debt” “limit” and “brink” or “brinkmanship,” you will see that these issues come up regularly.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine that a cabaret tax was so important that Congress would use the national debt as a bargaining chip to get it passed, but it was apparently important to somebody. And there’s no doubt that the Vietnam War was an important issue to many Americans back in the early 70s.

Were the Democrats to be criticized for holding the nation’s economy hostage in order to put an end to the Vietnam war? Perhaps a bit, but it just seems that using the debt as a bargaining chip is an accepted part of the legislative process, just like the filibuster.

[XT]

Actually, we came close to defaulting 3 times under Bush, and I think it happened at least once under Clinton as well.

-XT