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

I caught a few minutes of it. When he essentially told S&P to fuck off, I cracked up.

Anyway, I get that there are a few dozen (maybe even a dozen dozen) posters here who will not and cannot discuss politics rationally, but there are a fair number who can and do. If you let yourself get distracted by the screechers, or claim the screechers are victimizing you, or claim the screeching of the screechers invites or excuses screeching of your own, then you’re not being a good representative of your political views.
As for using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, these past instances are interesting. I wonder, though, if it’ll be a few decades before it happens again (as the past examples indicates) or if we can expect every Congress from now on to try it at least once?

This seems to be a recurring and accepted practice in Congress, just like filibusters.

I don’t see why this makes the Republicans at fault. The Democrats apparently took cuts to Medicare benefits off the table.

Again, this is the crux of the matter. You feel that the Democrats’ position is reasonable and the Republicans’ is not. i.e. you are a partisan. The problem for you is not the Republicans’ tactics, but their policy goals.

Lol, same for the Democrats.

Yes, clearly it’s all the democrats’ fault for not just giving the republicans everything they wanted right at the start. :rolleyes:

I’m pretty sure that a Republican partisan would feel that way. i.e. that the Democrats negotiated in bad faith by taking Medicare benefit cuts off the table; that the Democrats were wrong to hold up the debt ceiling bill in order to oppose much-needed spending cuts; that the Democrats were at fault for waiting until the last minute to agree to anything.

So the republicans were willing to make cuts to Medicare and to compromise on revenue increases? I must have missed that part.

One of the prime motivators here is the Republican desire to get Democrat fingerprints on Medicare cuts. They do not want to go into the election season with that rotting albatross around their neck.

No, I don’t think so. Just like the Democrats, the Republicans had issues they took “off the table,” so to speak.

Then what was on the table? You’re claiming that the democrats were negotiating in bad faith, but the republicans weren’t negotiating at all. How does that make sense in your head?

That’s not my claim at all.

Lol, the problem is in your head not mine. RIF.

[QUOTE=kenetic]
Then what was on the table? You’re claiming that the democrats were negotiating in bad faith, but the republicans weren’t negotiating at all.
[/QUOTE]

That, of course, was the problem. Neither side COULD make real, meaningful concessions that were acceptable to the other sides base…and both were being controlled by that base. The Dems could not, absolutely, make real, meaningful cuts to any of their sacred cows or their base would go nuts. So…no real cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. The Pubs could not, absolutely, make any concessions about tax increases since many of them had signed petitions saying they would hold the line on new taxes. So…both sides were more than willing to adopt a plan that benefited them, politically, but neither side was willing to make concessions that would be meaningful to the other side.

The only one I saw as willing to make meaningful concessions was Obama, who seemed to be trying to get both sides to, you know, work together and do that compromise stuff that is the basis of our political system.

-XT

I think it’s safe to say there is very little in your head. :smiley:

Yes.

The Republican’s behavior during this whole debt ceiling crisis thing was inexcusable. An unparallelled low for Congressional GOP members as a party (as opposed to individual congressperson’s crimes and misdemeanors).

If you want to talk about the general fiscal policy of Congress over, say, the last 50 years, then you will find ample opportunities to blame both parties for irresponsible policies (though the GOP still has the edge here, as well). But that is a different subject.

Again, what exactly did they do? Hold up the debt ceiling bill to advance their agenda? That’s been a regular part of the legislative process for over a hundred years.

Refuse to compromise on their sacred cows? The Democrats did the same thing.

Refuse to agree until the last minute? Obviously both sides did that.

Added after edit window closed:
Of course it would be even more beneficial if the adult GOP caucus (shrinking every year) of Congress would speak out [Dick Lugar, I’m talking to you].

Uhh really?

Well, I guess you’re talking about what an unnamed abstract Republican might think, not your own personal belief. Nice dodge there. :rolleyes:

Hey goofy… you do realize that on votes like this Every. Last. Yea. Or. Nay. is calculated by the respective party leaderships before the final tally is taken. Previously in this thread people have reminded you that congressfolks have cast symbolic “nays” in past debt ceiling votes and it didn’t matter one whit.

The 2006 situation just happened to have 48 symbolic “nay” votes in the Senate (all the Dems).

It’s a game of posturing. Had the Democrats known in 2006 that ten GOP senators intended to vote against the bill they would’ve had to find ten Dems to fall on the sword. “Oh, you’re not up for re-election and your seat is 100% safe? OK. Vote “yes” for the party’s sake.” Or perhaps the Dems still would have voted no across the board, let the measure fail, and then “catch it on the rebound” when a new vote came up.

Even more likely, in talks between GOP and Dem leadership, the Dems were insistent that they would all going to vote no so the GOP was the party that had to arm-wrestle a few of their guys to switch their desired nay votes to yeas. “Oh, you’re not up for re-election and your seat is 100% safe? OK. Vote “yes” for the party’s sake.”

It’s a game. But until this debacle, posturing is all it has been.

Uhhh, yes.

What a Republican partisan might think, yes.

Nice attempt at strawmanning. :rolleyes:

Protip: Strawman doesn’t mean, “Shit you’re too stupid to refute.”

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
It’s a game. But until this debacle, posturing is all it has been.
[/QUOTE]

This was the largest increase ever requested, and at a time when a lot of folks (especially in the Republicans base) think that spending is out of control and just going up, so it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison to say that it’s all been posturing in the past. Also, there have been other times that the budget has nearly been derailed due to the same sorts of partisan posturing…it was just never taken quite so close to the edge before.

-XT

In the middle of a recession, or even just barely out of one and only sloooooooooooooooooooooowly creeping back up at a snail’s pace, and particularly when unemployment rates are high, it is NOT the time to “tackle major spending issues”.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, at (what was, before the downgrade) current interest rates, it would cost the U.S. $25 billion in interest to borrow $1 trillion.

That $1 trillion could then be put to use employing people to do infrastructure projects, like repairing decaying roads and bridges. That would naturally raise revenues from individual income taxes that could then be applied to the interest payment, possibly covering ever dime of it, with some to spare, which then could have gone towards the principal balance. Win/Win/Win all the way around; roads and bridges are safer, people are working again so they can buy things again and things can be made again, and everyone’s happy. Well, except for most Republicans who don’t understand Macroeconomics.

But… If instead, you scream and yell and kick and flail and demand that that $1 trillion be paid back to the creditor, we may have less debt on our books, but now we still have 10 million unemployed who are costing us $250 billion over the course of that same year. Now we’re out $250 billion and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/About/News-Publications/Article-Detail/ArticleId/477/Rachel-Maddow-breaks-down-the-debt-debate-with-Johnsons-Bob-Frank.aspx

That characterization of Democrats as unwilling to touch entitlements is pretty inaccurate, when you consider that Clinton slashed Medicare quite a bit and Obama did offer them up several times to Boehner, but Boehner backed away because he didn’t want his party to be painted as the ones who actually passed a bill that cut Medicare. Not to mention, cuts to Medicare are in the trigger, but they are cuts to providers, not recipients of services. But regardless where the cuts happen, they’re cuts and they save money for the U.S. government and therefore the taxpayer. And Obama put them in there and then left entitlements on the table for the Super Committee, as well.

Show me where Democrats have signed a pledge to an unelected third party that swears an oath never to reduce Medicare costs a single penny in any way, shape or form. When you can show me that, then we’ll have parity.

I’m sorry, but this is disingenuous, too. I’m not saying that Democrats haven’t added a dime to the deficits; they obviously have. Nor have they gone out of their way to reduce them in the 2 1/2 years out of the past nearly 13 that they had any actual control over them. But, again, those 2 years were not the time to start slashing spending, and the additions to the debt burden are substantially greater from the Republican side than the Democrats.

On the day that Bush was sworn into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion.

On the day Barack Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was $12.037 trillion.

We just hit the debt ceiling at $14.3 trillion. The math is simple. Bush added $6.343 trillion to today’s current debt. And though you might be tempted to say that Obama has therefore added $2.263 trillion to it, the fact of the matter is that much of that increase is a direct result of major Bush policies; namely, the tax cuts, Medicare Part D spending (also unpaid-for) and the war in Afghanistan. Sure, he could have refused to extend the cuts (and cost millions of people their unemployment benefits) and pulled out of the war all willy-nilly, but you and I both know that Republicans would never have allowed either of those things to happen, and in fact used unemployment extensions as their bargaining chip to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so the effects of them are just as much theirs during Obama’s time in office as they were when they were actually enacted under Bush.

When you add to that the fact that Dick Cheney told then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, when he objected to another round of tax cuts, “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter. We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due,” I don’t know how it makes sense to try to claim the fault lies even/steven.