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

[Shayna]

Does anyone else thing this OMG black person has been here before, or is it just me?

Dude, I’m gonna try to keep this simple for you.

Democrats never actually put this country’s fiscal reputation on the line with the credit reporting agencies with any of their ‘NO’ votes.

Until this past month, neither had Republicans.

In no case, throughout history, do I consider any of the ‘NO’ votes by either party to have been “bad” or “wrong” or “not principled.”

Why you keep trying to draw a comparison between acts that never even remotely had the potential to cause actual financial harm and acts that put our country’s financial reputation at grave risk – a risk that has now be realized – I will never know.

I also cannot figure out what it is you don’t understand about "Democrats have been consistently willing to put entitlements on the table, and still are, as there are provider cuts to Medicare in the trigger option and they are on record as having said they will not draw any lines in the sand when appointing representatives to the Super Committee, versus Republicans who have steadfastly held – even after this country’s credit rating was downgraded in large part due to the Republican’s stated unwillingness to compromise even the slightest tiniest bit on increasing revenues, where increased revenues are considered crucial to putting our financial house in order by said credit reporting agency – that revenue increases are OFF THE TABLE, period, end of discussion.

This is just mind-boggling. And I’m done, because clearly you are too stupid to grasp even the most simple of concepts.

And Smurfie, thank you. Thank you to you and your family for recognizing that the Republican Party (the PARTY, not individuals who are conservatives) has become dangerous to this nation’s future, and for your unwillingness to vote for them unless or until they get back on track. Thank you. I really do mean that.

[elucidator]

A sane Republican, or perhaps both of them, face an unpleasant choice. Their unholy deal with the Troglodytes is coming unglued. For years, the Trogs were bought off with promises of what was to happen just as soon as the Pubbies get a real grip on power. “Once more into the breech, dear friends, once more!” Then all abortion will be impossible, Bruce will not marry Bruce, the controversy about evolution will be made clear to your youngsters, so that they can make an informed choice between the Gospel and the lies of atheists. You know the drill.

The bill has come due, the Trogs are out of patience. Let it be fairly noted: the Trogs are not the Republican Party, they are the adamanant minority that the Pubbies have depended upon to get them to competitive levels of committed voters. Smurfie voted Republican for his reasons, Cletus the slack jawed yokel voted for his own reasons, its almost as though they were voting for two different parties: one, a party that favors prudent and cautious change, the other, wants to drag the country back in time to Ozzie and Harriet.

The ugly question to be faced by the honest conservative is whether or not he is still wiling to make deals with the reactionaries in order to obtain political power, or whether they are willing to recline into a position of loyal opposition, to speak for and argue for their positions without having the direct power to demand them. And, perhaps, to rebuild an honest conservative party based on sound principles of mutual respect and reason.

I cannot believe that an honest conservative can look upon the likes of Bachmann, Huckleberry, and Perry and see a face they can admire, and support. They had hoped to keep the nutbars under control, and that worked for a long, long time. But the Trogs have tasted blood, and they want it all, and they want it now! The fact that they are a minority is of no consequence, all the real Americans agree with them, and that’s all that counts.

As always when one rides the tiger, the dismount is the tricky part.

[brazil84]

@BobLibDem

John of Orange Boehner says

Ummm, I don’t see in your link where the Republican proposal was passed by the Senate and signed by the President.

Can I take it you now concede that the Republican proposal was NOT simply accepted by the Senate and President?

Does that sound like a man that compromised?

I have no idea. I don’t know what he is talking about when he refers to what “he wants.” Nor do I know if he is simply spinning.

What didn’t they get? A Balanced Budget Amendment that they know full well would be a disaster?

I have no idea if the Balanced Budget Amendment would be a disaster. And whether it would be a disaster is irrelevant to your claim, which is (apparently) that the Republicans got 100% of what they wanted without making any concessions at all.

[brazil84]

@Shayna

Democrats never actually put this country’s fiscal reputation on the line with the credit reporting agencies with any of their ‘NO’ votes.

Nonsense, the Democrats voted down HR 2560 which would have raised the debt ceiling.

Until this past month, neither had Republicans.

I doubt that’s true either. Politicians have been engaged in debt ceiling brinkmanship for years.

[BobLibDem]

@brazil84

I doubt that’s true either. Politicians have been engaged in debt ceiling brinkmanship for years.

Bullshit. Neither party has ever threatened to force the country into default until now. It’s getting harder to tell if you’re a liar or just plain stupid.

[brazil84]

@BobLibDem

Bullshit.

Lol, just do a Google News Archive search for “debt” “limit” “brinkmanship”

Google

By the way, the earliest reference I could find to using the national debt as a bargaining chip is from 1881.

[BobLibDem]

@brazil84

Lol, just do a Google News Archive search for “debt” “limit” “brinkmanship”

Google

By the way, the earliest reference I could find to using the national debt as a bargaining chip is from 1881.

Yawn. Show me an article that I don’t have to pay to read. Show me any instance where Democratic congressmen actively promised never to raise the ceiling, as Michele Crazy Eyes Bachmann did.

[brazil84]

@BobLibDem

Yawn. Show me an article that I don’t have to pay to read.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959049,00.html

[BobLibDem]

@brazil84

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959049,00.html

ZZZZZZZ. Everyone knew full well then that the deal would get done. The only time that it was ever in doubt was this year.

[gonzomax]

@brazil84

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959049,00.html

Your article says the Repubs attached a Capital gains Tax cut bill into the routine raising of the debt ceiling. That is why it got close to the edge. the Dems would not have rejected the ceiling by itself. It was yet again another example of Repubs giving more goodies to the rich. Since they knew the Dems would allow the ceiling to be raised., they decided to attach a gift to the rich in it.

[brazil84]

@BobLibDem

ZZZZZZZ. Everyone knew full well then that the deal would get done.

How did they know it?

And if they did know it, then why wait until just hours before the deadline?

And do you think Time Magazine was wrong to refer to the episode as “brinkmanship”?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Shayna

Does anyone else thing this OMG black person has been here before, or is it just me?

It’s just you.

Dude, I’m gonna try to keep this simple for you.

Seeing as how you don’t understand simplicity, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Democrats never actually put this country’s fiscal reputation on the line with the credit reporting agencies with any of their ‘NO’ votes.

So apparently none of those Democratic “no” votes from the past three or so months on raising the debt ceiling exist? Or is it that you don’t consider a “no” vote from Democrats on a plan that had Republican support to be “risking the country’s fiscal repuation”? Whatever it is, you’re nothing more than a partisan hack, and you’re not even attempting to come off as anything other than a partisan hack.

In no case, throughout history, do I consider any of the ‘NO’ votes by either party to have been “bad” or “wrong” or “not principled.”

Except when those no votes are carried out by Republicans.

Why you keep trying to draw a comparison between acts that never even remotely had the potential to cause actual financial harm and acts that put our country’s financial reputation at grave risk – a risk that has now be realized – I will never know.

I see. So everything the Senate Democrats rejected would have put our country at harm and were better off being rejected as it was in the best interest of the country to do so, but everything House Republicans rejected were sane proposals and were done solely because they wanted to cause the U.S. harm. Did I get that right? Because that’s what your argument boils down to. It’s such a ridiculous argument.

I also cannot figure out what it is you don’t understand about "Democrats have been consistently willing to put entitlements on the table, and still are, as there are provider cuts to Medicare in the trigger option and they are on record as having said they will not draw any lines in the sand when appointing representatives to the Super Committee, versus Republicans who have steadfastly held – even after this country’s credit rating was downgraded in large part due to the Republican’s stated unwillingness to compromise even the slightest tiniest bit on increasing revenues, where increased revenues are considered crucial to putting our financial house in order by said credit reporting agency – that revenue increases are OFF THE TABLE, period, end of discussion.

Because they haven’t been. It’s that simple. Your post is an outright lie.

Link

Medicare benefits should not be cut as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, Senate Democrats said on Tuesday, drawing a firm distinction with Republicans who have called for major changes to the program.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) rebuked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for his hard-line stance on Medicare after the top Republican senator said he will only support a final debt ceiling deal if it makes changes to the program…

Still, Democrats said that any changes to Medicare would be in the form of delivery reform to avoid cutting benefits for seniors, along the lines of the Medicare reform made in President Barack Obama’s health care reform last year.

Link

Leading Senate Democrat says benefit cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are off the table in debt ceiling negotiations

Link

Republicans may be suffering politically for voting to phase out Medicare. But they moved the needle on the policy debate way to the right, and, as such, cutting Medicare now is basically a fait accompli.

The latest plan comes from Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). This is an interesting political coalition for a few reasons. Recall that Coburn left the Gang-of-Six Senate debt talks for proposing dramatic cuts to Medicare, and has now found comfort in the arms of liberals’ darkest bete noire.

What they propose doesn’t seek to replace Medicare with a private insurance scheme as does the GOP budget. Nonetheless it has already been rejected by the top Democrats on Capitol Hill – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

And a bunch of other quotes I don’t feel like digging up.

…But, yeah. Continue to ignore that.

This is just mind-boggling. And I’m done, because clearly you are too stupid to grasp even the most simple of concepts.

Yeah, that’s what it is. Run away and call someone else stupid because you’re speaking out of your backside and engaging in extreme partisanship. Can’t say I’ll miss you any

[brazil84]

@gonzomax

Your article says the Repubs attached a Capital gains Tax cut bill into the routine raising of the debt ceiling. That is why it got close to the edge.

Here’s what it says:

Hoping to revive Bush’s cherished reduction in the capital-gains tax, Senate Republicans considered attaching it to the debt-ceiling legislation. Majority Leader George Mitchell, increasingly playing the role of an unyielding Horatius at the Bridge, blocked them. Democrats similarly toyed with piggybacking onto the debt bill measures that Bush would veto if passed separately

. Since they knew the Dems would allow the ceiling to be raised., they decided to attach a gift to the rich in it.

It appears that the “attachment” failed for both sides. But it looks to me like your real problem is with the Republicans’ aim of cutting taxes for the rich, not with their tactics in pursuing that goal.

[elucidator]

So which of these splendid, forward looking Republican plans had the Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition? The one that featured making the Amendment demand that a supermajority of both houses would be required to pass any tax raise? Was that one of the perfectly reasonable offers the Pubbies made? Or is it that in the “batshit” column?

In case you didn’t know, a Constitutional Amendment is supposed to be a pretty big deal. Lots of deliberation, impedimentia, hurdles, that sort of thing. Did they mention anything about how quickly they anticpated this nationwide triumph of the Tea Party? Tuesday, was it?

[septimus]

@elucidator

A sane Republican, or perhaps both of them, face an unpleasant choice. Their unholy deal with the Troglodytes is coming unglued. For years, the Trogs were bought off with promises of what was to happen just as soon as the Pubbies get a real grip on power. “Once more into the breech, dear friends, once more!” Then all abortion will be impossible, Bruce will not marry Bruce, the controversy about evolution will be made clear to your youngsters, so that they can make an informed choice between the Gospel and the lies of atheists. You know the drill.

The bill has come due, the Trogs are out of patience. Let it be fairly noted: the Trogs are not the Republican Party, they are the adamanant minority that the Pubbies have depended upon to get them to competitive levels of committed voters. Smurfie voted Republican for his reasons, Cletus the slack jawed yokel voted for his own reasons, its almost as though they were voting for two different parties: one, a party that favors prudent and cautious change, the other, wants to drag the country back in time to Ozzie and Harriet.

The ugly question to be faced by the honest conservative is whether or not he is still wiling to make deals with the reactionaries in order to obtain political power, or whether they are willing to recline into a position of loyal opposition, to speak for and argue for their positions without having the direct power to demand them. And, perhaps, to rebuild an honest conservative party based on sound principles of mutual respect and reason.

I cannot believe that an honest conservative can look upon the likes of Bachmann, Huckleberry, and Perry and see a face they can admire, and support. They had hoped to keep the nutbars under control, and that worked for a long, long time. But the Trogs have tasted blood, and they want it all, and they want it now! The fact that they are a minority is of no consequence, all the real Americans agree with them, and that’s all that counts.

As always when one rides the tiger, the dismount is the tricky part.

This was positively brilliant and uncannily correct.
Thank you, elucidator.

(Do you copyright it, or can I post it with attribution in my own blogs?)

[pikey_pete]

in the end, we, the American people are at fault because we either elected them, or allowed them to get elected, depending on which side of the fence you are on.

[elucidator]

@septimus

This was positively brilliant and uncannily correct.
Thank you, elucidator.

(Do you copyright it, or can I post it with attribution in my own blogs?)

What is given cannot be stolen. Freak freely.

[brazil84]

@elucidator

So which of these splendid, forward looking Republican plans had the Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition?

That would be HR 2560.

In case you didn’t know, a Constitutional Amendment is supposed to be a pretty big deal.

According to Wikipedia, there have been over 11,000 proposed Constitutional Amendments which failed in Congress.

Anyway, I would imagine that the difficulty in amending the Constitution is part of the reason the Republicans conceded on that issue.

[elucidator]

Excellent news! When, do you think, they became aware of this problem, which most of us learned about in middle school civics class?

[Gangster_Octopus]

GOP Super Committee members announced and Huzzah,they all have signed Grover Norquist’s No Tax pledge.

I fully anticipate that they will come in with open minds and even be willing to discuss enhanced revenue options (aka as raise taxes), because you know, they have been so reasonable so far.