So do I hear you correctly that sometimes it’s okay to vote not to raise the Debt Limit? Just depends on whether the reason is good, right?
No,
I’m saying there’s a difference between raising the debt limit for already approved spending, and raising the debt limit for proposed spending.
Weird, I don’t remember seeing anything in the “raising the Debt Limit” bills that specifies exactly what you’re raising the Debt Limit for. Am I wrong?
The Republicans want to kill the signature Democratic legislation (which has already been passed, signed, defended in court, and successfully defended in the court of public opinion in the 2012 election) of recent years, and have shut down the government (and threaten debt default) to do so. If the Democrats treat this like a legitimate tactic, what’s to stop the Republicans doing it with every single vote? Would you say the same thing if the Democrats threatened a debt default unless the top income tax bracket went up to 60%? That would be unreasonable political hostage taking, and it is now as well.
It’s not reasonable to compare this demand to the Democratic “demand” of not tying anything related to the ACA to the budget or debt limit. It would be like a kidnapper taking your child hostage, and threatening to hurt them unless you give them money- it’s not comparable to your “demand” that they not hurt your kid.
Luckily, a majority of the American people agree.
I agree it would be devastating, but you would have the President act like a dictator. Would it also be acceptable, in your opinion, for Obama to raise the marginal income tax rates to balance the budget? (Again, not propose a bill to raise the rates, but raise them by decree).
Further I disagree that “all courses are illegal.” I think a good argument can be made that impoundment, under these circumstances, is legal.
What concessions are Republicans ready to put on the table for Democrats? Because your version of compromise appears to be for Democrats to give Republicans 85% of what they ask for, and for Republicans to give Democrats nothing in return.
Note that funding the government isn’t a concession, it’s a duty for Congress. Doing what you are responsible for and paid to do isn’t a compromise, it’s called doing your job.
I’m not betting either way, but a big chunk of the the GOP caucus, term-limited TEA Party types, see themselves as elected for one overriding purpose, and that is to stop “the government takeover of healthcare.” (Which kind of substantially happened in the 1960’s, but whatever.)
Some of them are presumably willing to be goaded into “any means necessary” thinking.
What Republicans ultimately want and what they are passing in the House are two different things. For example, they passed a medical device tax removal from Obamacare. Democrats want this. Yet Democrats rejected it, because of the “my way or the highway” principle.
For some reason, Obama and Reid think that Senate is more important than the House and the House has to pass whatever Senate passed, without any modifications. Good luck with that.
With that attitude, prepare for months of shutdown. Good. This is not drowning it in the bathtub, but it’s something.
If the GOP were interested in negotiating in good faith, they would have appointed negotiators to the conference committee in the months preceding this shutdown week. Instead, as they publicly stated, they wanted to use the threat of shutdown as a bargaining chip.
Americans will blame the GOP for the shutdown just because Republicans are the party of people who say things like “This is not drowning it in the bathtub, but it’s something.” And, at least in this case, that blame is absolutely correctly placed.
And as the Democrats are “publicly stating”, it’s my way or the highway.
I am not a Republican.
So what? Do you know where “drown it in the bathtub” as a reference to government comes from?
Yes. What percentage of the voters knows this?
You’re missing the point. Most voters are aware of the GOP’s anti-government feelings, as embodied by people like Grover Norquist.
There are certain aspects of public policy in which one side will take the blame regardless of actual responsibility because of public perceptions about the parties. Government shutdown is one such area for the GOP. It almost doesn’t matter that they are actually responsible for this one.
Well, it’s possible that a lot of American see it that way. A lot of Americans get all their news from Fox News. But do you personally not see the difference between “I will shut the government down unless this program that has been law for 3 years is defunded” and “I will shut the government down unless this that been law for 3 years is NOT defunded”?
Because of the tactic, not the demands. Just as governments absolutely CANNOT negotiate with terrorists, no matter their demands, because it would encourage more terrorism, the Democrats absolutely CANNOT negotiate with a party threatening government shutdown and debt default, no matter the demands, because it will encourage them to do it again.
Threatening government shutdown and debt default absolutely must not be seen as a legitimate tactic for legislating. So the Democrats are acting correctly.
And most people who want to know are aware that Democrats are refusing to negotiate and are standing on “my way or the highway” principle.
You hope. As I pointed out upthread, so far the polls don’t show a huge advantage to Democrats. We will see as this goes along. But in any case, this is a defining moment for Republicans. If they cave in on this and pass the clean CR, it will be a humiliation that will resound for years. And they know it.
The last couple of House bill iterations didn’t demand defunding Obamacare.
Not that I think there is any equivalency, but governments (including US government) can and do negotiate with terrorists all the time.
Excuse me if I consider this a partisan lie, since Democrats have voted against debt ceiling increases before, including the President himself.
Bullshit. Senator Obama cast a vote against a debt ceiling increase, but it was a protest vote and not an attempt to blackmail the opposition. The debt ceiling increase didn’t need his vote and if it did, he surely would have done the right thing.
So he voted against increasing the debt limit, but he really wanted to increase it, right? Doesn’t say much about his integrity then.
What about Democrats voting against (and defeating) debt limit increases in the 80s several times. Terrorism?