The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

So it's all about timing. The timing favors them now, because the economy is going to drive off a cliff...so NOW they need to do it right.

 

They should have done it right years ago and then we wouldn't be where we are now. In other words, they helped create the problem -- which you ignore -- and now they want to solve it because they're looking out for the American people!

 

I don't buy it.

 

They're playing politics, as always...the mere timing of this happens to be on their side for this specific moment in time, and ONLY in regard to this specific argument.

 

You're continuing to ignore that the vote to raise the debt ceiling has been fundamentally changed from a non-issue with some political posturing (see: Obama, 2006) to a drawn out fight that dominates our political discourse for months and brings us to the edge of eliminating a sizeable chunk of GDP overnight as one party holds the economy hostage until its crazy ransom demands are met. There's no symmetry here between the past 30 years of debt ceiling raises and the current one.

[EvilMonkey]

You're continuing to ignore that the vote to raise the debt ceiling has been fundamentally changed from a non-issue with some political posturing (see: Obama, 2006) to a drawn out fight that dominates our political discourse for months and brings us to the edge of eliminating a sizeable chunk of GDP overnight as one party holds the economy hostage until its crazy ransom demands are met. There's no symmetry here between the past 30 years of debt ceiling raises and the current one.

Yeah, the party that keeps not voting on measures sent to it and promising to vote down bills before they even see them. Remember, Reid's way of the highway!

[StrangeSox]

Damn you Reid and Obama for proposing hard-right austerity bills! You should be agreeing to ultra-right austerity bills and constitutional amendments!

[StrangeSox]

You shouldn't be able to fundamentally alter US fiscal and social policy because you control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, but thanks to an arbitrary debt limit, you can!

[Balta1701]

By the way, isn't "there's too much uncertainty because of Obama" a standard Republican explanation for why the economy is so bad?

 

Wouldn't an extra government shutdown crisis be yet another element of uncertainty?

 

Anyway, the Senate would probably pass a short term extension if it came down to it, but they're not passing Boehner's bill, which sticks in a trigger that would guarantee huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security if Obama didn't make huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

[Y2HH]

By the way, isn't "there's too much uncertainty because of Obama" a standard Republican explanation for why the economy is so bad?

 

Wouldn't an extra government shutdown crisis be yet another element of uncertainty?

 

Anyway, the Senate would probably pass a short term extension if it came down to it, but they're not passing Boehner's bill, which sticks in a trigger that would guarantee huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security if Obama didn't make huge cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

 

The economy is bad because of the decisions the democrats and republicans have made -- together -- over the previous 20 years.

 

Cuts need to happen...we can't continue spending at the rate we are spending.

 

That said, tax increases need to happen, too. And enough corporate welfare, close the tax loopholes they're all abusing, which again, both parties created in the first place.

[Y2HH]

* I dunno, it was a pretty significant blunder you made since it was in fact a Republican Congress that kept raising the debt ceiling without issue.

 

**And, like I said, before it was a routine matter. Now, thanks to the extremism that's taken over the Republican party, it's not. Doing it again in 6 months would be fine if we weren't guaranteed to go through this same protracted bulls*** again, but we are.

 

As I pointed out to jenks a few days ago, that sword cuts both ways. Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue, Republicans do. But I've no doubt you understand that.

 

* Not a blunder. The democratic congress did the same is my point, whether you want to see it that way or not. It's pretty obvious by now you don't, which is fine.

 

** Now let me fix something for you, because it shows you missed my entire point.

 

Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue *now*, but they had no problem with continuous short term solutions before. We've been kicking the can on this for *decades*, and it's always been done short term -- yes, it's stupid -- but that's how they've been doing it. Now that things are coming to critical mass, it's suddenly important to find a long term solution, right? Wrong. It was important to find a long term solution to this YEARS ago...but when times were good, they had no problem kicking the can. That tells me they'd be doing the same s*** now if it suddenly wasn't ready to blow up in their faces. These are supposed to be leaders. Leaders see the road ahead, not the one beneath our feet.

 

These are the captains of the Titanic...they saw the iceberg, and said "whatever...that's really far away!", waited until we hit it and then said, ok...maybe we need a long term solution.

 

Yea. And anyone on this board could have told them that years ago.

 

Here are our leaders:

Edited July 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies.

 

I'm still failing to see how this is dems putting politics above country but not reps doing the same when there's pretty clear evidence that another fight over the same issue in a few months will only have negative impacts on our economy. I think that, regardless of who benefits politically, pushing this past the 2012 elections benefits is the right move because we really, really don't need an even more difficult fight over this that'll start pretty much as soon as this one ends.

[Y2HH]

The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies.

 

I'm still failing to see how this is dems putting politics above country but not reps doing the same when there's pretty clear evidence that another fight over the same issue in a few months will only have negative impacts on our economy. I think that, regardless of who benefits politically, pushing this past the 2012 elections benefits is the right move because we really, really don't need an even more difficult fight over this that'll start pretty much as soon as this one ends.

 

I never said the republicans weren't doing the same. I pretty clearly stated this is all politics as usual.

 

This is merely about timing that's making the democrats -- on this specific subject -- look like the good guys that finally want to fix what should have been fixed years and years ago. If a republican was in office right now, the democrats would be requesting a short term solution and the republicans would be requesting a long term final fix!

 

It's typical bait and switch.

 

Or, business as usual in Washington.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies.

The Democrats didn't have the Senate in 2007? That doesn't seem right.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think the Democrats are positioning Reid's proposal as a "long-term solution" to US fiscal policy other than contrasting it against Boehner's obviously short-term solution. Or, if they are, it's bulls***. That still doesn't paint forcing this whole issue again in six months as anything but a bad idea.

 

Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now.

[StrangeSox]

The Democrats didn't have the Senate in 2007? That doesn't seem right.

 

Ah I forgot that Sanders and Leiberman were both I's but essentially D's. It fluctuated between 51 Democrats in effect and a 50/50 split.

 

[Rex Kickass]

* Not a blunder. The democratic congress did the same is my point, whether you want to see it that way or not. It's pretty obvious by now you don't, which is fine.

 

** Now let me fix something for you, because it shows you missed my entire point.

 

Democrats don't want this to be a campaign issue *now*, but they had no problem with continuous short term solutions before. We've been kicking the can on this for *decades*, and it's always been done short term -- yes, it's stupid -- but that's how they've been doing it. Now that things are coming to critical mass, it's suddenly important to find a long term solution, right? Wrong. It was important to find a long term solution to this YEARS ago...but when times were good, they had no problem kicking the can. That tells me they'd be doing the same s*** now if it suddenly wasn't ready to blow up in their faces. These are supposed to be leaders. Leaders see the road ahead, not the one beneath our feet.

 

These are the captains of the Titanic...they saw the iceberg, and said "whatever...that's really far away!", waited until we hit it and then said, ok...maybe we need a long term solution.

 

Yea. And anyone on this board could have told them that years ago.

 

Here are our leaders:

 

At the same time, things like the Debt Limit and FAA reauthorization are being held hostage in exchange for passage of constitutional amendments, and union organizing regulations. This whole fight has made me physically ill thinking about it. Republicans have literally held the entire economy hostage in this fight, and Democrats have consistently caved to be responsible. The entire difference now is about timing of votes and whether or not constitutional amendments should be attached. It's really really disappointing.

[Y2HH]

I don't think the Democrats are positioning Reid's proposal as a "long-term solution" to US fiscal policy other than contrasting it against Boehner's obviously short-term solution. Or, if they are, it's bulls***. That still doesn't paint forcing this whole issue again in six months as anything but a bad idea.

 

Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now.

 

It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election (how convenient for the republicans).

 

Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election (how convenient for the republicans).

 

Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES.

Then get rid of the debt limit permanently. There's no good reason for it to exist any more.

[StrangeSox]

It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election.

 

Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES.

 

Let me amend my previous statement:

 

Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now because of Republican intransigence. You can't blame the Democrats for not endorsing any longer-term plans. Additionally, there is no need to conflate the debt and the deficit and you can fix long-term fiscal policy (if there is a substantial problem) while still voting to pay for things you already voted for. The long-term fix to the debt ceiling is either a massive cap increase or elimination of the arbitrary cap. The long-term fix to budget deficits is related, of course, but different.

[Y2HH]

Let me amend my previous statement:

 

Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now because of Republican intransigence. You can't blame the Democrats for not endorsing any longer-term plans. Additionally, there is no need to conflate the debt and the deficit and you can fix long-term fiscal policy (if there is a substantial problem) while still voting to pay for things you already voted for. The long-term fix to the debt ceiling is either a massive cap increase or elimination of the arbitrary cap. The long-term fix to budget deficits is related, of course, but different.

 

I'm not necessarily blaming the democrats in this specific case, when talking about what's been on the table the last few weeks or what's on the table now. Obviously, the tea party asshats of the republican party are sabotaging any sort of 'meet in the middle' agreement here.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not necessarily blaming the democrats in this specific case, when talking about what's been on the table the last few weeks or what's on the table now. Obviously, the tea party asshats of the republican party are sabotaging any sort of 'meet in the middle' agreement here.

 

They're sabotaging substantially pro-Republican agreements here because they live in a fantasy world where the US government failing to pay its bills is somehow a non-issue.

 

Ironically, if this were true, they would have must less bargaining power.

[Y2HH]

Then get rid of the debt limit permanently. There's no good reason for it to exist any more.

 

Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call.

[Y2HH]

They're sabotaging substantially pro-Republican agreements here because they live in a fantasy world where the US government failing to pay its bills is somehow a non-issue.

 

Ironically, if this were true, they would have must less bargaining power.

 

I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate.

 

Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing.

[StrangeSox]

Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call.

[Balta1701]

Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call.

If china has invested that much currency in U.S. debt and starts massively selling it off...the value of the rest of their holdings will drop precipitously, and the value of their own currency will appreciate, killing manufacturing jobs in china. It massively damages China to do that.

[Y2HH]

 

I knew you were a warmonger. Closet neocon teabagger.

[mr_genius]

I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate.

 

Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing.

 

they are missing a big opportunity to get very big cuts in spending. a compromise for some tax increases in return for huge spending cuts would be well worth it imo

[StrangeSox]

I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate.

 

Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing.

 

It works if you make the other side believe that you'll let the whole thing go to s*** on principle, get enormous policy concessions and then "compromise" at the last minute to something ever-so-slightly to the right of what you're demanding. The tea partiers forgot the last part or honestly believe that a default* really won't be a big deal or, as some are arguing, would be good in the long run.

 

*ck, you can spare the "it's not a default!" quibble that we technically may not default on bonds, though there's a huge constitutional issue on the ability to prioritize the payments.