This is where the profession of politics comes in. Compromise has always been required to get things done in Washington. Acting like petulant children with fingers in their ears is not the way politics should be done. No one is going to 'go along' with anyone, unless there are incentives that at least some people from both parties can vote for. All that is needed is a majority of people, not everyone. Unfortunately I think the reasonable Republicans will be forced to accept a less desirable deal (one that is pushed by the Dems) to avoid a default, since Boehner can't get the Tea Party to toe the line.
The party acting like children with fingers in ears, are the DEMOCRATS! All Republicans want to do is pay down our debt and balance the budget... why would there be any reasonable opposition to that? Why would any sane rational person not go along with that? The ONLY reason I've heard from ANY Dem, is because the plan doesn't increase taxes on top wage earners and job producers. Something that would have a 'devastating effect on the economy' according to Obama in January.
It is definitely the Tea Party's fault. Don't lump them in with the Republicans on this. Boehner and McConnell are trying to reach a compromise with the Dems. That is party politics at its worst. You keep saying that the Democrats haven't come up with a plan, but I keep correcting you, but you don't listen. The Senate Dems have a plan (the Tea Party is rejecting it), the President proposed his plan a month ago (the Tea Party rejected it), and Boehner has a plan (the Tea Party will reject it on Thursday, unless Boehner can get them in line). The moral of the story is that the Tea Party is the one shutting everyone down.
Where is this grand Democrat plan you speak of? I've not seen it or read it, and can't seem to find anything about it online. The only "PLAN" I've heard from liberals, is to raise the debt ceiling and ignore the spending problem... maybe raise taxes on the top wage earners and job producers. The only "cuts" I ever hear mentioned, are to the military... oh, and oil subsidies and corporate jet tax... let's not forget those few pennies. But there has been no plan from Democrats to address the issue of spending we can't sustain. And what the hell are you talking about "compromise" for? It's not like there are two different problems and we can't agree on which one to solve! There is ONE problem, our government is spending too much money! There is NOT a compromise for solving this problem, the ONLY answer is for government to spend LESS! On that, Democrats do not wish to budge.
This is your wishful thinking side. No amount of debate would have brought this partisan legislation to be voted on outside of party lines. In fact, it was every Democrat in the senate (51-46 was the vote) that voted to table that legislation indefinitely.
Why did they vote to table it, and not just vote it down? And you know, 51-46 is not the sort of margin to ridicule and laugh about something not having a chance... it's not like it was 90-7 or something. A three vote swing... that's all it would have taken to pass.
This is like everything else the liberals glean from the CBO... smoke and mirrors. The CBO can't judge legislation or make determinations on any data not presented, they crunch the numbers they are given, and come up with a "score" for various bills. Now, because the CBO only projects 10 years out, Democrats can structure bills so that most of the cost is on the back end, beyond that 10 year window the CBO has to consider. They can also claim as legitimate, the increase in tax revenues from increased tax rates, because the CBO doesn't consider the ramifications of raising taxes and how that effects actual revenue, they calculate in a bubble... a static world where nothing changes. Over the years, the CBO has been predictably WRONG on both the cost of programs, and the amount of revenue gained from raised taxes.
Unless the independent voters, those of us not drinking either party's kool-aid, blame the Tea Party. That's too far away to call though. I think it also depends on who the Republican presidential candidate is, how this situation turns out, and what happens in the next year and 4 months.
It's Democrats who don't want to face this problem. Who want to kick the can down the road, and NOT cut spending on their precious entitlements. It's Democrats who want to literally USE the CBO to justify their continued out-of-control spending binge, and mission to raise taxes. And it's the Democrats, along with some establishment Republicans, who want to tell the TEA Party to sit down and shut up, and get their asses in line. The TEA Party is merely doing what the people who elected them, sent them to Washington to do... tell these idiots that we want the out-of-control spending STOPPED NOW! And ya know what? IF that doesn't happen before 2012, well, we will have another election, and we'll send even more establishment asses home without a seat, and replace them with TEA Party Patriots who WILL listen to the people. We'll see if Cap Cut and Balance is tabled again after that.
Again you prove that you don't even bother reading my argument. Go back and read it again. I support spending cuts, so stop freaking out about that. A tax increase is much less harmful than the interest rate hikes that we face by defaulting. My only problem with consumer-based taxes is that they tend to be regressive, instead of balanced, but I would be interested to see your proposal.
Your argument is stupid words that mean nothing! How fucking easy was it to say you support spending cuts? Democrats, even the president, has said, they support spending cuts... until it comes time to actually have a VOTE on them! Then they vote unanimously to table the legislation!
Congress most definitely does spend more than the take in. They have almost every year since the foundation of this country. In a sense, we are still paying off the Revolutionary War, since that is when our national debt started (I feel I have to explain that this is an exaggeration, since otherwise you will try to insult me again). Every President has contributed to this debt. The problem with the BBA having built-in language to make exceptions is that the US hasn't been in a declared war since Korea. If the BBA were in place in 2001 we would have been unable to go into Afghanistan, Osama would probably still be alive, and Saddam would still be in power. I think a BBA is good intentions, but it would be terrible in implementation.
This is total rubbish. SF corrected you on most of this, so I won't bother going through the history of our national debt again, it hasn't always been this way. In fact, it's NEVER been this high before, or represented this much of our total GDP. As I pointed out before, a Balanced Budget Amendment would not hamstring Congress in times of emergency. There are built-in provisions for times of war, natural disasters, and unexpected emergencies... and if something like this WERE to become problematic (it wouldn't), then a later Congress could pass legislation to address that. The BBA simply means our government must live within its means, like every American family has to do. Whether or not we've done that in the past, is irrelevant.
What are you talking about? They said it wouldn't pass and it didn't. If the dynamic changes, i.e. Tea Party takes over in 2012, then it might have a chance. The talking heads only said that it would fail in the vote right now, which it did.
No... they rolled in the floor laughing that it had no chance of passing and was silly to even suggest... it liked 3 votes going the other way... hardly something laughingly unpopular, in my opinion.
Here's my plan: raise the debt ceiling before Aug 2. Debate and legislate to lower spending and whatever else needs to be done. In 2012, see if the Republicans sweep the elections, then push the hardcore legislation. Until then, you have to play the game, which is Democratic at the moment.
Why would any sane rational person just raise the debt limit without addressing the spending problem? Raising the debt ceiling is POINTLESS if we aren't going to control spending, because in two years... or less... we'll be having the same conversation about raising the debt ceiling again... and what purpose is a debt ceiling that is constantly and consistently raised each time it is reached? Can you explain that one to me? What's the point in even HAVING one, if that's what we 're going to do?
And let's get something clear... there is no "GAME" being played here. This is not a "GAME" to be played by Republicans or Democrats, this is our reputation on the line in the real world, this is our actual credit rating... not a GAME! So, no... Republicans don't have to play any game here... what they have to do, is hold firm on their principles and not back down. The TEA Party is not the Republican party, make no mistake, they can send Republican asses home without a seat, just as well as they can Democrats, and they WILL do so, if Republicans cave on this.
![avatar434_1[1].gif](http://www.allofftopic.com/images/smilies/avatar434_1[1].gif){kind=avatar}
