democrats name calling again...

[Empty Hands]

No one was going to default on the debt, that was a scare tactic to push this through while trying to stampede the republicans into tax increases which would have damaged them with their base. It didn't work because the tea party stood up to their own party to hold the line. The deal is still bad, but increasing taxes would have made it even worse.

There would have been no tax increases, tax cuts, deals good or bad, or anything else to even talk about if it wasn't for the Tea Party, because the debt ceiling increase would have been voted on in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, as it has been for nearly 100 years, without them. They created the very threat they were "standing strong" against.

In your fun little story, how do the positions of Tea Partiers like Michele Bachmann factor in who said she wouldn't vote against a ceiling increase under any circumstances?

The apologetics are getting pathetic. They don't even make sense.

 

[billc]

Yes, thanks to the tea party the assumption that if congress just keeps spending, they can just raise the debt limit, which posters here have pointed out, in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, over and over and over again without regard to fiscal responsiblity, is over. Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works. Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on. Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?

 

[billc]

From pajamasmedia.com:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/03/my-email-to-charles-lane-of-the-wapo/

from the article:

[h=2]My email to Charles Lane of the Washington Post re: the ‘Tea Party = Terrorists’ Meme[/h]Today, editorial writer Charles Lane wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he (correctly) points out what a political blunder it is for the Democrats to start describing the Tea Party as “terrorists.” But in so doing, he carelessly repeated an earlier slandering of the Tea Party.
I quickly tracked down the Post‘s contact form for Lane, and just now zipped him this email:

---

Dear Mr. Lane,
Regarding your opinion piece today in the Washington Post entitled “Tea Party terror?” about the new incivility in political discourse:
Your basic premise — that it’s a strategic mistake for the Democrats to demonize their political opponents as “terrorists” — is a valid premise. But unfortunately in the first paragraph you already undermine your thesis by parroting an untruth that itself was part of an earlier round of demonization.
You say,

“If liberals believe anything, it is that the right is either solely, or mostly, responsible for the degradation of political discourse in America. And they are surely correct to condemn such ugly rhetorical excesses as the Obama-is-Hitler placards that flowered across the land in the summer of 2009.”
​

Now, I dare you to peruse these two blog posts I made in 2009 in response to that false charge, and tell me if it was the right or the left who started calling the president “Hitler,” and which side is the most extreme:
Bush as Hitler, Swastika-Mania: A Retrospective
Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years
Furthermore, you certainly must know as well as anyone that the false charge that the Tea Party was displaying “Obama=Hitler” signs was roundly debunked at the time: turns out that 99% of such signs depicted in the media were being displayed by Lyndon LaRouche proponents who showed up uninvited at Tea Party events and who were most definitely not in any way connected with the Tea Party (the LaRouche group is a bizarre left-leaning conspiracy cult). Yet even so, the charge (that the Tea Party degraded itself en masse by comparing Obama to Hitler) was run up the flagpole, everybody in the media saluted, and then it was instantly ossified as fact, despite being almost instantly disproven by various blogs (including mine).
Not only that, but the same LaRouchites frequently show up at left-wing rallies too, but no one ever condemns the left because of it — such as in this picture I recently took at an anti-war rally:

 

[granfire]

Yes, thanks to the tea party the assumption that if congress just keeps spending, they can just raise the debt limit, which posters here have pointed out, in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, over and over and over again without regard to fiscal responsiblity, is over. Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works. Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on. Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?

you are so full of it, your breath stinks.....

It's more like thanks to the Tea Party the nation almost lost face (or whatever is left of it since GWB)

 

[Empty Hands]

Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works. Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on.

Again, you conflate separate issues. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending. It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred. It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay. Stop spending so much? Yes. Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke? Also yes.

You can only defend this by repeatedly calling it something it is not.

Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?

Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, and George W Bush are now "big government liberals"? As are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain?

If meeting your obligations makes you a big government liberal, then sign me up.

 

[granfire]

Again, you conflate separate issues. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending. It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred. It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay. Stop spending so much? Yes. Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke? Also yes.

You can only defend this by repeatedly calling it something it is not.



Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, and George W Bush are now "big government liberals"? As are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain?

If meeting your obligations makes you a big government liberal, then sign me up.

I don't know, but isn't paying your bills considered fiscal conservative?

 

[Empty Hands]

I don't know, but isn't paying your bills considered fiscal conservative?

There is precious little conservative about today's conservatives.

That's too bad, because we could use some actual conservatives. Ones that want to defend the Constitution and our civil liberties. Ones that want to stop the destruction of our moral authority through torture and other immoral means. Ones that don't consider the potential destruction of the world economy an acceptable political tactic. Ones that could counter the excesses of the Obama administration and their shameful record on civil liberties and war.

Alas, anyone who believes along those lines is labeled either a "RINO" or a Democrat.

 

[granfire]

There is precious little conservative about today's conservatives.

That's too bad, because we could use some actual conservatives. Ones that want to defend the Constitution and our civil liberties. Ones that want to stop the destruction of our moral authority through torture and other immoral means. Ones that don't consider the potential destruction of the world economy an acceptable political tactic. Ones that could counter the excesses of the Obama administration and their shameful record on civil liberties and war.

Alas, anyone who believes along those lines is labeled either a "RINO" or a Democrat.

Sounds like liberal you and communist me....

 

[billc]

the article:
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/08/03/tea-party-group-responds-to-lawmaker-media-attacks/

from the article:

The St. Louis Tea Party condemns the comparison of private citizens who desire fiscal restraint in Washington to murderous terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans world-wide.
“It’s reprehensible to me that our Vice-President and other elected leaders would make such a grotesque analogy when in just over a month we will mark the tenth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil,” remarks Dana Loesch, Co-Founder of the St. Louis Tea Party.
“It’s an insult to Americans and the Democratic process to refer to dissenting Americans in such a way,” says Bill Hennessy, St. Louis Tea Party Co-Founder. “Are our elected leaders so out of touch with what terrorism actually is that they are willing to defame, by way of analogy, a vast group of people? We have members who lost friends to terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. We do not have any members who have lost friends due to peaceful protest.”

 

[billc]

Here is a great article about the left overusing words when they have hissy fits.

http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/08/03/liberals-please-stop-using-the-word-terrorists-its-one-of-our-only-good-word-left/

from the article:

Look leftists, you’ve taken every good word that use to mean something and run it into the ground. Because of your overuse brought on by your hysteria and uncontrollable tantrums, the once strong words that specifically defined someone has been rendered impotent – much like your brains.


Here are a few examples of watered-down words in modern American lexicon.
Fascist. That was a good one. But no, you went and watered it down. It was once a serious word that described a real threat and a growing ideology. Now it’s used to describe those who believe that “In God We Trust” on our currency is OK. Or simply just happen to disagree with you over the right to prayer at a high school graduation.
Nazi. A little more nuanced than fascism but doubly meaningful when directed at someone. Nazism was the closest thing to the Devil’s army that man has ever produced. Writers have been trying for over 60 years to understand its origins and existence. It’s so deep and dark and evil that it was really a rare phenomenon in human history. So inhuman were their actions, we still can’t grasp it all. Now ironically, if you are pro-life, you are a Nazi.
Racist. Ah, now there’s a word you never get tired of hearing. Racism is a clinical condition. I personally think you have to be somewhat insane to fully subscribe to it. That’s not to say there aren’t real differences between cultures and values. And certainly some are indeed better than others. See, I’m a racist. I just held and expressed a less than flattering idea. Ergo, racist! That’s not its only use, though. If you are pounding a liberal opponent in debate, you can expect to be called racist. For instance, if you hold the view that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, you run the danger of being a racist. It is like the nuclear bomb in the liberal arsenal.
Which now leads us here.

 

[granfire]

Here is a great article about the left overusing words when they have hissy fits.

http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/08/03/liberals-please-stop-using-the-word-terrorists-its-one-of-our-only-good-word-left/

from the article:

Look leftists, you’ve taken every good word that use to mean something and run it into the ground. Because of your overuse brought on by your hysteria and uncontrollable tantrums, the once strong words that specifically defined someone has been rendered impotent – much like your brains.


Here are a few examples of watered-down words in modern American lexicon.
Fascist. That was a good one. But no, you went and watered it down. It was once a serious word that described a real threat and a growing ideology. Now it’s used to describe those who believe that “In God We Trust” on our currency is OK. Or simply just happen to disagree with you over the right to prayer at a high school graduation.
Nazi. A little more nuanced than fascism but doubly meaningful when directed at someone. Nazism was the closest thing to the Devil’s army that man has ever produced. Writers have been trying for over 60 years to understand its origins and existence. It’s so deep and dark and evil that it was really a rare phenomenon in human history. So inhuman were their actions, we still can’t grasp it all. Now ironically, if you are pro-life, you are a Nazi.
Racist. Ah, now there’s a word you never get tired of hearing. Racism is a clinical condition. I personally think you have to be somewhat insane to fully subscribe to it. That’s not to say there aren’t real differences between cultures and values. And certainly some are indeed better than others. See, I’m a racist. I just held and expressed a less than flattering idea. Ergo, racist! That’s not its only use, though. If you are pounding a liberal opponent in debate, you can expect to be called racist. For instance, if you hold the view that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, you run the danger of being a racist. It is like the nuclear bomb in the liberal arsenal.
Which now leads us here.

where is the article about you overusing terms?

 

[jks9199]

Wow...

Anybody getting a little warm? Maybe under the collar there?

I got an idea... Let's keep to the issues and maybe hold back some of the shots, 'k?

 

[granfire]

Wow...

Anybody getting a little warm? Maybe under the collar there?

I got an idea... Let's keep to the issues and maybe hold back some of the shots, 'k?

Been too hot all day, why?


OOOHHHH, you mean....

NEVER MIND.....

<off to take a cold shower>

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Again, you conflate separate issues. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending. It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred. It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay. Stop spending so much? Yes. Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke? Also yes.

My admittedly limited understanding of the debt ceiling was that it was the amount, by statute, that limited how much Congress could borrow per fiscal year, as a total for all programs. In other words, the intuitive meaning of "debt ceiling". You're saying it's the opposite: authorization to pay off debts incurred, rather than authorization to take on more debt. Mind elaborating for me, since I'd hate to be running on such an important misconception?

 

[Empty Hands]

You're saying it's the opposite: authorization to pay off debts incurred, rather than authorization to take on more debt. Mind elaborating for me, since I'd hate to be running on such an important misconception?

It is a statutory limit on the total amount of debt able to be incurred. It is not authorization to take on specific debt, that is accomplished through the budget process (which originates in the House). Due to budgets passed by recent Congresses, we sailed past that limit on December 16, 2009. So the money was spent, and the limit already exceeded. Without the statutory extension of the debt limit, the Government would have needed to either immediately cut all spending by 40%, default on bond obligations, or some mix of the two.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

It is a statutory limit on the total amount of debt able to be incurred. It is not authorization to take on specific debt, that is accomplished through the budget process (which originates in the House). Due to budgets passed by recent Congresses, we sailed past that limit on December 16, 2009. So the money was spent, and the limit already exceeded. Without the statutory extension of the debt limit, the Government would have needed to either immediately cut all spending by 40%, default on bond obligations, or some mix of the two.

So by raising the debt limit, Congress is authorized to take on more debt to pay that already owed. That avoids default, which is certainly a good thing, but it still sounds like just adding more to the problem. It's also assuming that's what the new money acquired is actually spent on, or will they just continue sailing?

Again, I ask these as a sideliner. All I know for certain is that the last six weeks was spent arguing and risking default over a fairly standard procedure. The rest I'm relatively clueless on.

 

[Empty Hands]

So by raising the debt limit, Congress is authorized to take on more debt to pay that already owed. That avoids default, which is certainly a good thing, but it still sounds like just adding more to the problem. It's also assuming that's what the new money acquired is actually spent on, or will they just continue sailing?

No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically). Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget. The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent. We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now). There is no causal connection. You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically). Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget. The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent. We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now). There is no causal connection. You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is how raising the debt ceiling "authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred", instead of authorizing more spending. You're saying that it's a specifically responsible decision that conservatives should be backing, instead of the decision to borrow even more which they would not. If I understand things correctly, anyway.

 

[billc]

Ask him how much the actual service on the debt is, and how much we take in each month in government revenue.

 

[elder999]

Ask him how much the actual service on the debt is, and how much we take in each month in government revenue.

And,while you're at it,ask how much of our budget is devoted to defense spending, and what the government is doing-and remember, we're supposed to be the government-about increasing revenue....