Active Users:893 Time:05/07/2025 07:16:57 AM
No, tax increases to PREVENT a default is OK. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/07/2011 06:36:15 PM
Another of many nice attempts to turn the issue around; guess that avoids the need for effective policy (as long as you don't mind the country collapsing while you deny its problems). If you want it in those terms, the spending cuts on the table would only prevent a default TODAY; the deficit will remain and a future default will still be coming. Again, that's the point: Dems must (and HAVE) put aside their bases attachment to current entitlements and Republicans must put aside their bases attachment to current taxes or the country goes bankrupt. Simple as that.
because it is just fair that the dems get what they are demanding? If that is true maybe defaulting is not as big deal as we thought. Such weak thinking is the reason liberals can't be allowed to run things even when they have noble goals. As a group they seem to be to small minded to even understand there is another side.

Dems get SOME of what they want (tax increases), Republicans get SOME of what they want (entitlement cuts) and the COUNTRY balances its budget, eliminates its deficit and begins reducing and ultimately eliminating its debt. Dems made MAJOR concessions long ago; raising Medicares retirement age and reducing the SS COLA are VERY unpopular with the Democratic base, much of which will suffer real hardships as a result. Not "I only got a three week Bahamian vacation this year instead of a month. " hardships, but "this cat food tastes powdery" hardships. That's why Obama had to twist Pelosi and Reids arms to get their agreement. Dems understandably LOATHE those cuts--but accepted them anyway because they're NECESSARY for the countrys survival. In exchange, Republicans offer: NOTHING. Their well heeled base will sacrifice nothing to balance the budget, because they think they can force Americas neediest citizens to bear the burden alone. That's absurd and won't happen.

Attempts to pass the buck won't change any numbers; not the balance sheet, not the Congressional vote and not the 2012 election (Republicans are slitting their own throats there, but they're slitting their own throats along with everyone elses on the deficit). You can't turn this around (nice try though) and say, "Dems insist on all their demands with no concessions, too!" because it's simply not true. You know that as well as I do so, again, this is no time to indulge fact denying rhetoric to opt out of sacrifices the rest of America is bearing by necessity. Insisting on tax cuts for those who need them least despite the deficit (as Republicans did in 2001 and have continued doing as recently as six months ago) is selfish, irresponsible and delusional; if you want "childish petulance", there it is. You can't have everything you want without giving up anything; that's the kind of infantile thinking that put us in this mess, and it's past time the GOP grew up--like the rest of the country already has.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Debt Ceiling Debacle: Are Republican Leaders Spinelessly Selfish, or Cluelessly Selfish? - 14/07/2011 04:57:30 PM 910 Views
funny how people only believe polls that say what they want to hear - 14/07/2011 06:08:21 PM 453 Views
That kind of headline doesn't really help, you know? - 14/07/2011 06:33:43 PM 548 Views
I second this. Definitely need less antagonism *NM* - 14/07/2011 07:36:54 PM 195 Views
"I have no idea what we're talking about, but my opinion is important anyway!" - 14/07/2011 09:03:10 PM 559 Views
just because you believe the silly rhetoric doens't mean it isn't rhetoric *NM* - 14/07/2011 09:27:08 PM 169 Views
Rhetoric can be right or wrong, but it's still rhetoric. *NM* - 14/07/2011 09:56:32 PM 280 Views
I can't think of anything else to call it. - 14/07/2011 09:17:42 PM 596 Views
I just think that you could have said all that in a much more less antagonistic way. - 14/07/2011 10:16:49 PM 567 Views
I do see your point, but it often takes a shock for people to question reflexive views. - 14/07/2011 10:53:07 PM 541 Views
there's a difference between shock and antagonism - 14/07/2011 11:43:20 PM 440 Views
Fair enough. - 15/07/2011 12:27:44 AM 611 Views
it is selfish to demand tax increases to allow needed spending reductions *NM* - 15/07/2011 02:48:11 PM 319 Views
It's shamefully selfish to demand others sacrifice their existence for your luxury. - 15/07/2011 04:14:04 PM 425 Views
that woulkd be shameful thank god it isnothing but rhetoric *NM* - 15/07/2011 07:17:44 PM 200 Views
It's the simple sad truth. - 15/07/2011 09:36:34 PM 360 Views
so defalting for tax increases is OK? - 18/07/2011 04:28:34 PM 433 Views
No, tax increases to PREVENT a default is OK. - 18/07/2011 06:36:15 PM 527 Views
And you haven't even gotten into the cries for a "balanced budget amendment." - 14/07/2011 09:17:04 PM 406 Views
Did the Mitch McConnel thing remind anyone else of Jar Jar Binks appearing before the Senate... - 15/07/2011 07:38:52 AM 512 Views
It probably would have if I didn't do everything I could to avoid thinking of Jar Jar Binks *NM* - 15/07/2011 11:20:09 AM 214 Views
Well said. *NM* - 15/07/2011 01:46:46 PM 201 Views
Pretty much everyone in the Tea Party, I think. - 15/07/2011 04:45:08 PM 453 Views
obama needs to learn when to STFU sometimes - 15/07/2011 08:14:29 PM 485 Views
And make policy. - 15/07/2011 10:08:50 PM 600 Views
Clueless only in the sense that they aren't heeding the signals of their owners. - 17/07/2011 06:46:42 AM 659 Views
Coaches have to do things fans dislike to win games, or get fired anyway when they lose. - 17/07/2011 04:11:38 PM 655 Views
Here's to hoping I'm wrong. - 18/07/2011 08:46:13 AM 597 Views
I was all set to argue, then I read the other new responses. - 18/07/2011 06:36:05 PM 597 Views

Reply to Message