Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:56 PM
DearAbby (12,429 posts)
Debt Ceiling thoughts.
GOP has to prove to the American People they are willing to kill the hostage....now lets consider who the hostage is? Big Banks, Wall street, Corporations, the Wealthy....you want me to believe the GOP are threatening to kill them, after they spent 20yrs defending them?
Are we stupid? Like Charlie Brown lining up for another shot at that football Lucy is holding, stupid?
2 replies, 387 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Debt Ceiling thoughts. (Original post)
Response to DearAbby (Original post)
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:04 PM
RetroGamer1971 (177 posts)
1. All of this, and not a peep from repubs during the Bush Years!
"...while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion."
Response to RetroGamer1971 (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:48 PM
Igel (20,669 posts)
2. Hard to generalize.
They were fools, at least in part, and fell for the line that the deficits were temporary and would decline. After all, there was a nice graph showing they'd be gone--and barring the 2008 recession the deficit would have been a bit north of $200 billion.
They were fools, at least in part, and fell for the allure of partisanship. Their guy was running deficits of $300 and $450 billion, and while a lot of (R) on the sidelines (and a few low-ranking rank-and-file congressfolk) said that the deficits were too high the leadership had to hew to the party line.
They were fools, at least in part, because they were knee-jerk nay-sayers. Many (D) in Congress and in the media were saying the deficits were far too high to be sustainable. If (D) say "no," (R) have to say "yes"--and vice-versa, if (D) say "yes" then (R) have to say "no." It's not an argument, it doesn't even count as "thinking"--it's just being contradictory, but that's what passes for politics among some.
They were fools, at least in part, and believed that deficits for their pet projects outweighed the expense of paying interest on those projects for the rest of their lives.
Then there's sticker shock. I'm willing to pay to eat in a restaurant. Perhaps $40-50, on occasion, for the three of us. Sure, I'd like it to be less, but at that price there are no quibbles, no complaints from me. But when we walked into a restaurant and the average menu item, before any drinks (even iced tea) and salad was $50, I balked. It would mean instead of $50 for dinner I'd be paying $150 or more for dinner. Point: There's a dinner bill, and then there's a dinner bill. What's okay at one price might be not so okay if you triple the price. Only a fool--not "at least in part," just "a fool"--honestly believes that something is worth "any price."