Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

That's a really interesting argument. I would be really curious to see what would happen if the Admin. went ahead and just ignored the debt ceiling based on this argument.

 

Who gets to decide the matter? Umm, let me see, it is those five people in a place called supreme court? Ya, that would it it.

 

They do if a case is presented to them and its also possible that in a situation like this the USSC doesn't rule as it is a separation or powers issue.

I can see a situation though where the Admin. goes ahead and ignores the debt ceiling and Congress complains about it but take any legal action because it gives them cover to accept raising the debt ceiling and avoiding financial chaos without having to say they voted for it.

 

Like on the War Powers Act? At least he has practice.

 

Utter BS. The Republican strategy (not a secret strategy but one that was trumpeted by its leaders) was to obstruct every single thing that Obama tried to do, from day one, no matter what. That is why we have seen an unprecedented number of filibusters. They used to be reserved for very special cases, a thing of last resort; with the current GOP they have, for the first time in our history as a country, become a threat that hangs over every single nomination or piece of legislation.

As a result, for the first time in our nation's history a super-majority of 60 became necessary in the Senate not just to pass controversial legislation but to pass ANYTHING.

This is the opposite of par for the course. This has never, ever happened.

And it has never, ever happened that one party's idea of compromise, in every negotiation, is do what we want or we walk away and filibuster.

This is brand ****ing new.

 

It is lazy, it is cheap, it is demonstrably false, and it is exactly what the GOP wants people to believe so that they will become cynical and stay home. It is directly in line with their extraordinary voter suppression efforts.

 

The Democrats have clearly signaled their willingness to make major reductions in spending. The Republicans have said no tax increases whatsoever, under any circumstances, or we will let the economy collapse. And, by the way, taxes on the rich wouldn't literally be an increase. Those tax cuts had an expiration date on them even under Bush. The current GOP has insisted not only on no new taxes but on extending tax cuts well beyond their intended and agreed upon expiration.

But the main point is Democrats are doing exactly what you suggest; Republicans won't even consider compromise of any sort and certainly no increase in tax revenue, as you suggest.

This is the modern GOP and this is how negotiations work now.

Dems: "Let's start by meeting halfway."
Republicans: "No. The agreement will be what we say, exactly what we say and there will be no compromise. Ever. Or we will walk away and damn the consequences."

Your party is out of control, Ref.

 

The meaningful difference here is that those were out-of-power radicals and the ones now willing to let things go to hell are the elected leaders of a major party.

The Nader camp had no ability to affect policy. The GOP leadership does. And boy are they using it.

 

Hmmm, wonder if the Hatch Act is unconstitutional as well?

 

gud one

 

Escalation.

'Slash And Burn': Chuck Schumer Accuses Republicans Of Sabotaging The Economy To Hurt Obama

WASHINGTON -- Republicans may be slowing the recovery on purpose to hurt President Obama's reelection chances in 2012, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a speech on Thursday.......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/slash-and-burn-chuck-schu_n_887648.html?igoogle=1?igoogle=1

I can see this coming back to haunt the GOP in the national elections in 2014 if Obama is re-elected. It could be the pendulum headed back to the middle.

 

Except in 2000 those out of power radicals actually had some clout and were well aware of the possibility of a Nader vote keeping Al Gore from winning. I mean why even make the statement about a GW Bush victory if they weren't aware of that possibility?

Anyway just so I can talk about Minnesota some more right now in MN we have a microcosm of what could happen on the national scale. We have a Democratic governor who campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and an Republican legislature that campaigned on not raising taxes at all. Neither can agree on a budget and state government is going to be shut down tonight.

In fairness I never liked Gov. Dayton's proposal but to his credit he has been willing to compromise and agree to more cuts along with dropping his tax proposal for some other revenue method but the Legislature is absolutely refusing to budge on the revenue side.

 

Good point and there are similarities. I have a hard time believing Congress will actually stop the Libyan deployment but I think raising a stink about it gives them political cover at a time when Obama's popularity is hurting from Afghanistan.

 

End the war in Libya, bring out brave drones home.

 

Of course there are some people on both sides who wish the country would fail so that they could get their guys elected. But you can recognize the distinction between a basso, for example, and a Mitch McConnell, right?

Because you are comparing random dudes at a Nader rally to the leadership of the Republican party. What exactly is the point of that sort of comparison? I understand it being a thought that occurred to you, I just don't understand why you thought it was worth typing and hitting submit.

 

I'm actually not comparing random dudes at a Nader rally. I don't recall her name but the woman who I heard say that was the woman who had walked across the country for campaign finance reform and was speaking from the stage of the Target Center. Also this wasn't a fringe topic and a subject of concern and debate among even Nader supporters, which is why there was a move to vote trading so those in battleground states could vote for Gore and trade with someone in a non battleground state so they would vote for Nader.

It is relevant to point out thought that there are people on all sides who are willing to foment disaster because they believe that doing so will lead to change in their favor.

Also as far as the value of the point besides the fact that this wasn't just some random conversation but actually someone speaking from the stage officially you clearly thought it was worthwhile enough to respond to the post rather defensively.

That said you have a good point there is a difference between a campaigner at a rally versus a sitting US Senator.

 

Yes. And not just a sitting Senator but the minority leader of the Senate. Find me a serious Democrat that's done anything like that.

When the two parties behave so, so, so differently it is important to reject the idea that "both parties do it." Both parties do NOT do it. The two major parties are as different from each other in their strategies, priorities, ways of doing business, approach to compromise or negotiations, and ethics as they are in their ideologies.

The reason I posted defensively was because you were using a pretty lame example to try to support the all-too-common falsehood that "people on both sides do it." I'm sorry but that's just BS.

Yes that might be true if you include anyone who's ever been allowed to speak into a microphone. It does not count if you are considering a much more serious standard like official party statements and strategies, as expressed by the party leadership.

Both parties do NOT do it.

 

I think you're a very smart guy, rocketsjudoka. And you're obviously well-informed, knowledgeable and just generally bright about politics. It's a shame to see that kind of politically invested person buy into trite BS like the idea that "everybody does it" or that both sides are in any way of a kind. I almost think you are literally too smart and informed to say stuff like that, but you say that sort of stuff a lot so I don't know. I'm very confused by it.

Sometimes I think you're just doing whatever you can to be in the middle because you decided for whatever reason that that was just the right place to be.