Mitch McConnell Blinked FirstFollow

I absolutely agree that we should eliminate any new spending (or tax cuts/credits/deductions) created during the time period in which we went from a sustainable debt percentage to the unsustainable condition we're in right now. Care to show me which new tax cuts we should get rid of? How many new oil subsidies were created during that time period?

I'll agree to eliminate any tax cuts or oil subsidies created between 2007 and today if you agree to get rid of any new entitlement spending created during the same time period? Strange, this is exactly what conservatives have argued for, isn't it? We've said we should roll back our spending to 2008 levels (there were no tax changes btw). Not surprisingly, your side doesn't want to do this.

You want to keep your spending increases and create new taxes to pay for them. And in some bizarre twist of your brains you think this is "fair".

Because it makes too much damn sense, and our esteemed politicos fear and shun anything that doesn't confuse the populous into submission.

Yep, and that was the plan that Obama actually backed, before McConnell blinked.

Obama: "A compromise: We'll give you THREE TRILLION of your cuts if you agree to one trillion in tax hikes."

Liberals: "That's awful, we lose out 1:3, and we won't accept it!"

Conservatives: "That's awful, even if it's 3:1 of what we want versus what we didn't want, and we won't accept it!"

Republican leadership: "FUUUUUU- Okay, uh, here Obama. Ball's in your court. YOU sign the damn debt ceiling increase. We want nothing to do with it."

Really? That was the best you could do? No wonder the GOP is desperate for a way out of this mess. Also, you're apparently illiterate since you're treating "sound fiscal footing" as present tense.


Bahahahahaha....

Funny stuff. Even ignoring the fact that we're not really talking about government shutdown but debt default. Man, you're an idiot.

Edited, Jul 13th 2011 3:33pm by Jophiel

Which explains McConnell's desperate gambit to avoid it. Hey, remember how much the Democrats were going to get slaughtered over the budget? And remember that awesome deal Boehner agreed to that you said he was never going to agree to? Good times, good times.


Still not getting your news from anywhere, huh?

What he's also doing is highlighting the Democrats complete and utter unwillingness to give up any of the spending they engaged in over the last few years even in the face of a massive debt crisis. You haven't picked up the theme yet? I made the exact same point with regard to the discretionary budget agreement made a couple months ago. It was about getting the issue in front of the people and showing just how stuck on their spending the Dems are.


The GOP doesn't have to do anything more than show the public what the Dems really care about (spending the public's money without any apparent end).

Exactly (more or less). McConnell's goal isn't to avoid fiscal ruin, it's to become Senate Majority Leader which he knows won't happen if the GOP is tied to fiscal ruin. He knows that "GOP 2012 Chances" go way down if there's a debt default and economic collapse. If he thought his chances went up with a default, he'd be all in for blocking any sort of limit increase.

Short version: McConnell is desperate to avoid a debt default because he knows it will hurt the GOP more than it will hurt the Democrats.


That you're arguing from a position of ignorance. I thought that was obvious.

That's one inventive interpretation, I suppose. You're discounting the possibility that McConnell believes that the best way to avoid long term fiscal ruin is for the GOP to gain more control in the next election. He's realized that the Dems are never going to do what needs to be done to fix our current economic crisis, realizes also that the debt ceiling issue is at best a stop gap measure no matter what happens, and has decided not to get drawn into a fight on something that doesn't ultimately help the nation recover.

If the Dems were reasonable about cutting spending, he (and most Republicans) would be willing to work out a deal. He's decided that the Dems aren't going to do that, so he's taking the best option available to him. It has *nothing* to do with his personal belief about the effects of raising or not raising the debt ceiling. You've injected that into the issue all on your own. It's about his belief that cutting spending is the only way to fix the economy, and a realization that the Dems aren't going to do it.

Other members of the GOP will certainly continue to try though. That's just McConnell's approach. And as you say, it makes sense. The Senate is currently controlled by the Dems. He doesn't need to get his hands dirty in this at all, so why do it?



I'm sorry, did I miss some article where McConnell said that he did what he did because he was desperate to avoid having the debt ceiling not be raised? I'm arguing based on the information quoted/linked here. You're apparently arguing based upon some fantasy invented inside your own head.

Oh. And I'll point out that once again you have equated "not raising the debt ceiling" with a "debt default". They are *not* the same thing. Stop pretending that they are.

That hard to admit you were wrong?