So we hit the debt limit...

[Neil]

I don't think that was the Republican Party.

McVeigh was a registered Republican, though he was leaning toward Libertarian.

So what?  When a black person robs someone, they are robbed by a black person, not the Democratic Party.

It was a political act.  Robbing someone is not a political act.

I don't think that's important.

Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?

[Neil]

I don't think the 14th amendment argument makes a lot of sense.

However, it does seems to me that if Congress does the following:
1) Directs expenditure of money
2) Refuses to raise revenues sufficient to support those expenditures, and
3) Refuses to authorize issuance of debt,

then it has created a fundamental logical contradiction for the Executive, which has the duty to carry out the laws faithfully.  The Executive can't do all three of those things; it must take some action that is inconsistent with its obligations.  The discussion to date in the media seems to presume that the only way to resolve the problem is for the Executive to repudiate its obligations at least in part with respect to Item 1.  But it is less than clear to me why it is OK to flaunt laws directing expenditure of money but not those directing limits on authorized debt.  All the laws stand in equal dignity.  Thus, if Congress has acted in a way as to force the Executive to break some directive, then it seems to me the Executive should be able to exercise its discretion about which directive to bend.

Should they just sue Congress then?  Or is the Supreme Court so full of Republican creatures that it wouldn't be helpful?

[Razgovory]

I don't think that's important.

Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?

I believe that was the thrust of McCarthy's arguments.

[Neil]

I don't think that's important.

Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?

I believe that was the thrust of McCarthy's arguments.

If you choose to support your reasoning process by claiming McCarthy, then perhaps you should rethink your viewpoint.

Moreover, when I disagree with you, you should know right away that you are wrong.

[CountDeMoney]

Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?

Why not; every Republican should be considered a tyrannical despot that eschews the rule of law because of Richard Nixon.

[Razgovory]

Moreover, when I disagree with you, you should know right away that you are wrong.

You're not even a real person!  You're a Canadian.

[Neil]

Still, if you want to go that way, should every Democrat be considered a traitor because of Alger Hiss?

Why not; every Republican should be considered a tyrannical despot that eschews the rule of law because of Richard Nixon.

It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.

[DontSayBanana]

It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.

Dude, if Bachmann becomes POTUSA, it's more likely to be bending at the waist and facing away from her.

[Neil]

It's that sort of talk that makes me happy to think that you'll soon be having to bend your knee to President Bachmann.

Dude, if Bachmann becomes POTUSA, it's more likely to be bending at the waist and facing away from her.

Either way, Money will pay for his slander.

[Grey Fox]

It's funny how a Federal Tax at 4% would mostly fix all these problems within a decade. Yet, there's no political will to actually fix the situation.

[Grallon]

"...under the weight of its own internal contradictions"  I said some time ago.  It's been sagging for while but now it's becoming visible.




G.

[Admiral Yi]

I think you also said we would have rounded up and gassed all Muslims in the country by now too.

[Jacob]

Who is Ezra Klein? And where is he on the political spectrum, not to mention the credibility spectrum?

I found this piece of his interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-white-houses-case-for-a-big-deficit-deal/2011/07/14/gIQAdj4AEI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

To put all this slightly differently, White House officials believe a big deficit reduction deal would do them enough good, both politically and economically, that it's worth making very significant compromises on the details of that deal. If you thought getting to $4 trillion in deficit reduction was a Republican goal, you're wrong. It's the White House's goal, and the only reason it might not happen is Republicans won't let them do it.

As I write in my Bloomberg column today, the Republican Party has taken the exact opposite position as the administration: A deal won't help them politically, and they don't actually care about the deficit all that much, and so they're much more interested in resisting compromises on the details than passing a big debt-reduction package. Put those two positions together and it's pretty easy to see how the deal has moved so far to the right, and also why it'll be very hard to close.

What do you guys think?

[MadImmortalMan]

It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. 

Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.

[Malthus]

It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. 

Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.

I would put it somewhat cynically as follows: the Republicans are calculating that, if the economy tanks because no deal is reached, it will harm the current president and not them.