5 ms·

Nit: it’s brinksmanship by the republicans. They happily blow up the deficit and raise the debt ceiling when they’re in power, but then cry foul as soon as ther

Nit: it’s brinksmanship by the republicans. They happily blow up the deficit and raise the debt ceiling when they’re in power, but then cry foul as soon as there’s a democrat in the White House. I don’t know of any time the democrats have refused to raise the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic.

more_corn 4y ago
Yep, this is solely Republican tactic. It’s a shitty way to govern. Holding the country hostage for political power.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Bush presided over a few debt ceiling fiascos run by Democrats - I think the first ones in modern times were under the Bush administration. Trump wasn't in office for long enough with an opposition congress to have had any time for congress to play these games: his cronies raised the debt ceiling a lot in his first 2 years in preparation for the next 2. Otherwise, the only presidents since Bush have been Democrats, so the opposition party doing this would be the Republicans. See here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/debt-ceiling-democrats-republicans-history.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/debt-ceiling-...
- morelisp 4y ago
  > Over the weekend, Germany conducted a hard and close-fought election with calm, ease and not a peep about voter fraud Yeah, I'm gonna trust this guy for sure.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The good news is that you don't have to trust this guy about the fact that Bush had a debt limit fight: it was a pretty big deal in 2006-2007 and it's all over every source that you might bother to look at. Also, this is the New York Times, which is pretty well known for not getting facts wrong, although their opinions are often suspect (and not always constrained to the editorial section).
    - morelisp 4y ago
      As always the devil is in the details, and I'm old enough I was around and paying attention for the Bush years. The debt limit fight referenced in the essay was actually extremely minor - there was never a real risk of a shutdown, unlike 1995, 2011, and 2013 - and the Democrats' position was broadly not "don't raise it" but "if you're gonna raise it, how about also we fund something other than wars". It's not at all comparable to the times the Republicans have a) actually precipitated or enacted crisis, sometimes with no specific demands, and b) when they do have demands, it's a hard line of tax cuts plus lower expenditures.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Your bias is showing here. Someone could easily come in and say that the Republicans weren't saying "don't raise it" they were saying "if you're gonna raise it, how about we give people some tax cuts too?" And those Republicans really meant it, too (/s)! It's not magically better or less of a political play when the side you like does it, even though Democrats generally cave on their own threats too early.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
blindriver 4y ago
Wrong. You're probably a bit too young, but as the other poster pointed out, this also happened with Dems. Both parties are stupid.
SllX 4y ago
My favorite rhetorical trick is definitely the one-siding of a two-sided issue in a two-party political system. /s Back in 2021 the Democrats had the option from the get go to do a clean unencumbered unconditional debt ceiling increase with just the votes they had and chose to try to pin it with a spending bill they wanted to push through but didn’t have the votes for, as described in even this blatantly partisan CNN article bylined by CNN’s Editor-at-large[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics/debt-ceiling-increase-schumer-mcconnell/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics/debt-ceiling-increas... The parent comment was correct the first time. It’s brinksmanship by both Democrats and Republicans. [1]: Genuine question: how is this different from an Editor-in-Chief?
- Grimburger 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-at-large https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-at-large It's a senior role generally more focused on journalism rather than the traditional editor position which handles the higher level stuff.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Ah, the byline makes more sense now. Thanks!

more_corn 4y ago

Yep, this is solely Republican tactic. It’s a shitty way to govern. Holding the country hostage for political power.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Bush presided over a few debt ceiling fiascos run by Democrats - I think the first ones in modern times were under the Bush administration. Trump wasn't in office for long enough with an opposition congress to have had any time for congress to play these games: his cronies raised the debt ceiling a lot in his first 2 years in preparation for the next 2. Otherwise, the only presidents since Bush have been Democrats, so the opposition party doing this would be the Republicans. See here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/debt-ceiling-democrats-republicans-history.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/debt-ceiling-...

morelisp 4y ago
> Over the weekend, Germany conducted a hard and close-fought election with calm, ease and not a peep about voter fraud Yeah, I'm gonna trust this guy for sure.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The good news is that you don't have to trust this guy about the fact that Bush had a debt limit fight: it was a pretty big deal in 2006-2007 and it's all over every source that you might bother to look at. Also, this is the New York Times, which is pretty well known for not getting facts wrong, although their opinions are often suspect (and not always constrained to the editorial section).
  - morelisp 4y ago
    As always the devil is in the details, and I'm old enough I was around and paying attention for the Bush years. The debt limit fight referenced in the essay was actually extremely minor - there was never a real risk of a shutdown, unlike 1995, 2011, and 2013 - and the Democrats' position was broadly not "don't raise it" but "if you're gonna raise it, how about also we fund something other than wars". It's not at all comparable to the times the Republicans have a) actually precipitated or enacted crisis, sometimes with no specific demands, and b) when they do have demands, it's a hard line of tax cuts plus lower expenditures.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Your bias is showing here. Someone could easily come in and say that the Republicans weren't saying "don't raise it" they were saying "if you're gonna raise it, how about we give people some tax cuts too?" And those Republicans really meant it, too (/s)! It's not magically better or less of a political play when the side you like does it, even though Democrats generally cave on their own threats too early.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

blindriver 4y ago

Wrong. You're probably a bit too young, but as the other poster pointed out, this also happened with Dems. Both parties are stupid.

SllX 4y ago

My favorite rhetorical trick is definitely the one-siding of a two-sided issue in a two-party political system. /s Back in 2021 the Democrats had the option from the get go to do a clean unencumbered unconditional debt ceiling increase with just the votes they had and chose to try to pin it with a spending bill they wanted to push through but didn’t have the votes for, as described in even this blatantly partisan CNN article bylined by CNN’s Editor-at-large[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics/debt-ceiling-increase-schumer-mcconnell/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/22/politics/debt-ceiling-increas... The parent comment was correct the first time. It’s brinksmanship by both Democrats and Republicans. [1]: Genuine question: how is this different from an Editor-in-Chief?

Grimburger 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-at-large https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-at-large It's a senior role generally more focused on journalism rather than the traditional editor position which handles the higher level stuff.
- SllX 4y ago
  Ah, the byline makes more sense now. Thanks!