4 ms·

The GOP has gotten increasingly radical since throwing in with Evangelicals and segregationists[0]. It accelerated with the Tea Party[1] wave which dragged the

by mkr-hn 3y ago

The GOP has gotten increasingly radical since throwing in with Evangelicals and segregationists[0]. It accelerated with the Tea Party[1] wave which dragged the party further to the right, and keeps getting worse. We always came back from the brink because a shrinking number of cooler heads prevailed. Coming back this time depends on there being enough cooler heads. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

camdenlock 3y ago
There are two sides involved. It’s up to both of them to find a compromise.
- mkr-hn 3y ago
  Both sides pledged to support and defend the constitution when they took the job. One side is refusing to do that. The compromise is they pay their debts and think about this the next time they want to give billionaires a tax cut. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio... >> "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
  - redeeman 3y ago
    lol please, as if one side is significantly better than the other. the establishment is exactly the same on both sides, and believe me, they do not work for you. stuff like "one side is refusing that" is just ridiculous partisanship, and anyone that believes it, on EITHER side, just lives in a bubble. and looking at things, the democrats are FAR more radical the the republicans. Both are borderline traitors though, and deserves not an iota of power
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  Only one side takes the other side hostage by threatening an economic catastrophe. 1995, 2011, 2013, and 2023 debt ceiling standoffs were all initiated by the GOP. [0] It makes zero sense to pass a budget without providing the means to finance that budget. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_debt_ceiling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States...
  - radford-neal 3y ago
    But isn't the current situation one in which the House is authorizing borrowing to avoid default while also rolling back future spending? So it's not "vote to spend money, but then make it impossible"?
radford-neal 3y ago
Under the US constitution, isn't money supposed to be spent only if both the House and Senate agree that it should be spent, and either the President also agrees or his veto is overridden? So if the House doesn't want to spend money, it doesn't get spent. It seems that some politicians just can't accept that. They think that for some reason the House is supposed to "compromise" and agree to spend money even though they don't think it should be spent. It seems that it's these politicians who are the radical ones taking the US to the brink of default.
- ngetchell 3y ago
  Congress already spent/appropriated the money. This is closer to lowering your own credit limit AFTER maxing out the card.
  - radford-neal 3y ago
    I don't know the details of the bill, but doesn't it simultaneously increase the credit limit (avoiding default), while cutting future spending? I don't see any inconsistency.
    - ngetchell 3y ago
      The House and Senate already approved the spending. That is what passing a budget means. The debt limit is a chance for Republicans to force cuts, without having to take a stand on what programs need to be cut.
    - kasey_junk 3y ago
      The inconsistency is that they voted for the spending (and tax cuts) that caused us to reach the debt ceiling. If they wanted to not spend that money it should have been negotiated as part of _that_ process. And that’s before pointing out that holding the nations credit hostage only happens by GOP legislators when there is a democrat president. It’s political hypocrisy of the worst sort that has the most likelihood of hurting the most Americans of any decision the federal government can make.

by mkr-hn 3y ago

camdenlock 3y ago

There are two sides involved. It’s up to both of them to find a compromise.

mkr-hn 3y ago
Both sides pledged to support and defend the constitution when they took the job. One side is refusing to do that. The compromise is they pay their debts and think about this the next time they want to give billionaires a tax cut. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio... >> "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
- redeeman 3y ago
  lol please, as if one side is significantly better than the other. the establishment is exactly the same on both sides, and believe me, they do not work for you. stuff like "one side is refusing that" is just ridiculous partisanship, and anyone that believes it, on EITHER side, just lives in a bubble. and looking at things, the democrats are FAR more radical the the republicans. Both are borderline traitors though, and deserves not an iota of power
quickthrowman 3y ago
Only one side takes the other side hostage by threatening an economic catastrophe. 1995, 2011, 2013, and 2023 debt ceiling standoffs were all initiated by the GOP. [0] It makes zero sense to pass a budget without providing the means to finance that budget. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_debt_ceiling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States...
- radford-neal 3y ago
  But isn't the current situation one in which the House is authorizing borrowing to avoid default while also rolling back future spending? So it's not "vote to spend money, but then make it impossible"?

radford-neal 3y ago

Under the US constitution, isn't money supposed to be spent only if both the House and Senate agree that it should be spent, and either the President also agrees or his veto is overridden? So if the House doesn't want to spend money, it doesn't get spent. It seems that some politicians just can't accept that. They think that for some reason the House is supposed to "compromise" and agree to spend money even though they don't think it should be spent. It seems that it's these politicians who are the radical ones taking the US to the brink of default.

ngetchell 3y ago
Congress already spent/appropriated the money. This is closer to lowering your own credit limit AFTER maxing out the card.
- radford-neal 3y ago
  I don't know the details of the bill, but doesn't it simultaneously increase the credit limit (avoiding default), while cutting future spending? I don't see any inconsistency.
  - ngetchell 3y ago
    The House and Senate already approved the spending. That is what passing a budget means. The debt limit is a chance for Republicans to force cuts, without having to take a stand on what programs need to be cut.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    The inconsistency is that they voted for the spending (and tax cuts) that caused us to reach the debt ceiling. If they wanted to not spend that money it should have been negotiated as part of _that_ process. And that’s before pointing out that holding the nations credit hostage only happens by GOP legislators when there is a democrat president. It’s political hypocrisy of the worst sort that has the most likelihood of hurting the most Americans of any decision the federal government can make.