Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FYI: Democrats have demanded conditions for debt-ceiling increases 21 times since 1979

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FYI: Democrats have demanded conditions for debt-ceiling increases 21 times since 1979

    http://www.caintv.com/fyi-democrats-have-demanded-co

    Unprecedented!

    Why, those irresponsible Republicans, risking the full faith and credit of the United States by threatening not to raise the debt limit! It's unheard of! It's unprecedented! It's beyond the pale, I tell ya!

    Except for one thing: It's as common as the day is long. In fact, more than half of all the debt ceiling increases since 1979 came with conditions, and no party attached conditions more than the Democrats.

    Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey tell you what the mainstream media would have told you two years ago if it was not merely an Obama propaganda outfit:

    Congressional Republicans who want legislative conditions in exchange for a debt-limit increase are following a strategy that has been pursued by both parties the majority of the time. Of the 53 increases in the debt limit, 26 were "clean"—that is, stand-alone, no strings-attached statutes. The remaining debt-limit increases were part of an omnibus package of other legislative bills or a continuing resolution. Other times, the limit was paired with reforms, only some of which were related to the budget.


    In 1979, a Democratic Congress increased the debt limit but required Congress and the president to present balanced budgets for fiscal years 1981 and 1982. In 1980 the debt limit, again increased by a Democratic Congress, included repeal of an oil-import fee. In 1985, the debt limit that was raised by a divided Congress included a cigarette tax and a provision requiring Congress to pursue an alternative minimum corporate tax in the next year.

    Hassett and McCloskey also make a good point about the usefulness of the debt ceiling as a check against executive power. A party that controls only one house of Congress can't really govern per se, but its assent is still needed by the president for certain essential actions. A president who thinks he is above consultation with Congress could use a little reining in, and the need to raise the debt ceiling is a useful reminder that if he goes too far cramming his own agenda down the throats of the nation, the opposition party does indeed have an ace to play.

    As Hassett and McCloskey demonstrate here, the Democratic Party has not been shy about playing that ace frequently over the course of the last generation.

    I would ask why the mainstream news media have not called Obama on his insistence that this is all so unprecedented and shocking, but the question answers itself so I won't bother.

    I would say this, though: If you don't want the opposition party holding you hostage with conditions for raising the debt ceiling, why don't you try balancing the budget? Then you won't need to borrow, and they won't be able to exercise that check on you. Debt presents all kinds of complications in life that people who pay cash don't have to deal with. If this situation is bothering Obama that much, he should give it a try.

  • #2
    Already been discussed several times.

    Different situations.

    Swing and a miss.

    Strike three!

    Now go hang your head in shame.

    Comment


    • #3
      As if your'are the judge of different situations. Opinions. Like aholes.

      Opposing parties have always used the debt ceiling to bargain with. Only difference now is we have a president who has helped create a civil war at our capital.
      Last edited by Meck77; 10-04-2013, 10:25 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Meck77 View Post
        Opposing parties have always used the debt ceiling to bargain with. Only difference now is we have a president who has helped create a civil war at our capital.
        That's only because your GOP is being exceptionally uncivil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Meck77 View Post
          As if your'are the judge of different situations. 1) Opinions. Like aholes.

          2) Opposing parties have always used the debt ceiling to bargain with. Only difference now is we have a president who has helped create a civil war at our capital.
          You said it.

          Opinions. A-holes.

          Comment


          • #6
            OP just too dumb to waste time on. Argument has been answered numerous times. The willfully ignorant cannot be saved.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
              OP just too dumb to waste time on. Argument has been answered numerous times. The willfully ignorant cannot be saved.
              Answered in the sense that any difference in any sense is considered vindication. Using standards the renders the whole concept of analogy itself null and void.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ow-they-ended/

              My personal favorite argument is this one:

              http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/10/03/reckl...-is-different/

              The current standoff (which has already reached the three-day mark, with no end in sight) is part of an avowed Republican effort to repeal the 2010 health care reform, whose significance overshadows every other item of domestic policy during Obama’s presidency (and during every Democratic presidency since that of Lyndon Johnson). Obamacare is much, much bigger game than the MX missile, or the contras, or the Fairness Doctrine ever was. (That’s why the hard-right, total-war House faction that’s driving the shutdown wants to kill it.) The Affordable Care Act is much bigger game even than the large Medicare cuts sought by the Republican House and Senate during the two Clinton-era shutdowns of late 1995 and early 1996, which lasted not days, but weeks—exhausting the nation’s patience with government shutdowns in general, and affixing blame to overreaching congressional ideologues.
              Translation: When we shut down the government it was only over really petty ****, not the really important stuff.

              Comment


              • #8
                They are different situations, but now that I've seen the rates and the coverage and the mandates of the coverage and the death panels and waviers to exclude people that should be using this....kill it....kill it with fire.
                Last edited by Garcia Bronco; 10-04-2013, 01:32 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  . Dems are all like "but but but its different......its the republicans!!!!!!!!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It was different when Tip Oniell shut down the government 13 times. He was doing it to support stuff that we believe in!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Taco John View Post
                      It was different when Tip Oniell shut down the government 13 times. He was doing it to support stuff that we believe in!
                      Truth of the matter is, if you remember back to when the Proggies had a raging boner for nuclear disarmament, the MX Missile program was an ideological trophy they wanted on their mantle.

                      And they shut down the government over it. Is that the same as shutting the government over forcing individuals to buy insurance on a platform that clearly isn't ready?

                      No, it's not. Because it's far worse.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The democrats never see their blatant hypocrisy and double standards on every issue that exists, but they are the "smart" ones as they proclaim.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by barryr View Post
                          The democrats never see their blatant hypocrisy and double standards on every issue that exists, but they are the "smart" ones as they proclaim.

                          My dog is smarter than most of you and has better manners.

                          Your party attached Obamacare to the budget.........made two separate issues one even though there was no way in hell it was going to go their way.

                          NEVER has this happened over a law, did you understand that ?

                          A law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jetmeck View Post
                            My dog is smarter than most of you and has better manners.

                            Your party attached Obamacare to the budget.........made two separate issues one even though there was no way in hell it was going to go their way.

                            NEVER has this happened over a law, did you understand that ?

                            A law
                            You'd have better luck talking politics to a......

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by barryr View Post
                              The democrats never see their blatant hypocrisy and double standards on every issue that exists, but they are the "smart" ones as they proclaim.
                              I've been wondering about this a lot lately but Jonah G wrote something in the last day or two that really takes the mystery out it.

                              http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...jonah-goldberg

                              Once you realize this it helps explain so many of the Left’s hypocrisies and alleged double standards. I say alleged, because they aren’t really double standards. You can only have a double standard when you actually believe something should be a standard. Ultimately, for progressives these procedural debates about how power is used in America are just that: procedural debates. The alleged standards at stake are evanescent and petty –for liberals. The only true standard is whatever advances the progressives’ ball downfield. That is the very heart of “social justice” — doing whatever “good” you can, when you can, however you can. As they say, behind every confessed double standard there is an unconfessed single standard. And for progressives, the single enduring standard is “whatever works for us.”
                              Worth a read.

                              Long and short, their only principle is Machiavellian. If they get their end, any means is justified.
                              Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 10-05-2013, 12:47 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X