Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Goodbye, Majority Leader Cantor


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure about that.

Maybe crediting the Republican Party with any rationality whatsoever is a mistake, but I really can't see it happening. Even if it has to be done with a handful of Republicans and lots of Democrats, the debt ceiling will be raised.

Slate running an article about how, despite being an economics professor, Brat thinks modern economics thinking is bullshit.

I doubt we agree on the specifics, but I actually agree with him on this.

Yea, he thinks modern economics is bullshit because he rejects empiricism, which, sadly, is nothing new among libertarians and the American right more generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the right wing decides that they will not raise the debt limit anymore, it will just mean that Obama will need to mint himself that trillion dollar coin.

This has been on my mind, because when it's time for that debt ceiling to go up you'd better believe every Republican congressperson is going to think of Eric Cantor. I don't know how it will play out, but one thing is certain: we can't have a functioning government when one of the two major parties is just dysfunctional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been on my mind, because when it's time for that debt ceiling to go up you'd better believe every Republican congressperson is going to think of Eric Cantor. I don't know how it will play out, but one thing is certain: we can't have a functioning government when one of the two major parties is just dysfunctional.

Exactly. US Politics is always cyclical. Sometimes, based on the alignments of various groups, one party has power more of the time for a span of a decade or three. However, even during such a period, the "lesser" party takes control of the government from time to time. Sometime, possibly very soon, possibly ten years from now, but almost assuredly not more than that, Republicans will get control of the government. When they do, they will need to actually do basic things to keep the country running like raising the debt ceiling. And while I think they will do it, I'm no longer certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and if the Republican Party gets back into power, watch how quickly their base stops giving a fuck about deficits and the debt ceiling (see: GWB administration). They're defined by being against Obama, and will support whoever can be the most mean-spirited in their opposition to Obama and whatever he supports. They don't actually care about or have any real understanding of policy- it's classic right wing populism, all about who they hate today. Once their guys- the white Christian guys- are back in power, watch the Tea Party wither away and the return of business as usual.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

When and if the Republican Party gets back into power, watch how quickly their base stops giving a fuck about deficits and the debt ceiling (see: GWB administration). They're defined by being against Obama, and will support whoever can be the most mean-spirited in their opposition to Obama and whatever he supports. They don't actually care about or have any real understanding of policy- it's classic right wing populism, all about who they hate today. Once their guys- the white Christian guys- are back in power, watch the Tea Party whither away and the return of business as usual.

It seems like such a scenario would be a disaster for the Republican base, potentially, depending on how many of their establishment voters become alienated over several more election cycles of pure insanity. I can't help but feel like they're relying too much on the type of oppositional energy you're describing, so if that energy dries up when they gain power, that would leave them in a position to completely re-vamp their rhetoric in order to marshal whoever they have left, and convince people that they're not completely nuts.

Of course, I may just be giving too much credit to non-Tea Party Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. US Politics is always cyclical. Sometimes, based on the alignments of various groups, one party has power more of the time for a span of a decade or three. However, even during such a period, the "lesser" party takes control of the government from time to time. Sometime, possibly very soon, possibly ten years from now, but almost assuredly not more than that, Republicans will get control of the government. When they do, they will need to actually do basic things to keep the country running like raising the debt ceiling. And while I think they will do it, I'm no longer certain.

Actually, I think that when Republicans get control of government things will run abominably but more smoothly. As it stands, Democrats (and specifically Obama) get the blame when things go bad, even when it's Republicans who are making the mischief. I suspect that when there's a Republican in the White House, the GOP Congress won't want to play chicken with the debt ceiling and shutdowns and all that nonsense, since their guy will get the blame. Democrats don't engage in those particular shenanigans, so they just won't happen.

That's not to say unified Republican control would be good; it's wouldn't. Debt will mount up, and we'll probably get involved in a war or three, but Congress will be functional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Republicans ever get back the White House, Democrats will use everything at their disposal, just like Republicans, to try and get what they want or at least something more tolerable. Obviously, if Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House, there probably will be no shutdowns and no debt ceiling crises. The same would likely be true if Democrats controlled everything. But if Democrats control the Senate or the House with a Republican in the White House, Democrats would certainly consider forcing a shutdown. When Reagan was president and the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House, there were numerous shutdowns. I'm sure that Democrats would also play chicken with the debt ceiling. They can't just cave and give the other side whatever they want.



To say that Democrats are above that or don't engage in these types of things is wrong. When Bush was president, the Democrats, including Obama, at one point voted unanimously against raising the debt ceiling. The Democrat defense of that is to assert that it was just symbolic. Sure, but it still was stupid, which Obama has since admitted, shortsighted, and is clear evidence that Democrats are not above playing politics with even something like the debt ceiling.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Republicans ever get back the White House, Democrats will use everything at their disposal, just like Republicans, to try and get what they want or at least something more tolerable. Obviously, if Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House, there probably will be no shutdowns and no debt ceiling crises. The same would likely be true if Democrats controlled everything. But if Democrats control the Senate or the House with a Republican in the White House, Democrats would certainly consider forcing a shutdown. When Reagan was president and the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House, there were numerous shutdowns. I'm sure that Democrats would also play chicken with the debt ceiling. They can't just cave and give the other side whatever they want.

To say that Democrats are above that or don't engage in these types of things is wrong. When Bush was president, the Democrats, including Obama, at one point voted unanimously against raising the debt ceiling. The Democrat defense of that is to assert that it was just symbolic. Sure, but it still was stupid, which Obama has since admitted, shortsighted, and is clear evidence that Democrats are not above playing politics with even something like the debt ceiling.

A shutdown is possible, because shutdowns happen. I very much doubt that a Democratic Congress would ever start playing true brinksmanship with the Debt Ceiling. They have never done anything like that in the past (and your historical example is not relevant because purely symbolic votes do not matter) and their constituency is a lot less likely to tolerate a potential economic apocalypse in the name of "playing politics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shutdown is possible, because shutdowns happen. I very much doubt that a Democratic Congress would ever start playing true brinksmanship with the Debt Ceiling. They have never done anything like that in the past (and your historical example is not relevant because purely symbolic votes do not matter) and their constituency is a lot less likely to tolerate a potential economic apocalypse in the name of "playing politics".

Exactly. There's a thousand miles between a symbolic vote to embarrass one's opponents and a substantive action to sabotage the economy. The Democrats just don't go for the latter.

Another difference here is that, when Democrats are in the minority, they are capable of working with a Republican president. Kennedy and GWB came up with No Child Left Behind, which while it displeased many was a major, bipartisan initiative. Can anyone think of a similar piece of legislation that's passed since Obama got into office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a complete misrepresentation of the 2006 debt ceiling vote compared to the debt ceiling votes since Obama has been in office. It was merely a symbolic vote in 2006, because the Democratic Senators did not ask for cloture, so the passage of the debt limit increase was guaranteed. Ted Cruz demanded a cloture vote this year and it just barely passed, and only because Reid held the vote open for nearly an hour until Cornyn, Flake, McCain and a few other Republican Senators changed their votes.

That's the difference between a symbolic vote and full-on insanity.

Uh, did you not see where I stated and agreed that the democrat vote on the debt ceiling was symbolic? How is that a complete misrepresentation?

The Democrats could have disagreed with the Republicans without voting against the debt ceiling. Why even bring the debt ceiling into it? What's the point of casting a symbolic vote to do something stupid? Just stand up, disagree loudly, and vote to increase the debt ceiling.

Also, the past debt ceiling crisis could have been avoided if the Democrats simply caved and gave the Republicans everything they wanted. Do I expect or even want the Democrats to do that? Of course not. If the control of the government is switched around, and Republicans are pushing a bill through with things that you think are deeply abhorrent in a bill tied to a debt ceiling increase, do you expect Democrats to just roll over? I expect that they'll fight and use whatever leverage they have. I also expect that the debt ceiling will ultimately get raised, like it always has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the past debt ceiling crisis could have been avoided if the Democrats simply caved and gave the Republicans everything they wanted. Do I expect or even want the Democrats to do that? Of course not. If the control of the government is switched around, and Republicans are pushing a bill through with things that you think are deeply abhorrent in a bill tied to a debt ceiling increase, do you expect Democrats to just roll over? I expect that they'll fight and use whatever leverage they have. I also expect that the debt ceiling will ultimately get raised, like it always has.

It depends on who is doing the hostage taking. Let's say the Republicans control the White House and the House, but Dems control the Senate. If the Democrats were to pass in the senate a Carbon Tax/Debt Ceiling bill, and the Republicans in the House pass a clean Debt Ceiling raise, then the Democrats would pass the House version. That wouldn't be rolling over, that would be accepting reality. If the Republican House were to pass an Obamacare Repeal/Debt Ceiling increase, then the Senate would pass a clean Debt Ceiling raise, and would stick to thier guns therein. But that is still passing the debt ceiling, not "playing politics" with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you characterized the 2006 vote as Democrats "playing chicken with the debt ceiling". If they were truly playing chicken with it, they would have asked for cloture, which they did not do. The Republicans did play chicken with the debt ceiling because they invoked cloture and the majority barely got the votes they needed. You're attempting to create a false equivalence by saying the Democrats and Republicans are playing the same game, when they're not even playing on the same field.

No, I never said that the 2006 vote was a case of playing chicken. How could it be when the vote was symbolic and passage of the increase was never in doubt? You are completely mischaracterizing my argument and attributing made up quotes to support your position.

What I said was that their symbolic vote was "clear evidence that Democrats are not above playing politics with even something like the debt ceiling." This doesn't mean that I'm asserting that the 2006 vote was a case of playing chicken. That doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I said was that their symbolic vote was "clear evidence that Democrats are not above playing politics with even something like the debt ceiling." This doesn't mean that I'm asserting that the 2006 vote was a case of playing chicken. That doesn't make any sense.

Neither does using that situation as evidence of Dems being willing to employ "playing chicken" strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on who is doing the hostage taking. Let's say the Republicans control the White House and the House, but Dems control the Senate. If the Democrats were to pass in the senate a Carbon Tax/Debt Ceiling bill, and the Republicans in the House pass a clean Debt Ceiling raise, then the Democrats would pass the House version. That wouldn't be rolling over, that would be accepting reality. If the Republican House were to pass an Obamacare Repeal/Debt Ceiling increase, then the Senate would pass a clean Debt Ceiling raise, and would stick to thier guns therein. But that is still passing the debt ceiling, not "playing politics" with it.

I agree that if that's how it plays out, then the Democrats aren't playing politics with the debt ceiling. I just don't think that they would give up such a big piece of leverage by not even trying to extract something useful in return for increasing the debt ceiling. From a negotiation standpoint, it would be a terrible strategy, even if you ultimately plan to give in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither does using that situation as evidence of Dems being willing to employ "playing chicken" strategy.

That clearly was just my opinion. There is no proof either way to whether Democrats will play chicken or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That someone hasn't done something yet isn't proof that they will never do that thing.

Absolute 100% certain proof? No. 'Proof' in the conversational sense? Yes, the fact that they never have absolutely constitutes proof that they won't in the future.

If I said that I think all the House Republicans will support Obama's legislative agenda starting tomorrow, and someone replied that they have never supported Obama's legislative agenda in the past, it would be pretty silly of me to respond that their past complete lack of support for Obama's agenda wasn't proof that they wouldn't start supporting it tomorrow, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you said:

The whole point of your initial post is that both sides are the same and you stated your belief that Democrats aren't above playing chicken with the debt ceiling which you supported in the very next paragraph by giving the example of the 2006 debt limit vote, which I pointed out as being a false equivalence.

Democrats "playing politics" with the debt ceiling is not the same as Republicans "playing chicken" with the debt ceiling.

Ok, this is more accurate, although I have never claimed that playing politics is the same as playing chicken. I just think that if they are willing to play politics with the debt ceiling, it seems reasonable to assume that they would be willing to use it as a negotiation tool. I'm not sure why people are so convinced that there is a magic line that Democrats would be unwilling to cross between the two. Using it as a negotiation tool isn't going to collapse the world economy. I don't think that Democrats would actually force default, but playing chicken, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...