This morning on This Week with Christiane Amanpour, this exchange occurred between Amanpour and Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul:AMANPOUR: One of the emergencies is going to be voting to lift the debt ceiling.
PAUL: Right.
AMANPOUR: Would you do that?
PAUL: I don't believe I will vote to raise the debt ceiling.
AMANPOUR: You won't?
PAUL: No. I think that we need to send a message -- we need to send a strong message that...
AMANPOUR: The government would default, then.
PAUL: Well, only if we won the vote, would they default.
Ain't it a gas to have principles when there's no chance your principles will carry the vote and trigger a default?
I think I'm beginning to understand the Tea Party.
34 comments:
So you're for RAISING the debt ceiling?
So you're for additional debt placed on our grandchildren?
And I guess that you think the American people should be held personally accountable for the tremendous debt that both parties did?
Then let it default.
It would be the first honest thing they've done in decades.
Hopefully the debt ceiling will not be raised. We have to much debt now. You have to sop sometime and there is no time like the present.
Don't know the consequences of default and don't care.
Pretty much sums up the Tea Party.
The debt ceiling will be raised - there really isn't another viable alternative.
Paul knows this, and yes, his stand is a symbolic one only. He wants to make a point.
Principled? Hard to say. Certainly no less principled than the Democrats who withheld their votes on health care legislation until there were enough 'aye' votes cast that they could safely vote 'nay'.
Are you a Tea party member Henery?
Or do you know what the millions of Tea Party activists are thinking?
"So you're for RAISING the debt ceiling?"
I'm beginning to understand this site's philosophy: Democrats good; Republicans bad. He's against anything the Republicans are for, and for anything the Democrats are for.
You guys following the great anonymous outporeing of hatred for ASU down below? (Under The Unpaved Road to the Futur4e).
That anonymous person (gender: woman--don't ask me why I think that) is a Great Big victim of the educated elite.
From people who claim that its always others (blacks, gays, women) who play the victim. The right wing likes playing the victim too it appears.
But it makes no sense. ASU is the biggest economic driver in the county. Someone who seriously thinks we'd all be better off without all those jobs and all the cash those students spend locally is WAAAY too far out there for serious conversation.
It would be helpful if some knowledgeable person could explain what the consequences - nationally and internationally - would be if the US government would go into default. Some information and rationality might (just might) stop all the empty talk on both sides.
Education is dangerous doncha know. It makes people question authority, and ask uncomfortable questions, and just generally is not a conservative value.
AMJP, here's a link that might shed some light on your question:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1559/what-it-would-mean-default-debt
I can't believe some people are actually suggesting the US should default on its debt.
My mother used to tell me that US money was the safest investment in the world. Thank God she died before Republicans ruined our economic system and our credit. Ask the Argentine people what it was like when their life savings became worthless, and check out Mexico to see the consequences of their 1994 devaluation of the peso. Business cannot operate without good credit and neither can governments. We would have no investment in infrastructure, no investment in science, no investment in education and we would rapidly devolve into another 2nd world failed empire or worse.
The one good thing about the balanced budget requirement would be that there could be no more wars. Let's all remember that it was 2 endless wars and drastic tax gifts to the people who profit from them that drove our budget so far into the red.
Oh, by all means, let's default! I'm sure that's what the people voted for a week ago. China (who we owe the most money to) would grab by right all our assets. There would be no social security checks sent out, and Medicare would be a thing of the past. Yes. Bring it on. I'm sure the people will love it!
So let me make sure I understand this. Rand Paul says he is going to throw a temper tantrum and “send a message” about fiscal sanity by voting against raising the debt ceiling. But we don't really have to worry about the US defaulting because there are enough adults in Congress to refuse to give him what he wants. What a wanker.
Actually, Rand Paul said some things in that interview that are interesting. He's for cutting defense spending as one way to reduce the debt. It would be good if he could get more people in Congress to agree with him.
To paraphrase Henery: "Don't know the consequences of raising the debt ceiling, and don't care. Pretty much sums up the Republican haters on this blog."
amjp,
Here is a slightly more humorous take on national debt default. Enjoy. :)
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
To paraphrase Henery: "Don't know the consequences of raising the debt ceiling, and don't care. Pretty much sums up the Republican haters on this blog."
Actually, as a "Hater" I DO know what will happen, and it would won't be pretty.
And all you lefties and Republican establishment types are to blame.
Well, that didn't take long. Rand Paul, after making “a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign,” has jumped that ship.
But after joining the GOP flock on Election Day, Paul is singing a different tune. In a Wall Street Journal profile this weekend, Paul signaled an about-face on his earmark position, committing to “fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork.”
http://bit.ly/cNrA8k
I wonder how long it will take the Tea Bag Party to disavow the people it put in Washington. I'm betting never, since they were never really about cutting the waste out Washington. They were always just about getting their right-wingers elected.
Let's hear it, Tea Baggers. Are you going to stand for this shit? Or are you gonna bus yourselves to a protest at Paul's office post haste?
Anne,
Bitter, angry, and filled with hatred and intolerance for that which is different from you. I wonder if that was your goal in life...
And this, all because you lost half of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, but you still have half, and you still have 100% of the Executive Branch, and nearly half of the Supreme Court.
If you think about it, you're in a much better position than say... the opposition in Venezuela. I mean, you have more than half the power in the country. I should think that you would be happy, instead of throwing a tantrum over someone else getting to have a say in the politics of our nation.
I hope you heal soon. It's not healthy to carry around so much negativity and intolerance.
If you think about it, you're in a much better position than say... the opposition in Venezuela. I mean, you have more than half the power in the country* Mike D
Boy! Are you screw up when it comes to knowledge of Venezuela and politics......Any Communist knows that the opposition in Venezuala is nothing but a CIA Front.........Power to the People and death to the Goldman Sachs Corporate Conspiracy against the American peoples.....
Wow, Mike D... it must be GREAT being you! Never getting angry, never doing or saying anything hateful, always seeing all sides of the argument equally. Hope you don't twist your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back all the time!
Bettywhite,
If you saw a person with a shaved head, wearing a white sheet, carving swastikas in his forearm while burning a cross in someone's front, and you asked him if, as a child, he planned to grow into a person whose heart was filled with hatred and intolerance, would that mean you were in some way congratulating yourself for how you turned out?
Another way of asking... If you intervened in the parking lot of a grocery store when a mother was beating her child, would your intervention, your decision to inform that woman that her physically abusive behavior was unacceptable, would you, in fact, be congratulating yourself for not having beaten your child?
I understand how you might view my criticism as motivated by self-flagellation, but I assure you, that is not at all what goes through my mind when I respond to mob-driven intolerance as displayed by Anne. Technically, Anne refers to those with whom she disagrees as engaging in sexual assault.
"Tea bagger" - "Someone who rests their testicles on another person's face, while they are asleep/passed out." - Urban Dictionary
You may not see that as hatred and intolerance, but I do.
MikeD, you can't win. If you try to treat these people with respect while defending yourself, then you are an egotist in their eyes. If you treat them like they treat you, you are a hate monger. Go figure.
Anonymous,
Once ideology begins trumping humanity and freedom, there can be no further intellectual honesty in our communication as a society. Ask Juan Williams.
Some people are so far removed from civility that they no longer even recognize respect when it is offered to them.
It makes me sad, but I am not going to stop reaching out to strangers, just because there are a few miserable jerks out there. There are a lot of truly wonderful, warm, caring, honest, brilliant Liberals out there. Please don't allow a handful of angry, intolerant creeps to prevent you from knowing and learning from the good ones.
"Boy! Are you screw up when it comes to knowledge of Venezuela and politics......Any Communist knows that the opposition in Venezuala is nothing but a CIA Front.........Power to the People and death to the Goldman Sachs Corporate Conspiracy against the American peoples....."
Max,
If you ever come to visit the High Country, please track me down and let me buy you a drink. I can think of no one more interesting to talk to than you. You can even bring your dog and stay in our guest room if you want to visit (as long as he's nice to other dogs and cats). :)
Mike D. It took me a while to figure out why you were singling me out for intolerance since all I have done is brought out the hypocrisy of the Tea Baggers and challenged them to do exactly what it is they said they would do. But then I realized what you object to is my use of the term "Tea Bag Party."
You provide one definition of a tea bagger that has to do with testicles and scrotums. But that's not the definition I assert when, accurately, describing the Tea Bag Movement.
Here are the definitions I find much more descriptive of the current movement from the Urban Dictionary:
(1) A whining fool shouting loudly for liberty but not willing to pay the bill.
(2) A teabagger also often fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush and his neo-conservative minions perpetrated one of the boldest and most egregious executive power grabs in the history of the United States.
(3) teabaggers generally echo stupid myths about entitlement spending (it actually only accounts for about 1% of federal budget spending), have no idea that most poor people in America are not lazy, actually do work and don't want to be on welfare, and have no idea what socialism actually means or that socialist reform in this country is actually what allowed a middle class to flourish and ultimately make the U.S. one of the most prosperous nations in human history.
(4) Teabaggers are right to believe the future of the U.S.A. is in jeopardy, but sadly they have not yet correctly identified the real enemy. Perhaps when teabaggers finally grow up and mature into thinking adults, they will see the right-leaning power establishment for the oppressive and cunning beast that it is.
So instead of whining about some definition you don't like of the movement you're so sold on, why don't you defend the movement itself? In other words, get your head out of your ass?
Anne
Two thumbs up on the last post. I like your definition of the Teabagger movement.
The other thing is many of the teabaggers are protesting government spending from a Medicare scooter.
Mike D., I generally like you. I find your posts interesting and your spelling correct (things that can't be said for others)! Sometimes, I agree with you. Many times, I do not. Even though you may not mean to, though, you do come across as condescending at times, accusing everyone else of intolerance and incivility while asserting that you would NEVER do things like that. Don't you have a set of core beliefs that you would defend at all costs? If someone came on here spouting racist or homophobic garbage would you call them out on it or would you say that we all need to see their side of the issue? Doesn't ANYTHING make you angry?
Moose,
The truth is, many of us who are quite mean to each other in this forum will probably become good friends if we ever meet in person.
So you ask, "Doesn't ANYTHING make you angry?", and the answer is yes. A few posts above this, I wrote "carving swastikas in his forearm while burning a cross in someone's front", and I totally left off the word "yard" from the end of the sentence. I have been beating myself up ever since. God, it pisses me off when I do that. :)
But seriously, there is one thing that really does make me angry. When I am stopped in a line of traffic, maybe at the scene of an accident on Interstate 40, patiently waiting to go, and someone many cars back decides he or she is so much more important than everyone else that he or she chooses to pull out onto the shoulder and drive straight to the front of the line, that really makes me mad.
But this does not happen very often, as I sold my car a decade ago.
Mostly, I feel that getting angry prevents me from thinking clearly, prevents me from extricating myself from the fray to smile from a distance.
By the way, thanks for caring about good spelling. Yours has stood out to me as well. Spelling is so important to me that I keep spell-check turned off to avoid relying on it as a crutch.
Oh, also... "noone" really makes me angry.
Mike D.-
Not me! I get pissed off rather frequently! I say, "Let it out before YOU pap a cork!"
Damnmit, I misspelled "pop!"
:-)
To Anne:
Your point on Rand, sans the venom, is well-taken. The Tea Baggers are, in large part, folks who believe in platitudes bumpersticker politics and who are fooled by the Republican front. The Repubs then use them to push their own agendas. And both groups are wonderful liars.
Case in point: convincing protesters to shout, "I want my country back!" NO ONE took it away more than the George Bush administration, who doubled the debt, took away civil liberties such as haabeas corpus, and used the Patriot Act to feather their own ideological nests. I use the plural here because George wasn't smart enough to see he was used by the larger group of decision makers.
And that's why Cheney was assigned to babysit Georgie.
This group is stilled pissed. They will do everything possible to block President Obama. Why? Because they lost the presidency to a black man1
What's your reaction to the Tea Party types who don't restrain their anger, then? What did you think when they got into shouting matches with elected US Representatives during those town hall meetings last summer?
Oh, and by the way, those nice Republicans that you and others voted for have the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment all ready to go - even Soucek. He mentions it specifically on his web site. What does THAT have to do with government spending?
As was said on this blog when Obama was elected, "you lost - get over it!" The public has started the process of correcting the mistake of electing Obama.
Post a Comment