Democrats threaten to sabotage recovery rather than give up tax hike demands

[greenforest32]

The line items and numerical values of the 'fiscal cliff': http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-in-one-post/

[WhyteRain]

You honestly don't remember the events of almost a year ago?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-29/news/29844216_1_debt-limit-economy-hostage-political-party

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/mitch_mcconnell_hostage_taker031287.php

No, of course you don't.  Nobody does.  Such is the nature of US politics.  Nor will people remember this in a few weeks.

I'm guess this is directed at me, but I'm not sure.

Look, I know the MSM narrative; everyone does:  "Obama and the Democrats were being perfectly reasonable in the debt ceiling negotiations, and recoiled at the prospect of an impasse that would cause a default.  But Republicans -- especially the Tea Partyers who have seized control of the GOP -- were not.  In fact, many of them wanted to make the U.S. default purely out of ideology or spite for a president they hated."

Right?

What if the narrative is not just a lie, but a damned lie?

Look, let's start with the very basics:  FOUR UNDENIABLE FACTS ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING STANDOFF:

1.  The Republicans had a long term debt plan (called "Cut, Cap, and Balance").
2.  The Republicans were willing to negotiate a short term debt plan.
3.  Obama and the Democrats had no long term debt plan, and;
4.  Obama and the Democrats were not willing to negotiate a short term one.

It seems to me, then, that we need to assign some level of insanity to those who would blame Republicans for the stand-off from the beginning.

But we're not done.  Those four facts describe the initial bargaining position of the parties:  The Democrats had no plan at all and refused to negotiate a short term one.  (They were willing to "toss out ideas" like "well, maybe we can cut entitlements" in exchange for ironclad promises of tax increases from a party that had just won a smashing election on a pledge not to raise taxes -- and who had seen the Democrats scam both Pres. Reagan and Bush 41 with this tactic.)  The Republicans had "Cut, Cap, and Balance" but they were not demanding that Obama accede to it; they were willing to negotiate a short-term plan.

Now we need to see which of the parties was actually ready to see the government default, right?  Isn't that where we are at?

[Smash255]

So the democrats are just adopting republican tactics.

I don't think you can find a time where the Repubs threatened to knowingly plunge the nation back into recession if they couldn't get their way.

That is... hysterical.

Wouldn't it be more satisfying to prove me wrong?  No?

Go back about a year and a half ago...

What did the Republicans threaten to do if the tax cuts weren't extended for the top 2%??

Oh yeah they threatened to let the tax cuts expire for everyone unless it was extended for those making over $250,000. 

Got some quotes for these "threats"?

Filibusters on plans to extend the tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 and then another filibuster or the extension of the tax cuts for those that make less than $1million

Thanks but I was looking for, you know, "quotes" from, you know, the people actually making the threats.  I know what the MSM narrative is.

Isn't an ACTUAL fillibuster even more proof than quotes??  Actions speak louder than words don't they??

[Smash255]

You honestly don't remember the events of almost a year ago?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-29/news/29844216_1_debt-limit-economy-hostage-political-party

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/mitch_mcconnell_hostage_taker031287.php

No, of course you don't.  Nobody does.  Such is the nature of US politics.  Nor will people remember this in a few weeks.

I'm guess this is directed at me, but I'm not sure.

Look, I know the MSM narrative; everyone does:  "Obama and the Democrats were being perfectly reasonable in the debt ceiling negotiations, and recoiled at the prospect of an impasse that would cause a default.  But Republicans -- especially the Tea Partyers who have seized control of the GOP -- were not.  In fact, many of them wanted to make the U.S. default purely out of ideology or spite for a president they hated."

Right?

What if the narrative is not just a lie, but a damned lie?

Look, let's start with the very basics:  FOUR UNDENIABLE FACTS ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING STANDOFF:

1.  The Republicans had a long term debt plan (called "Cut, Cap, and Balance").
2.  The Republicans were willing to negotiate a short term debt plan.
3.  Obama and the Democrats had no long term debt plan, and;
4.  Obama and the Democrats were not willing to negotiate a short term one.

It seems to me, then, that we need to assign some level of insanity to those who would blame Republicans for the stand-off from the beginning.

But we're not done.  Those four facts describe the initial bargaining position of the parties:  The Democrats had no plan at all and refused to negotiate a short term one.  (They were willing to "toss out ideas" like "well, maybe we can cut entitlements" in exchange for ironclad promises of tax increases from a party that had just won a smashing election on a pledge not to raise taxes -- and who had seen the Democrats scam both Pres. Reagan and Bush 41 with this tactic.)  The Republicans had "Cut, Cap, and Balance" but they were not demanding that Obama accede to it; they were willing to negotiate a short-term plan.

Now we need to see which of the parties was actually ready to see the government default, right?  Isn't that where we are at?
[/quote

The insanity part was the Republicans trying to use the debt ceiling for their agenda.  That was for paying for PAST debt.  The debt ceiling has been raised time after time by both parties pretty simply, you don't use the debt ceiling as a way to make demands for future spending/cuts.