Ok A serious question.

[fxstc]

The past.
Reid 2006
REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

Obama in 2006

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” …….. Senator Barack Obama

Both times by both men were pinning blame on the Rs

The present

Raise the debt ceiling or else.......
And men are blaming the Rs again

This is a pure and simple flip flop.
They knew then what they know know about debt ceiling increases.
The question is,
Why are these two not validated as true life size hypocrits?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Raise the debt ceiling or else.......

Or else what?

I took the liberty of deleting the portion of your post that proved to be irrelevant to the debt ceiling debate. The "or else" part is really the only relevant issue. There is a time and place for budget negotiations and that has nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to hold the US government hostage via a bogus parliamentary procedure backed up by a Congressional gimmick that is probably not Constitutionally valid to begin with. This whole charade is even more ridiculous than Obama's Trillion Dollar Coin trick.

Let's be clear. There is a faction within the Republican Party that is threatening to pull the same trick that they pulled back in 2011 and shut down the federal government by refusing to pass the annual debt ceiling adjustment. That's what the issue is. This has never been done before except by the Tea Party dominated House of Representatives in 2011. There is no historical precedent for this behavior -- no matter how many old speeches you should quote out of context.

It's not as if these Young Turk House Republicans want to negotiate for something in particular -- they simply want to draw attention to themselves. This is not about debts, deficits nor budget negotiations. This is nothing more than a raw political power grab being attempted by an extremist wing of the minority party that (by the way) experienced a resounding loss in the most recent election. You simply cannot dress this up as anything else. You only make yourself appear foolish by attempting to do so.

 

[degsme]

No its not close to a flipflop. In 2005/2006 - the economy was expanding (yes the economic crash was already locked in - but few understood that, myself included) and running deficits when the economy is growing and unemployment is under 5% is simply a bad idea. Even Keynes would tell you that.

OTOH running deficits as part of a recovery IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE for 120+ years. And in the process

• Reduced the frequency of crashes BY A FACTOR OF THREE
• Reduced the average duration of a recover BY A FACTOR OF EIGHT

How is recognizing that difference a "flip flop"?

 

[GordonGecko]

WHEN the Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling....

I'm sure fxstc will be as "outraged" with them. Oh....I'm sure.

 

[fxstc]

WHEN the Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling....

I'm sure fxstc will be as "outraged" with them. Oh....I'm sure.

I wont care.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Or else what?

I took the liberty of deleting the portion of your post that proved to be irrelevant to the debt ceiling debate. The "or else" part is really the only relevant issue. There is a time and place for budget negotiations and that has nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to hold the US government hostage via a bogus parliamentary procedure backed up by a Congressional gimmick that is probably not Constitutionally valid to begin with. This whole charade is even more ridiculous than Obama's Trillion Dollar Coin trick.

Let's be clear. There is a faction within the Republican Party that is threatening to pull the same trick that they pulled back in 2011 and shut down the federal government by refusing to pass the annual debt ceiling adjustment. That's what the issue is. This has never been done before except by the Tea Party dominated House of Representatives in 2011. There is no historical precedent for this behavior -- no matter how many old speeches you should quote out of context.

It's not as if these Young Turk House Republicans want to negotiate for something in particular -- they simply want to draw attention to themselves. This is not about debts, deficits nor budget negotiations. This is nothing more than a raw political power grab being attempted by an extremist wing of the minority party that (by the way) experienced a resounding loss in the most recent election. You simply cannot dress this up as anything else. You only make yourself appear foolish by attempting to do so.

An A+ rebuttal, Nightswimmer. A tip of the hat to you!

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Or else what?


It's not as if these Young Turk House Republicans want to negotiate for something in particular -- they simply want to draw attention to themselves. This is not about debts, deficits nor budget negotiations. This is nothing more than a raw political power grab being attempted by an extremist wing of the minority party that (by the way) experienced a resounding loss in the most recent election. You simply cannot dress this up as anything else. You only make yourself appear foolish by attempting to do so.

Actually, it appears that the 'young turks' as you call them want to tighten controls on government spending. The same goal that Obama and Reid supposedly had years ago. It is about debt, deficits and budget negotiations.

However, as with Obama and Reid...it is also about politics.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

No its not close to a flipflop. In 2005/2006 - the economy was expanding (yes the economic crash was already locked in - but few understood that, myself included) and running deficits when the economy is growing and unemployment is under 5% is simply a bad idea. Even Keynes would tell you that.

OTOH running deficits as part of a recovery IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE for 120+ years. And in the process

• Reduced the frequency of crashes BY A FACTOR OF THREE
• Reduced the average duration of a recover BY A FACTOR OF EIGHT

How is recognizing that difference a "flip flop"?

Quick question, at what point does spending become a factor? 15% of GDP? 20? 25? Or is it irrelevant?

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Actually, it appears that the 'young turks' as you call them want to tighten controls on government spending. The same goal that Obama and Reid supposedly had years ago. It is about debt, deficits and budget negotiations.

However, as with Obama and Reid...it is also about politics.

Where are their serious spending cut proposals, then? It would appear that they want President Obama to propose the spending cuts that THEY want. He is waiting for THEIR proposals.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

They're terrified of proposing exact cuts that the Socialcrats can hang around their necks. They're suffering from a definitive case of 'lack of sack'.

To my mind, in principle they're right...the government DOES spend too much money. But being right isn't enough...they have to also have the cajones to point out what and where to make the 'tough cuts' that need to be made.

They are spineless. Right idea, wrong amount of courage.

 

[degsme]

They're terrified of proposing exact cuts that the Socialcrats can hang around their necks. They're suffering from a definitive case of 'lack of sack'.

Um that's because they know that the cuts they want would harm the economy. Which is part of why they want the cuts. But they've been painted into a political corner

To my mind, in principle they're right...the government DOES spend too much money.

Based on what econometric principal? and what econometric principal says that "tough cuts NEED to be made" in a fragile recovery?

 

[degsme]

Quick question, at what point does spending become a factor? 15% of GDP? 20? 25? Or is it irrelevant?

Depends completely on the state of the economy. But spending as a percent of the economy is not particularly a meaningful econometric measure. I challenge you to show how it is.

 

[RickWA]

We've learned here on PJ that there are three possibilities:

#1: When Democrats are in power, however they vote is - by definition - the right course...even as it fluctuates over time in address of the same issue.

#2: If Democrats vote the wrong way, it is - by definition - a symbolic gesture, in no way leading to substantive policy posture.

#3: When Democrats vote against raising debt ceilings, it is - by definition - not a time of economic malaise, hardship, or recession - therefore such votes are entirely correct and they (Dems) are able to properly up the ante by referencing those who vote otherwise as unpatriotic.

 

[degsme]

We've learned here on PJ that there are three possibilities:

#1: When Democrats are in power, however they vote is - by definition - the right course...even as it fluctuates over time in address of the same issue.

Nope. Clinton's signing the Welfare Reform act and his wife's voting FOR the AUMF are two very clear examples of Dems voting for or implementing bad policy

#2: If Democrats vote the wrong way, it is - by definition - a symbolic gesture, in no way leading to substantive policy posture.

Nope - see above on both Clintons

#3: When Democrats vote against raising debt ceilings, it is - by definition - not a time of economic malaise, hardship, or recession - therefore such votes are entirely correct and they (Dems) are able to properly up the ante by referencing those who vote otherwise as unpatriotic.

No not "by definition" but rather by looking at the econometric data. BTW the Dems didn't vote against the raising of debt ceilings as a whole. One reason Obama had the luxoury of voting against it was because it was going to pass anyway. You are ignoring the political reality of how whipping works

Basically you are throwing up a strawman/Smoke screen because you don't have an econometric case to make about how the deficit spending of the 2002-2007 period was justifiable, and how not deficit spending from 2009 onwards is a "good idea".