Should Republicans who deliberately held the debt limit "hostage" be tried for treason?

…..because we have never been fucked over by democrats…?

All politicians are trying to fuck you over in some form or another. Get over it, welcome to America.

@cheebdragon, wrong. This has never happened before. Risk of default was never used as a “hostage” before during a recession with astronomically high debt.

Standards and Poor said just this:

“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.”

And I find your comment lazy and self-serving. It’s the easiest thing in the world to cast yourself as “above the fray” and wave your finger at both houses.

By all means..let’s just point our finger at one party and hope for the best…

Excuse me for seeing past the smoke and mirrors…I wish I could live in fantasy land with you fine folks, but I didn’t get the invite.

I think they should loose their citizenship.

You are kidding yourself if you think anyone in politics is looking out for you & I. The government is going to fuck you over, if it’s not out of your job, it’s out of your money, education, rights, or your future. If they aren’t fucking you, well then either you’re dead and they’ve moved on to your children, or you must be a fellow politician.

Is it totally naive of me to think that money has always run this country? That the citizens without power have never had a voice?

Article III, section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Whatever I might think of what the Republicans did, I don’t see how it was treasonous under this understanding of the law.

Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, does state that:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Perhaps there is a crime in what was done, then, but I’m not sure what it would be and how it would be prosecuted. Seems to me like a legal and political dead end.

No, they shouldn’t be tried for treason. I don’t like what they did, certainly, and I’m certainly not defending them, but I hate it when people throw around the words treason and traitor where they don’t belong. The Constitution, as @SavoirFaire points out, defines treason very specifically, very narrowly and for very good and very specific reasons. Treason is defined very specifically and narrowly, for the most part, so that people who simply disagree with how things should be done in this country are not subject to charges of treason.

They held a gun to the head of our economy. And while they didn’t “shoot” it, the economy—and millions of people’s livelihoods—are now quite possibly completely fucked because of their action.

Maybe treason doesn’t make sense, since there is no “enemy” they are aiding and abetting unless we define the downfall of the United States in general as an enemy. But they should be punished for what they did.

And I don’t think this is a matter of “simply disagreeing.” Normal legislation involves disagreement. They deliberately started this fire. What they did goes far, far beyond “disagreement.”

If you honestly think that is what happen, you’re going through life with blinders on

The role of the opposition is to oppose. Whatever party. If they didn’t you would not vote for them.
The more gridlock (actually political stalemate) the less those assholes can screw up our lives.
S&P downgraded the US bond rating because too many Americans spend money they do not earn. I would charge such people a higher interest rate myself. It’s justice, not treason.

If “maybe treason doesn’t make sense” then don’t use the word. You are intelligent and articulate enough to do better @Qingu. Words having meaning and those meanings matter.

@josie, S&P did not downgrade the US bond rating because of American spending habits. It downgraded explicitly because of gridlock in Washington makes it less likely that the debt will be meaningfully dealt with.

Read it:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/s-p-s-rationale-for-downgrading-the-u-s/

Not treason, but let’s not elect them any more.

@lillycoyote let’s just say that if someone arrested Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor for treason I wouldn’t mince words on semantics.

And of course it’s not going to happen. Of course Obama is going to be a complete pussy like always, of course the Democrats are going to cave, of course the Republicans are going to just start screaming the word “DEBT!” over and over again and pretend that this is all because of Obama’s spending and not because of what S&P actually said, and their idiot followers will believe it. Allow me some wishful thinking, please.

There were rigid digits on both sides both equally culpable. How culpable depends on what your ideology is. This country has been held hostage by the extreme ends for decades, because all they want is an end to a means, means being in total power. They aren’t doing this for anyone but themselves while paying lip service to the rest of us. If “the rest of us” pull our heads out of our collective asses for once and boot out all the incumbents we can, the message will be heard, but no, there are too many on both sides who want to hold on to their golden boys.

@Qingu This is not a matter of semantics. What constitutes treason in the United States is defined by the Constitution, a document that I personally have a lot of respect for and, the Constitution is, whether you like it or not, the law of the land. What constitutes treason is defined by the Constitution, not by you or I. It matters.

I wish someone would be held accountable, but according to history, worse things have happened.

@woodcutter, no, both sides were not culpable. Only one side deliberately held the negotiations “hostage” to achieve what they wanted. And only one side had a completely unrealistic “no taxes” plan to reduce the deficit.

And I’ll say it again: waving your finger at “both sides” and congratulating yourself at being above the fray is the easiest and laziest thing possible. We have a responsibility as citizens to judge our public officials. Guess what? Sometimes one side really is worse than the other.

@Qingu We will have to agree to disagree then. Both sides are the same. The very fact we are using the word “sides” only helps to further define divisiveness. If your a liberal then the conservatives are the boogieman. The same is true the other way around. That’s how they play their games with us, so we will always be kept in a perpetual state of anger so we vote with emotions. Examine any culture of fight dogma, it is the worst strategy ever.

@woodcutter, both sides are they same?

Let’s see. One side has spent virtually all its political energy trying to end Medicare, privatize social security, and make massive cuts to our social safety net at the expense of even the possibility of raising taxes on the rich.

The other side wants to raise taxes on the rich and spend money to help unemployed people find jobs.

But don’t let facts stop you from masturbating about how above the fray you are. That’s obviously a lot more fun than examining how politics actually works and what politicians actually stand for and try to do.

The republicans knew the ceiling would be raised from the very start of this. They weren’t being brave or particularly clever. It’s real easy to saber rattle when you know beforehand there will be no damage. It’s all in the gamesmanship. The tea party talked big time shit because they knew they wouldn’t do anything to make the economy worse. The noobs just want a place at the adult table.

@Qingu you have to realize that these people have constructed their own reality where the Left Wing Media and immigrants and liberal elites is out to get them. Oh and scientists too with the global warming thing. They call into their radio shows and talk to each other about how Christianity is under attack.

They live in a constant state of fear and threat. You cannot rationalize with emotional people. Whatever damage they do they can repeat whatever crazy thing they say to rationalize.

They are throwing a temper tantrum. Please don’t think you can approach them as citizens in a democracy, or expect them to hold feelings of remorse.

@imadethisupwithnoforethought…—-It sounded to me like @Qingu was upset here. please read the postings—

I start writing this way before @Qingshu started saying that it was wimpy to “not assign blame”...well, I must be a “wimp”....cause here goes….....I refuse to assign blame here. That’s my own spiritual belief on this whole matter.

Sorry, @Qingu…I disagree a bit with you. One has to look at the truth of how politics really is in Washington._ It isn’t that simple_. No one held anything “hostage”. And you can try to crucify one politician or a handful. You are entitled to think what you want. And I will support you in what you believe. It’s your right. I agree that not levying taxes on the super-rich is wrong. Privatization of social security? Wrong. Ending Medicare? Wrong (but I have been privy to the massive amounts of fraud that is being perpetrated in this program in my lifetime. It’s a free-for-all circus that needs a giant overhaul. People are definitely abusing the system and Big Pharma has its massive chokehold on this.) It’s not a blanket anything one way or the other. You can try to interpret it that way, but it really isn’t that cut and dried. Nothing ever is. And certainly not in politics. But I can absolutely understand how upset you are…and I can certainly hear it.

I think it’s interesting how everyone is pointing at the Tea Party. Or the Republicans as being the “Big Bad Wolf”. And everyone else was just so innocent. I am in equal disdain of the politics in the US…both major parties and the co-opted Tea Party. And people point at Bush and others point at Obama. And everyone is so busy, busy assigning blame that it has become a game to see who can out blame the other.

Both parties (the three actually)...are the same party. There is no difference. They stage their squabbles to make you think that you have a choice. You don’t. And then it serves to divide the country and have intelligent American people angry at each other…while they quietly sign away rights, or use fear-mongering to vote through bills that haven’t even been thought through. We don’t even know the full extent of what is being voted on. That’s what they do in Europe…the citizens have no referendums or rights to decide anything. So, welcome to the club!

All of a sudden we want to arrest politicians for treason? All of a sudden we quote the Constitution? But when the Constitution is hauled out by the the Conservatives or the Teapars…no one gives a damn about following the Constitution, then, right? Handy, dandy.

Sorry, if you are quoting treason…..it was bi-partisan treason. If you don’t think there was a lot of cigar smoking deals being cut behind closed doors…with back-slapping between all parties…then, please inform yourself. It’s not as cut and dried as “Dems” vs “Repubs”.

Turn off the TV that is run by corporations. Do your own research. Find out the truth. It isn’t on CNN or Fox or MSNBC or even the newspapers. Not anymore.

Trying to make an “enemy” and a “they” vs “us” is playing right into the agenda that they want…it is a diversion that keeps us from looking at the issues point blank. I have never seen people more angry at each other and spinning their wheels in blame rather than addressing the issues. America is skint (as they say here) and so when you are skint, you don’t go charge more stuff at the store! Meanwhile, jobs are being lost, homes are being lost, the economy is tanking, America has lost its credibility worldwide (and believe me it has lost more credibility by voting this piece of legislation which is a gigantic band-aid on a festering wound . From Europe, I can report that they Americans are nuts for voting this through.) I have no money. I will just go charge what I want. (What?!) That’s what Europeans don’t get. When Europe went through the war, they had to tighten their belts and scrimp and manage. European people (not the bureaucrats who are on a planet onto themselves) have been through horrible wars, they have an appreciation for thrift and “making do”. This bill is viewed as America unable to keep food on the table, but going out and charging another Cadillac. I am just reporting from over here, okay? Don’t get your knickers in a twist.

What we really need to look at….is that nothing is working at all. And it isn’t Obama’s fault or Bush’s fault. We are in an extremely deep mess and no bill is going to rescue anything…no matter which party put it through or what it contained. That’s the sad part. And we have all been sold downstream. NO ONE WON WITH THIS.

And that’s why America is losing its standing worldwide, not because of some Republicans, or Sarah Palin or Ariana Huffington or Bo the Dog or Paul Begala or the Democrats.

(From Europe….The US is looking like a girl who had too much to drink at the Prom..and no one wants to drive her home. And for a country that was so respected, it’s a damned crying shame.)

Idiot followers? No one party is the lead on that one. It’s about even.

^ golfclap

@DarlingRhadamanthus, I suppose you feel the same way about both sides of the debate between evolution and creationism, or both sides of the debate between whether we should have gone to war in Iraq.

Maybe both sides of the conflict in Iran are just the same too, the Ayatollah and the young liberals revolting. Maybe both sides are the same in Libya, and anywhere there’s conflict, because most conflicts are totally the fault of both sides equally, right?

I’m sick of this attitude. It’s self-serving bullshit. Staying out of partisan politics does not make you better. It doesn’t mean you’ve “woken up.” You are not in possession of some mystical truth that is being hidden from me by corporate TV. (FYI: I dont’ own a TV.) You are simply lazy and self-serving and apathetic. And you know what? Your laziness and unwillingness to participate in deeply important political struggles is what lets cretins like the Tea Party take power.

@Qingu You are absolutely brilliant, Man!!! I have been trying to figure out how to ask the kind of question that @josie asks in behalf of the Tea Farty, but haven’t really been able to do it. Now you come along and ask this absolutely brilliant question! Finally, incendiary verbiage on the right side (which is to say on the left side).

Of course, everyone is saying exactly what is expected. What amazes me is how many people feel disenfranchised and accuse both parties as being the same. Honestly, I have no idea what universe they live in, but it’s scary. The radical center. Or perhaps the extremist center. Isn’t that ironic?

I wonder how many people here have actually worked on a political campaign or run for office. I wonder how many people here have lobbied a congressman or briefed congressional staff people.

It’s easy to lob little bombs like the politicians are in the pockets of the corporations, but I don’t think anyone has a clue as to what they are saying. Do you all believe that corporations all want the same thing? They are not even close to having a monolithic front. Sometimes some corporations win due to their relations with politicians, but when they win, other corporations lose. The Microsofts and Googles of the world didn’t think Washington mattered to them. Now they understand and they have jumped into the political waters with both feet and a serious presence in Washington.

There is some truth in the idea that Americans like gridlock. No one can do too much damage. Except they have. The Tea Farty has just gotten our debt downgraded. From what I hear, this probably won’t raise interest rates in any noticeable way. But I’m still happy to accuse them of treason. Unfortunately, I’m not sure idiocy is enough to get them convicted. Sure they have aided and abetted the enemy—whoever our economic enemy is—perhaps God? Yes, most likely God. They tend to be adherents of God, I think. God help them.

Anyway. Onward ho! Brilliant question!!!

You know, the Tea Party are basically anarchist in their philosophy. The endgame of the “starve the beast” mantra is the destruction of the United States government in any meaningful sense. So fuck em. They’re treasonous; they are the enemy, and McConnell and Cantor aided them at the expense of the United States. I’m not taking it back.

I haven’t read the other responses yet, so I apologize. But no. As much as I disagree with the Tea Party’s actions, the day we start charging our political opponents with treason is the day we cease to be a proper republic. Debate is good…this particular debate was pretty harmful, but debate is usually good.

@DarlingRhadamanthus it is clear to me that @Qingu is upset. It is clear from the OP.

I happen to share a world view with him. And I happen to have been the only person on this thread who tried to validate his feelings and calm him down.

@DarlingRhadamanthus Not only was it hostage taking, those doing it described it as such. Here’s a statement from Mitch McConnell:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this—it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. In fact, I am both anti-Republican and anti-Democratic. I also disagree with @Qingu‘s occasional assertions that my refusal to join one of these parties makes me lazy or selfish. I am not trying to stay above the fray. I am quite in the middle of the fray, which is the necessary position for one hacking and slashing at certain elements—but not all elements—on both sides.

That said, it will not do to say that both sides are always equally bad or equally at fault just because each side is bad and has faults. It also won’t do to pretend both parties are the same just because they have similarities. When Ralph Nader made claims to the effect that both parties were the same, I always wanted him to say “at least with regard to the issues I’m most concerned with.” That would have been true, but what he actually said was false.

Nader seems to have understood this eventually, but he and others seem to have left an impression that their unqualified rhetoric was literally true. It wasn’t. If we gave the country over entirely to the Democrats or entirely to the Republicans, we’d get two countries with some striking similarities and some stark differences (assuming they followed through on their promises once given total control). And if we gave the country over entirely to the most vocal elements of the Tea Party faction of the Republican party, we’d get another variation still. They might all be similar, but they wouldn’t be the same.

[Mod Says] Please remember that this question is in general. Off-topic responses will be removed.

To answer the question, no. When did standing on principle become treasonous?

Congress said if you want our support, no raising taxes, bring a BBA, and make spending cuts.

This is divided government, folks. Quit whining and work to elect people that support your ideas instead of bringing up absurd bullshit.

No. Treason is what you call selling out your country, not when you’re fighting for the steering wheel.

TL;DR

I think treason is a bit off the mark. However, I think that filing a class action civil suit and making them pay for the damages might be appropriate.

@jerv What?

@cletrans2col tl;dr is internet speak for “too long, didn’t read.”

No, Oboma and his cohorts should be the ones up in front of the judge, for destroying Americas economy.

@Roby :: How exactly did Obama destroy the economy? I’m looking for specific things he did.

If anything the only thing he has done is cave to Republicans.

@cletrans2col, standing on principles is one thing. Taking hostages is another.

And we’ve had divided government before. S&P never downgraded us because of it until now. Because a major caucus of one party never willingly embraced defaulting on our debt until now.

It kinda looks like this:

Me: Can I borrow 100 bucks.
My dealer: Sure, just pay me back by Friday.
Me: Thanks I will get your money to you on Friday.
Me on Thursday: Sorry bro, I don’t think I want to pay you back. I have the money but I don’t really care about my obligations. .
Me on Friday: I decided to pay you back so now we are cool. Can I borrow 120 bucks?
My dealer: Are you fucking serious?

Obama should have threatened to nuke Wasilla, Alaska, Salt Lake City, and cluster-bomb every NASCAR race track and monster-truck arena if congress refused to raise the debt limit. It would have been equally destructive, and equally absurd.

Yes, absolutely. This could start an overdue healing process. There was a serious violation of the oath here and I think good lawyers will make a case and there should be a trial. Definitely. The whole world is disgusted about the Tea Party’s selfish disrespect for the well-being of the whole world community. They don’t seem to care whatsoever about people outside of the United States. Being a superpower is a combination of privilege and responsibility.

The ongoing damage by the Tea Party has to be exposed. People have to wake up.

The trial would be a great WAKE UP CALL.

@Roby You forget how our government works.

The President can make recommendations, and they can veto anything that Congress does, but it is up to Congress to write a policy and send it to the President’s desk to be approved. And if said law/budget/policy gets vetoed, Congress can override that veto.

You might want to look into the system of checks and balances a little more. Sure, it’s easier to blame just one person than it is to blame 535, so it’s often the President that gets the blame even though it’s actually Congress fucking things up.

Also, in order to blame Obama, you have to overlook the state of our economy on 1/19/09, the day before Obama was even inaugurated. That includes ignoring all of the policies already in place that have not been rescinded, the “Profit at all costs!” culture that supply-side economics entails, and many other things.

Sure, Obama was holding the ticking time bomb when it went off, but that doesn’t mean he ruined our economy single-handedly. Making that claim only serves to undermine the credibility of Conservatives, and with all of the ludicrous things that people like Bachmann, Palin, and the Tea Party are saying/doing, they really don’t need to be attacked by you too.

I don’t like the Tea Party but it is part of the democratic process and so I feel I have to accept its reality though I don’t understand the people who support it.

Somebody must be tried for treason and I vote for Standard and Poors who not only gave an AAA rating to subprime loans that turned out to be garbage so starting an economic crisis but have now removed the AAA rating for the United States of America precipitating another economic crisis. Who are these people anyway?

@flutherother, I agree that S&P can go right and fuck themselves.

But they also explicitly warned us that they would do this. We could have easily dodged this bullet. And if Europe’s shitstorm isn’t going to cause a double-dip recession already, this downgrade certainly will.

Standard and Poors = Average and Poor

@flutherother, Ezra Klein makes a good point, though. In this case S&P might be entirely justified:

But that doesn’t make Standard Poor’s wrong in this particular case. “The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges,” they explained in the statement accompanying Friday’s decision. After Republicans in Congress spent three months weighing whether or not to default on our debt and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that paying our bills would never again be a foregone conclusion, can anyone really argue with that? After every Republican presidential candidate save Jon Huntsman either remained silent on, or flatly opposed, the deal to raise the debt ceiling, can anyone really say that U.S. debt is completely riskless? That there’s no chance of a political miscalculation, and if there is such a chance, that they can perfectly predict the outcome of the ensuing chaos?

Their just punishment would be to loose their seat and their power. That’s how it works. But everyone needs to vote and that never happens so…

Let’s see:

This is one of the same rating agencies called aggregated junk mortgages a solid investment.

Their rating calculations in this case are in error on the order of $2 trillion. This error was so obvious that it was discovered 1 hour after their report was released. Beyond that they’ve basically said that they’re justifying this downgrade based on arbitrary opinion.

The Democrats are pussies, and so much so that, for example, they “couldn’t” pass universal healthcare despite clear majorities.

Despite the will of a significant vocal majority of the American people, the pre-Tea Party influenced congress passed the first bank bailout and has since green-lighted giving money hand over fist to domestic and foreign banks (to the tune of $16 trillion).

But, yeah, let’s string up the Tea Party for not playing ball, because their culpability in this is beyond a reasonable doubt.

”... that called…”

@XD, I fail to see what the bank bailout has to do with it, since that was a loan that has since been repaid. I am sure if the financial system was destroyed our bond outlook would be significantly worse as well. The Dem health care plan also does not add to our debt.

The S&P downgrade is not directly about our finances. It’s about our political ability to deal with our finances. The fact that a $2 trillion error does not make them change their mind reinforces this (along with all the times in their statement that they explicitly say it’s about politics).

And out of the two parties, only one has said they’d take default “hostage” in order to ensure that no tax revenues will help pay down our deficit.

@Qingu, your question was whether Tea Party Republicans are treasonous for fostering political disability. Aside from questioning S & P’s credibility, I am giving examples of political disability exclusive of the Tea Party that have led us to this point, and my point with the universal health care example is that the Democrats are politically disabled to the extent that they can’t even mobilize when they are the majority.

But, whatever. Do your little “you don’t understand this as well as I do” routine. We all know that there’s only one right answer to this question and no hope of anyone else articulating it properly.

@XD, the political instability you are referring to has nothing to do with the debt crisis. Our political instability specific to the debt crisis is why S&P downgraded us.

I also don’t recall the Democrats holding any major sectors of our economy “hostage” during any of the things you mentioned, nor did they express a willingness for our country to default on our debt.

@DarlingRhadamanthus “Ending Medicare? Wrong (but I have been privy to the massive amounts of fraud that is being perpetrated in this program in my lifetime. It’s a free-for-all circus that needs a giant overhaul. People are definitely abusing the system and Big Pharma has its massive chokehold on this.)” I think Republicans want to end Medicare not because it’s full of holes; they want to end it because they hate welfare and entitlements per se. When they talk about it on TV they don’t mention fixing fraud cases or cogs in the system, they say we can’t afford it which is code for they don’t want to pay.

@Qingu You are falling into their trap. The Repubs are the perfect politicians, the people they represent would love to be labeled traitors and be treaded upon all the more to feel righteous. It brings the attention to them and to their cause. I puke everytime Mconnell, Cantor and Boehner are on TV. They are performers and most dangerous in their hostage taking stance. In the end, its the people who elected and will continue to support them who deserves more blame, but that is part of this whole democratic process, what can I tell you…

With regards to S&P and the likes, they do serve a purpose in making the US and global economic engine run more efficiently but it seems credit rating agencies are causing more harm than damage these past years. I feel Congress should look more into it but maybe not this dysfunctional Congress, oh, boy…

I don’t know what should happen. But something should. The Republicans are hell bent on trying to destroy Obama’s credibility to the point that they would destroy this country to achieve that goal. It doesn’t matter if he’s right or wrong, they will oppose him.

I disagree with @josie that the purpose of opposition is to oppose. That attitude is nothing but destructive. The purpose of our government, period, is to do what is in the best interests of its people, not simply to oppose each other blindly, which is what the Republicans are doing regardless of the consequences.

I’m thinking this government needs a massive overhaul. I love the Constitution, but it was also written during a time of anger and rebellion. That attitude is carrying through to this day and it’s not good. Maybe we should go to a parliamentary system or something.

I would like to see all the representatives and senators have salaries capped at $100,000 a year, and be prevented from any lobbying for 15 years. This is a job for people who really care about the country and not about making a fortune. Then, perhaps, the people doing it would be the kind of people who would think twice about bringing America to its knees for no reason. I have never felt so much that there are people in government who seriously want to destroy this country as I have from this latest debacle which I blame totally on the tea party Republicans. I am also angry at those working for reason were unable to find a way not to capitulate to these bullies. I kept thinking about Chamberlin and the Nazis. I hope every one of these extremists is defeated in the next election, and that they do not become the next billionaires that don’t have to pay their fair share in taxes.

I hope we can go back to this thread if a Republican wins the WH in 2012. If that happens, I’m sure all this talk about cooperation and not playing politics will be out the window.

@cletrans2col but it would be okay then, because Republicans are purely evil and opposing them would be patriotic.

@cletrans2col, that depends on whether or not the Republicans field someone who is actually worthy of the office. For example, I didn’t agree with Bush Sr.‘s conservative philosophy, but he was not an extremist and he was not a fool.

Suppose that it does actually happen and they are tried for treason. What did they actually do? “Holding the economy hostage” is nice rhetoric, but their actual actions were to vote against/oppose an economic bill. What is the metric for their treason? An S&P rating?

Now another economic bill comes along. The S&P says they will downgrade their rating unless it passes. Can a congressman vote against the bill? Will it be treason to do so?

Tying treason to economic ratings is the scariest idea I’ve heard all day.

@phaedryx I agree, and that is why I maintain that the worst you can do is try to sue for damages.

I may have overreacted a bit, in retrospect.

lol

I know things are more complex than this, but I was thinking about one cause/effect thread this morning.

How did the debt ceiling issue get to this point? In part, because of newly elected Republicans who were unwilling to compromise. One of the more vocal ones is Mike Lee. How did Mike Lee get elected? Well, he won the general election, but more significantly he beat the multi-term incumbent (and more moderate) Bob Bennett. How did Mike Lee win the primaries? He focused on Bob Bennett voting for the bailouts. Where did the bailout come from? Because the S&P gave “toxic assets” a AAA rating.

@phaedryx Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying the bailouts and the people who supported them are at fault in a roundabout way?

Well. Sue committed suicide because her husband, James, left her. James left her because he reunited with an old love, Amanda, via Facebook. Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerberg. Better throw Mark Zuckerberg in jail for Sue’s murder.

@jerv

If you sue Republicans for not voting the way you wanted, can I sue Democrats for not voting the way I wanted?

@phaedryx Bennett was one of the more conservative members in the Senate.

@Mariah you missed his point: How can we trust S&P when they knowingly gave bad assets a high quality rating?

@cletrans2col Ah, I suspected I may have done so. Thanks.

@Jaxk It’s not which way they voted, but the provable damages caused by said vote.

Of course, provable is the operative word here so I see such a lawsuit doomed to failure, but I still think it has a better shot and is more appropriate than a trial for treason. Still, I have seen a lot of projections about how much revenue the Bush Tax Cuts are costing in lost revenue to have more weight to them than the damages sought (and sometimes won) in many other trials, such as those against hackers a couple of decades ago.

Regardless, I think you and I agree that time and taxpayer money could and should be spent on better things than the dog-and-pony show that any trial on this issue would turn into. Am I right?

@jerv

Just to be clear on this. The house created AND passed two bills that would have solved the entire problem. The Ryan Budget and Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Democrats tabled those without a vote AND without any counter proposal. The ONLY bill the Democrats proposed or passed was the final bill that the house also passed without amendments. And I might add that the tea party reps passed it with a higher percentage of their members than the Democrats. I would think a case would be more appropriate against the Democrats for tabling the bills that had passed.

As for trials, we are trying to prosecute ball players for lying about using steroids, suing states for passing laws, hell, we may just as well sue congress for their votes. We obviously don’t care anything about the costs and focus like a laser on the important issues of the day.

The Ryan budget would have solved nothing unless you assumed a magic baseline of 2% unemployment.

CCB was a hopeless political stunt; I’m not even sure it was rated by the CBO.

Disappointing to see you write such things after your otherwise reasonable day posting, @Jaxk.

@Qingu

Whether either one was worth a shit depends on your perspective. Nonetheless it remains difficult to believe that propsoing nothing was better.

@Jaxk I give Ryan credit for proposing something that would’ve made the same difference to the numbers as letting the Bush tax cuts expire while hurting in many other ways. Pretty ballsy move, actually.

Something Ryan and the Tea Party seem to fail to grasp though is that it is better to do nothing than to make things worse. I take it that if you lost the steering in your car, you are the type of guy that would floor the gas pedal? If not then I have to wonder how you could really think either of those are good ideas.

As for more Tea Partiers than Dems voting for it, the deal that was passed was basically just telling the GOP/TP that they would give anything to not have this debate again until 2013. Since the Conservatives were getting most of what they wanted, I can see how many Democrats would be less than supportive of a capitulation masquerading as a compromise while the Tea Party would be quite content.

You are partially correct about the costs though. I mean, Iraq, Afghanistan, and low tax rates are worth more than money.

@Mariah no, that’s not what I said

@cletrans2col right, but what I said was that Bob Bennett was more moderate than Mike Lee.

Edit: eh, it’s not worth the effort to expand upon and clarify the point I was trying to make

@jerv

First, you don’t seem to have any idea what the numbers really are. Ryan’s budget would reduce the spending $6.2 trillion over 10 years. Obama’s tax hike would only produce $900 billion over ten years. Hardly the same number. You must be using democratic math.

If you think anybody got anything thing they wanted from this plan you haven’t really looked at it. Obama didn’t want to have to deal with the debt until after the election. They pushed out the debt ceiling far enough but with the special commission, he’ll be dealing with this again anyway. The Republicans wanted budget cuts. $28 billion next year, hardly even counts as a rounding error.

As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you have a problem with them, talk to your guy in the Whitehouse. He’s had three years to do something but all he’s done is follow the plan laid out by Bush. Oh sorry I forgot, he also started another war with Libya.

@Jaxk Only raising the taxes on those that Obama wanted to raise taxes on yields that number, but what you are saying has only slightly more relevance than shoe size. But I have to ask; if all of the things that are costing us money are on the table, why is that one not up for negotiation at all? You can’t say that you are cutting everything and then make exceptions like that.

But if you take the optimistic numbers you show, things like this , and then split the difference to get an approximation of where the actual truth of the matter lies, guess what?

And once again, not MY guy. Please, I know you are intelligent enough to get your facts straight, so please get that one straight too unless you actually intend to offend.

@jerv

I promised myself that I was going to stay out of this thing. These arguments never go anywhere, and especially in this forum it’s like pissing into the wind. I just can’t help myself.

One thing that everyone forgets who wants to “tax the rich” is that wealth is extremely fungible. It can move, and easily. When you want to “tax rich corporations” then there are ways to move corporate income offshore. When you want to tax “corporate presence” in the USA, then the entire corporation moves offshore. People have those same options, and don’t think that the US is so special that it’s worth a huge chunk of someone’s life (which is what their money represents to them, after all) that it’s worth sitting here and paying what you and others consider to be their “fair share” ... and why is it fair that their share should be so much higher than yours or mine? Just because a person has been successful (in birth, talent, luck or plain hard work) to have become rich, why is it fair that they should pay a larger percentage of that income than anyone else? Why, especially, when the money clearly goes to fund people and institutions that are directly antithetical to them, and that would happily destroy them if they could? That just doesn’t make sense.

Aside from that issue of fairness, which won’t go over at all in this room it was a rhetorical question, after all the practical issue about “raising taxes” that no one in favor of it ever admits is that when Congress raises taxes… we go deeper into debt. When there’s a surplus, we spend more than we managed to “save”. It just so happens that Iraq / Afghanistan and Bush were the culprits this time, but 40 years ago it was Kennedy / Johnson, Vietnam and the Great Society. There will always be a government-perceived “need” for more money than is available, and debt will be run up… and it will be run up faster and higher when there appears to be means to do that.

@CWOTUS Why should their money go to things they find antithetical? The same reason mine does!

You are correct about government always finding things to spend money they don’t have on, but it doesn’t give us the right to tell tens of million to be paupers so that we can have a few thousand princes. And when the endgame is a few people earning all of the money, who will pay taxes then?

Spending needs to be brought under control, but….. break is too short to get into this right now, so I’ll get back to this later.

@jerv

“if all of the things that are costing us money are on the table, why is that one not up for negotiation at all?”

Two reasons. First not everything is on the table. Obamacare is obviously missing. Second both parties agree that general tax hike would hurt the economy during a recession. If both parties agree it is a bad idea, why would they recommend it?

As for your graph, you want to pretend that policy doesn’t make any difference on growth. Bush cut taxes and the economy immediately responded with growth. You seem to think the same growth curve would have occurred regardless of what policies were enacted. It’s impossible to follow that kind of logic (or lack thereof).

And finally, since you seem to support every hair brained scheme the president comes up, It seems logical to assume, he’s your guy.

@phaedryx why not? I mean, I got what you meant, but maybe I was being too ridiculous in clarifying Bennett’s record; you were correct in saying that he lost because of the bailouts but I was simply saying that if you take that out of the equation, they have the same views.

@Jaxk 1) I guess that the GOP wasn’t serious then, and never had any intention of bipartisanship. That was my point.

2) No, they don’t. One party won’t ever support them and the other party knows that any proposal that includes tax hikes will only pass if they have a super-majority in both sides of Congress and the White House. In fact, after that statement, I am only taking the rest of your post semi – seriously because I like you.

3) You seem to think that they were/are sustainable. I figured there would be a short-term benefit, but I also knew that there would be a long-term cost. We’ve let the benefits burn out yet we insist on still racking up the costs. Of course, I also figured that once they got enacted, they would not be allowed to expire.

4) I guess you don’t know how I feel about some of his other policies, especially internet-related ones. He is only “my guy” insofar as the enemy of my enemy is not my enemy… though I am beginning to re-think that .

@jerv

I’m not sure how to take your argument here. It seems pretty obvious to me that bipartisan agreement in Washing means ‘you vote for my bill’. That is not a GOP stand but both parties. I would think the past two years of legislation have made that pretty obvious.

Obama has said from the beginning that taxes will not go up for ANYONE making less than $200,000. Is it you contention that he has changed and now wants to raise taxes on everybody? If so that’s not a position I’ve heard. As late as Aug 10, 2011 “He told CNN: ‘This president also has the veto pen to ensure that the tax cuts for the most well off are not extended if we do not get the type of tax reform that is fair to the middle class.’” It doesn’t sound like he’s looking for expiration of all the Bush tax rates, only the top bracket. Of course he could be misleading us, that isn’t hard for me to believe.

Most economists will tell you that a general tax hike during a recession will slow the economy even more. Obama has created this idea that although it would hurt the middle class, if you restrict the rate hikes to the top 2%, it won’t have an impact. Liberals have bought into this argument. I have no idea why.

Consider this, Beohner agreed to $800 billion in ‘Revenue Enhancements’. Obama decided that was not enough and demanded more. Why did he do that? And why would he let those taxes go in favor of no tax increase as he did in the final agreement? If you can figure that one out, you’ understand where the hard stops are for both parties.

Looking back at the OP, I think that would be awfully convenient for the beleaguered Democrats. Kill their opponents’ careers, maybe even lock a few up, and hey presto, you’ve regained control of Congress.

There are so many former government officials that should be tried for treason, war crimes, and terrorism that they current tribe of “no nothings” would have to wait in a long line before their number’s up. I prefer recalls and elections to clean the trash out of congress. Then, again, if all the trash was removed from congress, it would be a lonely quiet place.

Lets get Kissinger Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and Rice first, then we can work on the little demagogues.

People on both sides toss the word “treason” around so effortlessly I wonder if anyone knows the fucking definition.