A common charge is that the tea party was terrorist-like in its willingness to bring the fiscal system to a halt to enforce some sort of limits on new debt. I say ‘common’ since the vice president of the United States purportedly put his own brand on that slur. But tea-party efforts to control the spending were belated and reactive; the real nihilism comes from those who apparently wanted no limits on the debt they might run up and had no plan to pay it back. In one formula, we are borrowing $4 billion a day and have run up nearly $5 trillion in the first three years of this administration. To define questioning a debt of $16 trillion as heartless cutting is unhinged. The country is now in a surreal cycle of borrowing gargantuan amounts of money, and then almost automatically going ballistic should anyone suggest that we trim any of the new borrowing. Every new dollar borrowed instinctively becomes ossified and sacrosanct; as the hysteria arises not over the old baseline figures, but trimming the proposed rate of new borrowing. At what point would Obama and his team, if unchallenged, have stopped borrowing on their own? And at what point would they be happy with increasing taxes? If some in a New York or California are currently paying 45–50 percent in local, state, and federal income taxes, aside from payroll taxes, should they pay 60 percent or 70 percent — or should 5 percent of households begin to pay 70, 80, or 90 percent of the aggregate tax burden? And of course, these are just the fiscal sides of the argument; lost entirely in the focus over money is whether the new trillions are needed and well spent. Few these days even ask whether $3.6 trillion in its entirety is critical — whether the federal largess improves American life, has no effect, or makes things worse. The massive borrowers are the real anarchists who apparently want to print money to the point that it is rendered of little value, or so gorge the government beast that vast new redistributive taxes will be necessary — an apparently good end, in and of itself, or create incentives and punishments through new formulas of federal spending and taxes that vastly alter the conduct of present-day American life. Reactionary nihilism best describes any who want to take the old welfare state of the 1960s and expand it to the point of implosion.
Two words: paragraph breaks.
The "terrorism" is in threatening default if their demands aren't met. I don't know about you, but I think holding the economy hostage so you can pass... well... nothing ultimately... qualifies as nigh-sociopathic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly someone who knows absolutely nothing about anything, could hold the position that the Republicans were holding the economy hostage.
Then again, you are a liberal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn your delusional opinion, are those Democrats who refused to vote for any debt ceiling bill that did not include massive tax increases also terrorists?
Or does that term only apply to those who refuse to agree to the things you want?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDepends on whether the vote was guaranteed to pass. I don't care what people vote on legislation that's been whipped properly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting formulation.
We have two sides in a negotiation, both of come to the table with a defined (well, in the Dems case, sort of) set of objectives and demands.
The negotiations go on for a period of time, creeping ever closer to a "deadline" after which "horrible things" might happen, with neither side giving in.
Tell me - were Democrats, with their insistence on increasing taxes, also 'terrorists'?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem was Obama's stated line in the sand, a long term deal or no deal. To do a deal, it was necessary that the deal allow Obama get the increase to cover borrowings past the coming election. The debt limit increase was [1] a larger increase than ever done and [2] for a longer term than ever done. Obama's problem is the debt and spending as a campaign issue, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow long did the Bush government go blithely spending money while the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency? Oh, that's right, I forgot, the meme is that all spending happened under Obama. I'm sure you remember that the Republicans approved TARP and all of the fiscal stimulus along the way. Or, more probably you don't.
There is no party of fiscal discipline - to call the Republicans that after the Bush presidency is laughable and historically inaccurate.
Collectively, everyone needs to get their heads out of their poitical asses and move forwards. "Pledges" are not the stuff of government.
That said, I hope the Republicans regain the presidency and both houses. I'd like to see their new found fiscal discipline put into practice - for once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama created more new debt in 2 years,than Bush did in 8.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting ... all the bile you pitch on Bush & the Republican Congress he held for 4 or 6 years (I believe Jumpin' Jim Jeffords gave Dems the Senate majority for '03 & '04).
And not a word spoken against Dems, whose spending during Obama's presidency makes Bush & those Republicans look like a bunch of rank amateurs.
Why is that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot everyone was happy about the spending. The Porkbusters was a movement that cried out against wasteful spending. They got a bipartisan [NRO does not allow this language] for their efforts, from left and right alike.
Coburn was big in the movement, actually trying to cut down the pork and the spending, including the Bridge To Nowhere boondoggle. To put things in perspective back in 2005-2006, 82 senators voted AGAINST moving funds from this pet project to instead pay for an actually-needed bridge that was damaged by Katrina.
So yeah, Bush did it. And the Repubs did it. And the Dems did it. And then Obama did it. Guess what, it doesn't make it right! Blaming someone else for doing something in the past while ratcheting it up to eleven is past hypocrisy. We're not giving Bush a pass. That's your strawman. Stop shaking it to try and distract us from what is happening right this minute, and something we actually can do something about.
Unless you have that time machine ready, and can go back and fix the spending issues back them. No? No time machine? Well, deal with the present, then!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with Anon on this... the tired old liberal cry about what Bush spent and how that justifies what Obama is spending is akin to someone blaming their ex-spouse for spending all of their community property money and then demanding that the bank keep giving them more because, after all,they need to keep the party going!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHanson is a brilliant scholar but he's all wrong on this one. The nihilists are those who voted no last night. They include the extreme right and left in the House, and most of the black, Latino caucuses, all of whom were prepared to allow a default to remain ideologically pure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish it were possible to strip them of their voting privileges and allow only the sensible congressmen who voted yes to speak for the House. Same applies with today's Senate vote.
I looked up the definition of nihilist - seems to me the better word would be anarchists, because that's the direction we'd be headed if we "blew up the world" by voting everything down now.
Problem is, that's the direction we're headed if we don't address "Social Security & Medicare as we know them" - they're going to bankrupt us & then what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou, as always are brilliant. I wish i could put it all together so succinctly and forcefully when I argue the point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems that America's liberals and their elected officials in the Democrat party are simply unprepared for hard ball.
it has been the left that has played hard, to their credit, in the name of the dogma. Now that their political opposition is stiffening the left appears to be without a response beyond rank, childish name calling.
It was the Obama administration that introduced time pressure into the negotiations. That was a double edged sword and the right used it to advantage. That's negotiation plain and simple. Brinksmanship is just another negotiating ploy. After all if you can't walk away from the deal you aren't really negotiating anyway.
The left has long had the exclusive use of tools like well funded PR campaigns and high emotional levels among its adherents. Now the right is using both tools to good advantage. Can the left mount a response beyond the sophmoric stuff we've seen thus far?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Heyna
"I don't know about you, but I think holding the economy hostage so you can pass... well... nothing ultimately... qualifies as nigh-sociopathic."
1.Three words: coherent sentences please!
2.Is this sentence aimed at Tea Pary conservatives in the House? Because it sounds alot more like a description of the approach of the White House and Senate - as they did not pass a budget for over 800 days. Perhaps if you write a little more clearly people will be able to understand what you are trying to say!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe debt ceiling and the budget should not have been tied together.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseand @PeteTexas
I don't think anyone is arguing that the republicans have a stellar record here. Thats why the Tea Party had to come about! But I can say with confidence that the compared to the last two and a half years of a liberally controlled nation, the Bush administration was a pretty austere operation!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuestions of substance aside, this post is totally incomprehensible on a metaphorical level -- unless you think, like VDH seems to, that terrorism, nihilism and anarchy are all the same thing.
VDH, please learn to write!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd how many novels have you sold, redfate?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse