Associated Press
Last summer, just a few days after the debt-ceiling crisis had been resolved, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said of the debt limit, "What we did learn is this: it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."
I thought of this yesterday when McConnell told CBS's Bob Schieffer, referencing House Speaker John Boehner, "The Speaker and I have been the adults in the room."
Ah yes, thank goodness for the adults. McConnell and Boehner (1) backed the Bush/Cheney agenda that added $5 trillion to the debt; (2) decided they no longer liked raising the debt ceiling; (3) held the nation hostage, threatening to hurt the country on purpose unless they got their way; and (4) rejected a White House offer to reduce the debt by $4 trillion.
Nothing says "grown-up behavior" like the antics of an elementary schoolyard bully.
The larger significance of McConnell's quote, though, is the way in which in reinforces an odd truth: Republican leaders simply don't see a problem with their dangerous and unprecedented debt-ceiling strategy. Boehner said last week that he may be threatening to trash the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in history, but we shouldn't consider this a "threat."
As Dana Milbank put it over the weekend:
John Boehner thinks it's kind of funny. "It struck me as somewhat comical," he told reporters Thursday morning, "that, you know, people are looking to me like I'm the guy carrying a sword around town, I'm going to bludgeon someone."
Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe that's because your rapier keeps setting off the metal detectors.
GOP leaders aren't just comfortable deliberately holding the country hostage, they're lacking in self-awareness, seeing themselves as responsible "adults" who aren't doing anything wrong.
This somehow makes the problem worse. It's one thing for a villain to hold a gun to the head of a hostage; it's something else when he feels a degree self-righteousness while he's doing it.
Leave a Comment:
Adults don't elect hostage takers, either, but here we are. We're all Stockholmers now.
The "liberal" media will call them on it, right? Right?
And what Dan said.
Two other "adults in the room" were Hitler and Stalin. ( Both Venture Capitalists of a different sort. . .)
Oh, that's adult like.
>> GOP leaders aren't just comfortable deliberately holding the country hostage,
No, they clearly are not comfortable with deliberately holding the country hostage. That's why they desperately deny that they are doing so. It's the cognitive dissonance, man!
They are trying to address an issue months before a deadline, how is that holding the country hostage? Last time everyone one was on top of them for waiting until the last minute. Now they are attempting to put it on the table before the clock strikes twelve and you say they same thing. In your words, "It's cognitive ddissonance, man!"
I can't believe this RobDon character. Do you even know what happened last summer? Do you realize John Boehner said the agreement he made last summer would be reneged on by Republicans? You know, the budget agreement to cut spending? Are you this unbelievably ignorant?
They would have much better success if they were to address a letter instead. Addressing something that has no relevance is a time waster. Their priorities are all screwed up, they want to play war so they have decided to do that with our President and the 99%. War is for boys, where are the real men? I really don't think they can squeeze that much more money out of the Middle Class. What they are doing to the poor suggests prison time , something they need to experience. The only way to stop Wall St. and the big banks is to make an example of them. Somebody needs to go to prison and be stopped before they do it again. This time they cannot blame the President. They can only blame themselves. Send them to jail.
More like a Robotic, Right-Wing, Radical, Religious-Fanatic, Rhetoric Repeater.
@RobDon - this "issue" was settled last summer. Boehner et al. have broken their word on their deal with Democrats. Now they stand around like butter won't melt in their mouths. Here we go with the next GOP production of "We're Gonna Hurt Some People - the Sequel" - political theater designed for nothing more than to adversely affect the Prez in an election year.
Please don't feed the trolls . It gets them all excited when they elicit a response.
More like the lack thereof.
I'm fully aware of the budget agreement. Are you aware that the Democrats do not want the across the board cuts to go into place either and are working to avoid them, just like the Republicans? Are you aware that even the President's administration is against the cuts scheduled for January? His own defense secretary calls them "irresponsible."
I'm not saying who is right or wrong, here. I'm saying the issue needs to be addressed NOW, not later.
The agreement made last summer was that if they couldn't reach a different agreement on how to make the cuts, the across-the-board cuts that, yes, no one really wants, would go into effect--hurting both sides equally.
The Republicans have reneged on that deal, and have said they will not allow the cuts on the military to go into effect. They want all the cuts to be on social programs only, and their position is that, despite having agreed otherwise last year, they won't allow anything else to happen.
The Democrats have not reneged on the deal. They didn't like the cuts that would happen via the across-the-board agreement, but having failed to get a different agreement out of the Republicans, they have been intending to accept the results of last year's bargain.
As deep a violation of media norms as it is to say so, the Republicans are the ones at fault here, and John Boehner is threatening to trash the good faith and credit of the United States of America if he and his Teabaggers don't get to dictate terms
The Democrats have not agreed to accept the cuts and I challenge you to provide any comment from a leading Democrat stating their "now" support for the across the board defense cuts.
Even the Secretary of Defense has called the cuts "irresponsible" and "a stupid thing." In addition, Democrats are working on their own proposal to avoid the cuts:
Now, again, I'm not arguing who is right or wrong. I am saying neither party wants to cut the defense at levels in play for January and BOTH parties are working to avoid those cuts. If you think otherwise, prove it.
RobDon,
I find your post interesting because: the GOP wants to offset the military budget cuts by defunding social programs for poor people old people and women.
The Democrats want to make the rich pay their fair share.
Now, you are not arguing who is right or wrong, though. You are defending the GOP who are wrong.
As far as Republicans are concerned, there's really only one simple answer to the "debt crisis": elect a Republican president. Once a Republican occupies the WH, the entire issue goes away. Whatever level of debt we have is OK. The more the merrier. Because in Republicanland, "deficits don't matter." At least Cheney said so.
Donna, you make a very valid point. I was not trying to address the merits of either side's position, just that neither side thinks the "across the board" solution will work or even happen. Some were making the case that only the Republicans were unwilling to go through with that deal. My point is neither side is willing.
You are correct. The point you make is a total different discussion, one that is part of what the upcoming election will be about.
It does not make sense to continue to raise the debt limit without serious measures to address not having to do so again. That's being an adult.
We are not up against a deadline yet, so where is the President's leadership here? It's not good enough to say, "oh, he tried." You can't abandon your role as leadership because others aren't "following."
While I think it is fair to challenge the Republicans in this area, you can't do it without also challenging the President. He is not only the leader of our country, he is the leader of the Democrat party as well.
He says Congress really didn't vote down his 2013 budget (although measures in both houses using his numbers did not receive a single vote), then where are his proposals? What specifically is he trying to do so that we don't have to continue to raise the debt ceiling?
You're kidding, right?
RobDon your point is mute. It is a non-issue. Nobody cares about the deficit or the debt except people who have bought into the myth. One thing that is real though is that there are children who are dying everyday because of the current state of events. Thank you Bush. Their children are just as important as our children, and God resents the fact that they see it otherwise. So, stop wasting our time on such nonsense. I choose to ignore you, you are repeating yourself and noone is listening.
Angel- That's not true that nobody cares about the debt and deficit or that RobDon is wasting our time or that his point is moot. These discussions are important to have. it's just that so many wrong assumptions get thrown in the way.
Democrats care deeply about the debt AND the deficit, that's why the last time there was a surplus was during a Democratic President. But, Rob, I find the assumption that it doesn't make sense to raise the debt limit etc... is born from the mistaken concept that a nation is like a household. This is a nation of 330+ million and growing, you cannot have a responsible budget without deficit spending, sure , you don't want waste, you don't want corruption, but you will never pay for what you need with what you take in every single year. Some years you will, some years you won't. That means that both spending and taxation need to be dynamic, not ideological absolutes. Deficits and debt, FOR NATIONS, is consumer driven, not spending driven. Obviously if you spend obscenely, you can create a deficit in the healthiest of economies but, in general, when the consumer base shrinks, deficits grow leading to debts and the inverse is true. There is no significant amount of spending cuts that will grow an economy. Only consumer demand can do that.
Now, if we can agree upon that, we can all, liberal and conservative alike, start discussing how to increase that consumer demand. Does that seem fair?
Finally someone willing to have a discussion as opposed to just throwing out one liners.
I know you put the "etc..." in reference to the rest of my statement, but the rest of the sentence is important. I'm not saying don't raise the debt limit but I am saying the national debt is to a limit that you shouldn't just automatically raise it.
I understand and even agree with most of your other arguments. I just think that once you reach a point where the debt is growing at multiples of our entire budget, you have to realize that it could easily reach a point where it could be the single biggest obstacle to moving forward and/or worse, cause a collapse.
A correction to dfabs4...
The last surplus existed under a Republican president! Not for long, for sure. And, the existence of a surplus was Little George's rational for cutting the heck out of the tax bills of the wealthy.
Steve Benen keeps reproducing and updating his charts that show the derivation of the ongoing deficits and the largest continuing cause is the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
As long as RobDon and the other repuknican trolls continue to believe in the tax fairy and other repuknican lies, they will continue to insist that the long term problem of federal debt is a short term emergency that can only be solved by eliminating everything other than militarization spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.
First, I'm not a troll.
Second, I do see the longer term federal debt as a problem that should be addressed in a civil responsible manner, not as a political football kicked about by BOTH sides.
Third, the debt will require budget cuts and increased revenue.
Forth and lastly, I try not to deal in lies, I like facts. Granted, sometimes people differ on the conclusions you can make from facts and/or the decisions the facts require, but I don't like empty assertions.
@RobDon, I get it, neither you nor those idiots in Congress have any basic comprehension when it comes to how "the government" functions.
1) Raising the debt ceiling allows the bills that we've already incurred to get paid, period. And what are we still paying for - these endless wars and conflicts around the world, the "tax breaks" tilted towards the top 1%, government obligations to workers, pensioners, etc.
2) Since you obviously aren't paying attention to American civics - if you look across the Atlantic @Europe and those "austerity measures" cutting back on government services and the rioting and demonstrations - please know that if those same measures are enacted here - they will immediately throw us back into another recession if not another Great Depression.
3) Raising taxes on the top 5% of American house-holds, closing loopholes in the tax code for corporations, and trimming the Defense Dept. budget by 25%, and stopping the war in Afghanistan and these squirmishes around the world will more than save US some money over the long term to be able to start paying down the debt along with investing in infrastructure development, education, R&D in new technologies, et.al. will more than generate jobs, which in turn will create demand for products and services - which will bring US back from the brink.
I get that many Americans have just swallowed ideology, but at what point do you people stop and think - not just about the short term fixes, but the long term investments that need to be made in this country! Trickle down hasn't worked since Raygun started it over 30+ years ago; the "job creators" that we continue to give welfare too haven't and aren't creating nary a job - so get your head out of the sand and actually start informing yourself of what the real issues are! Thank you
You're right, of course, Veteran. I more specifically meant the last Pres to CREATE a surplus...
And Rob, I didn't mean to discount the rest of your statement I was just trying to save some typing. I do understand the sentiment. All of us who live on average incomes understand the tremendous fear of living with debt but certainly most of us would never own a home or send our kids to college without doing it.
I will respectfully disagree that we are , as a nation , at that point where our debt is a "point of no return". It is huge, of course, and it is hard to wrap our heads around such numbers, but it is equally hard sometimes to comprehend the kind of growth that this nation is capable of under good times.
When this country manufactures, when this country creates the new technologies of the world (as we have in the past) it is staggering how revenue outpaces spending. Not to mention how the service on the debt changes. As we are borrowing right now, we do so at obscenely LOW interest rates. When we experience growth, we actually start to lend AT MUCH HIGHER RATES. And it is that potential for growth that keeps other nations lending to us and why they downgrade our credit when we announce plans for austerity or announce a plan to not honor debt that has already been taken (such as not raising the debt ceiling). But we have to get to that growth. If we don't use the power of our public money to spur that growth where would it come from?
I just can't see any path to growth using austerity.
Zora, I'm for some of your points and not necessary against others. I don't believe either side, though, are laying out a realistic plan for the future. Both sides are trying to score political points instead.
dfabs4, thanks for the discussion.
Here's wishing we could solve the US problems with comment discussion.
@RobDon, I'm not discounting that democrats have contributed, but at least the dems are trying to be adult, compromise on issues (even if they're giving away the store), and at least willing to look at other places - not just for cuts but to increase badly needed revenu. The GOP continues the same refrain all the time. Their behavior is not just bullying and boorish, frankly it is based in an altered non-reality - which makes me believe that they are pathological.
You just don't get it you're so pathetic, and you learn to accept it, your copisetic (with the GOP.) The princess of the one-liners or the one hit wonders.
Two things:
1) It's not the debt ceiling McConnell think is worth ransoming; it's the entire country, and essentially the entire world
2) Isn't it the job of the media to point this behavior of the bratty and snotty Eddie Haskell's to the public?
Just because they say that they are the adults in the room, doesn't make them the adults in the room, whatever that means. They look scared to death, they have been exposed for who they really are. They are just waiting now for the call to pack it up and leave. Most of The American people refuse to worship the god they are worshiping. How can anyone respect them for wanting to throw us out with the garbage. They need to be thrown out instead.
Exactly ! Some great points !
Personally, I see them as the elephant in the room.
Boener, Ryan, Cantor, The Kochroach Brothers, Romney, The Radical, Right-Wing, are all economic terrorists to say the least.
Racial Republicans want to cut legitimate spending to cover up criminal spending.
Where are the trillions of dollars that have been stolen from Americans' tax dollars through military industries graft, corporate subsidy graft, wall street graft, banking graft, housing graft, pharmaceutical graft, foreign dictators graft, and on and on ?
If Republicans really want to end the deficit then they should start asking for their Right-Wing billionaire pals to give back all of the money they have stolen from America.
The trillions of dollars that have been criminally siphoned out of our economy could wipe out the deficit and the debt if given back.
A closet homo and an orange drunk do not adults make.
It is unseemly to insult Lindsay Gayham and John Boner this way!
I find it remarkable that on the Rachel Maddow blogs we have a pair of ostensible adults using accusations of homosexuality as insults.
Grow up, please.
Not sure who Trollop was referring to. May not be good repuke politics, but Lindsay should come out of the closet. There is nothing to be ashamed of, other than being ashamed of being himself.
I was referring to Bitch McCornhole. And D.C., it takes one to know one so shut up or fess up.
Two things:
1) Children don't tend to take hostages. Boehner and company are the adults. Stupid, irresponsible, and plausibly evil, but adults.
2) They didn't threaten the faith and credit of the US. They DID damage the faith and credit of the US. The S&P lowered our credit rating because they feared the Republicans would actually refuse to pay back the debt. Looks like they were justified in their concern. Now can the American public muster the attention span to understand that S&P specifically cited Boehner's behavior as the cause of the downgrade or will they just accept Fox News' plainly dishonest claim that it was Obamas trillion dollar debt (every bit of which, naturally he's responsible for in their eyes)
What are the jounalists and reporters afraid of? If they want to be seen as truly good journalists or reporters they will ask the questions we want them to ask? Their refusal to do so implies that they are holding back for a reason. I cannot believe that reporting the news here could be more dangerous than reporting it in Afghanistan or another country. We need a few brave souls or brave hearts. Be Brave reporters please, we need your expertise it is your turn to shine and to extinguish all the bad things that are being said about you. Ask them, demand the truth, don't accept their lies. Maybe you need a pep rally.
Y'all are not thinking in authoritarian mode. "Adults," aka "grown ups" aka "big people" are the ones with the power to get their way by force.
Don't forget the fact that, after they finally made a deal that included raising the debt ceiling, they reneged on it. That's really mature behavior.
When a 'history' of capitulation to 'hostage takers' is established, why would not the 'hostage takers' continue to believe that the capitulation will continue?
Last year was very far from the first case of The Capitulator-In-Chief surrendering to part or all of the demands of the repukes.
On what 'factual' historical basis is there reason to 'believe' anything that the repukes have 'promised' or 'agreed to' since Obama was elected? Other than their promises to 'make him a one term president' and to 'destroy his presidency'!
Question for @RobDon - Why do you still believe the GOP has any credibility on matters of fiscal responsibility?
Easy & obvious...
The Inside The Beltway Pundits & The Corporately Owned Media say so!
As Faux News points out (indirectly), the people who created the sources of the problem (repubs - tax cuts - unfinanced 'off budget' wars - unfunded 'Medicare Part D' mandates) must therefore be the best persons to know the answers. After all, nobody at Fox Noise would lie to us, would they?
The Republicans have engaged in a scorched earth campaign against Obama and the Dems. It is time for Dems to flog the Republicans for their tactics. Otherwise, this is going to be used to renew the Bush tax cuts. This is the ultimate goal of the Republicans before the new Congress convenes. If Dems do not stop the hostage taking now, it will come back in the next session of Congress and the country cannot afford another 4 years of gridlock.
Also, Dems should campaign on the end of filibusters and holds in the Senate. That would certainly put Republicans on the spot if they refuse to endorse the end of those tactics. If Dems bring the issue to the voters, they will respond because they are sick of gridlock.
Campaigning on ending senate filibusters would be a loser. It would be virtually meaningless to the sheeple, especially as the Corporately Owned Media would tell the sheeple how both sides do it. The Corporately Owned Media will NOT let the repukes take the blame for senate gridlock.
The dems need to hold the presidency and hold the senate and hope like hell they can retake the house. If at that, Harry 'spineless' Reid needs to assert some leadership and not make more 'bargains' with the repukes that they have no intention of honoring. The senate 'filibuster' rules need to be changed and the dems know it. They needed to be changed at the start of the last senate and the dems knew it, but were too lacking in gonads to do so.
Even if the dems hold the senate and change the rules to what they used to be, there are still many reasons to believe that the corporations & wealthy will continue to get most of what they want. (ie. Landreiu, Baucus, Begich, Conrad, Johnson(SD), Manchin, Pryor, Schumer (Wall Street), et.al.)
Harry Reid has tried to be diplomatic when dealing with the Republicans and the Blue Dogs. He has come to the belated conclusion that diplomacy and gentlemen's agreements mean little to the Republicans. If Dems control the Senate, then it is up to Reid or the next majority leader to end the procedural blocks. If filibusters and holds are abolished, the Republicans will scream "partisan politics" but they brought it on themselves. The Dems have no reason to believe the Republicans will change no matter what they promise.
Starve the beast is alive and well in 'conservative' politics. The goal since Reagan has been cut taxes and spend, spend, spend. The ultimate goal is to cut social services and creating artificial budgetary emergencies to make their policies seem to be the only safe solution.