Hypocrisy and the GOP: Increasing the Debt Limit

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So right now, the GOP is attempting to shove the US over the cliff of default by refusing to increase the debt limit without massive spending cuts.

Funny, they didn't seem to complain about such things before.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Now, I suppose you can make an argument for not increasing the debt limit, although I'm unlikely to agree with you. However, doesn't it bother our conservative friends on this board that this is -clearly- an example of the GOP doing something simply to cause Obama to fail, rather than any actual principles they might allegedly have?

Without raising the debt limit, the US will start to default on debt. That will devalue the dollar, crush confidence in the US both within and outside the country, and therefore impedes our leadership in the world when we're still involved in two wars, have bases around the world, and are participating in more than one "peace-keeping" mission via the UN or NATO. Whether or not those are reasonable things for the US to be doing, we're -already- doing them, and it seems to me that defaulting in the middle of these activities won't be very productive. Will the US be able to sign and ratify treaties? Economic agreements? Will foreign companies continue to invest?

(specific data culled from Think Progress.)

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Yes, "Everybody does it", so why do we keep getting outraged when it happens? We should be exhausted from the cumulative upset by now. Yet we continually come back to it over and over again, like pointing it out is actually going to amount to more than arguing over which is better: Chocolate or Vanilla. Mushrooms or Pepperoni, or both. Star Wars or Star Trek.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Neither is the answer to all of those questions. :)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I do think that the GOP's concern about small government should be taken as seriously as Democratic opposition to say, the Afghanistan War.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The deafening silence from Republicans about the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and maintenance of Guantanamo and warrantless wiretapping calls the sincerity of bi-partisan protests about such illegal expansion of government, at least in my opinion.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Likewise the relative silence of those who vehemently opposed Bush's wars and used to protest outside the White House on a regular basis, not to mention the palpable drop in outrage over everything you just stated by the left over the same period despite the lack of any substantial difference in what was being protested against. But its pointless to argue over it.

There is always a tit-for-a-tat. Meanwhile, something with actual weight and impact is happening and not being discussed with commensurate attentiveness. Congratulations, we're all poorer (intellectually) for acting like the two year olds we seem too eager to emulate.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

seriously. this kind of post is a complete waste of intelligence. no discussion of the actual issues, just pointing and yelling at the other side. as if there isn't enough hypocrisy among the two political parties to go around.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'll go the extra step of admitting that in all likelyhood, I too have committed the sin myself. Anyone who debates in political communities long enough ends up having to deal with their own personal contradictions at some point. True mettle is determined not in avoiding contradiction, but in how honest one is in admitting it, or reconciling it. Either with humility or foolish pride.

I don't hold it against someone when they commit hypocrisy, I only get a bit peeved when it's dealt with via avoidance.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

the mindless blame game and demagoguery is what gets me. its like a sporting event, except we all lose.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I see. It has nothing to do with the lies made by the Tea Party that they're really about small government, as evidently they consider Al-Qaeda, which for all practical purposes is a joke and MS-13 alone would annihilate it here in the USA, worth the formation of an unneccessary Cabinet Department that is now one of the largest and one that did not exist during the Cold War, when the USA really did face an existential threat. But then the Tea Party depends on a celebrity and a real-life Rorschach to make its political case, so....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You don't get my question: the Tea Party claims it is non-partisan and opposes all expansion of government, yet not one such protest in 2001 over an unnecessary Cabinet Department. We did not need DHS to face the perpetual threat of a nuclear world war with the Soviet Union. Are we claiming Arabs who live in caves using AKs taken from the body of Soviets they killed in the 1980s are so much more formidable as to mandate it now? If so, we might as well declare the USA over and I'll accept the position of President of the Restored Confederacy.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Here is my utterly serious reaction to that 'bombshell':

Well, WHOOP-DEE-DOO.

You might want to sit down for this, but there's something important you need to be aware of...

We're all hypocrites.

At some point everyone who participates in political discussion long enough ends up committing this sin, even you I imagine, if you're honest,(notice also that above I already have stated that I too have been guilty of this at times) will admit to having done this at some point. This goes for all groups as well. The fact that our hypocrisies don't get the widespread attention of major groups or public personas does not substantially separate us from them.

When an accusation amounts to little more than "hey, you guys have two arms!", it warrants all the righteous indignation of a "Yeah, and....?"

It doesn't matter if it's the Tea Party, the Democratic Party, PETA or the NRA. Singling out one group for a behavior which is fairly ubiquitous across humanity is starting an argument for the sake of being self-righteously indignant.

The added salt in the wound is that unlike actual substantive arguments, arguments based around the 'outrage' of hypocrisy never have a snowball's chance of being in any way edifying or illuminating, because, -and let's think about this honestly for a moment- I have yet to see any of them distinguish themselves as being different substantially from two bickering siblings in the back seat of their parents' SUV on the long trek to Wally World. The more I hear it, the more I feel the spirit of Clark Griswold try to overtake me and make me want to lose my grip and 'turn this thing around!'

/rant.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem is the Tea Party considers it above such petty matters as hypocrisy or the real-world impacts of its ideas.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It's not just "their" problem.

There are three ways I'm aware of to deal with the charge of hypocrisy:

1.) Own up.

2.) Elaborate on original argument to show consistency which isn't superficially obvious.

3.) Avoidance. (Aloofness can be included here, if that's the charge being made on your part).

Guess which one humanity (not just the Tea Party, but most politicians, pundits and armchair pundits) choose most often?

Does it bug me when someone or some group chooses door #3? Sure, but since it's not particularly unexpected, I can't afford to let it get to me and stay sane in a world neck-deep in the stuff. For the sake of this discussion it's that some people think there's rhetorical gold to be made by making the argument that someone elses' crap smells worse than everyone elses when it gets to the sewage treatment plant.

Can you not see the futility yourself? What makes you think that this particular example of hypocrisy is so much more worthy of singling out for attention than politicians whose ideas on how to use government come back to bite us in the ass, deflect any responsibility? If its their agenda that you hate, keep that as your target. Hypocrisy is a charge that is separate from the core of the ideas that form the basis of your contempt. Pointing it out will advance your argument all of naught.