Interesting entry by Andrew Sullivan

[fskimospy]

One would think that anyone trying to objectively weigh the debate would conclude that it was unwillingness to bend on either side, which thereafter devolved into another stupid blame game, the stupidity of which Frum is giving his stamp of validity to by giving the opinion that one side was conciliatory and the other obstructive. Fact is that no one wanted to give an inch, and that's why it got to critical mass.

That's simply revisionist history. The Democrats were willing to give Republicans cuts that they wanted at more than a 3-1 ratio. At any other time in our lifetimes, such a deal would have been accepted by the Republicans as an overwhelming victory. In fact the Democrats kept caving more and more and more to them, and still they wouldn't accept it.

It's just false equivalence to say that both were equally unyielding, and even an extremely conservative person like Frum can see it.

EDIT: can you tell me what democrats 'giving an inch' would have looked like?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

EDIT: can you tell me what democrats 'giving an inch' would have looked like?

 

[Phokus]

One would think that anyone trying to objectively weigh the debate would conclude that it was unwillingness to bend on either side, which thereafter devolved into another stupid blame game, the stupidity of which Frum is giving his stamp of validity to by giving the opinion that one side was conciliatory and the other obstructive. Fact is that no one wanted to give an inch, and that's why it got to critical mass.

Eskmospy had a good reply, but to add on that, you're an idiot if you don't think Democrats bend over backwards to republicans ALL THE DAMN TIME. Who was it again that re-signed bush's tax cuts? And just look at the debt ceiling debacle, even republicans were saying they were getting almost everything they wanted (but it still wasn't enough).

 

[Atreus21]

That's simply revisionist history. The Democrats were willing to give Republicans cuts that they wanted at more than a 3-1 ratio. At any other time in our lifetimes, such a deal would have been accepted by the Republicans as an overwhelming victory. In fact the Democrats kept caving more and more and more to them, and still they wouldn't accept it.

It's just false equivalence to say that both were equally unyielding, and even an extremely conservative person like Frum can see it.

EDIT: can you tell me what democrats 'giving an inch' would have looked like?

The democrats offered cuts, but with tax increases, which they knew in advance that the republicans would not allow.

 

[fskimospy]

The democrats offered cuts, but with tax increases, which they knew in advance that the republicans would not allow.

Right. So you can see how this is false equivalence?

There are only two ways to close a deficit, spending cuts and tax increases. Every credible budgetary expert that I am aware of has said that our deficit could not be realistically closed through spending cuts alone.

Democrats originally just wanted to raise the ceiling (as has always been done in the past). That was rejected. Faced with Republican intransigence they offered 1:1 tax/spending cuts. That was rejected. They upped their offer to 2:1, it was rejected. By the end Obama offered 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases. It was rejected.

If you want to say that the Democrats and Republicans were equally responsible for the debt crisis when the Republicans would not even accept a 3:1 ratio in their favor due to the presence of tax increases that every budget expert acknowledges must take place, you are engaging in mind boggling false equivalence. It seems that the scenario you believe would have been a 'compromise' would have been complete capitulation by the Democrats. That's surrender, not compromise.

Frum was 100% correct when he placed the blame at the feet of congressional Republicans. There's simply no other rational way to look at it.

 

[Atreus21]

Right. So you can see how this is false equivalence?

There are only two ways to close a deficit, spending cuts and tax increases. Every credible budgetary expert that I am aware of has said that our deficit could not be realistically closed through spending cuts alone.

Democrats originally just wanted to raise the ceiling (as has always been done in the past). That was rejected. Faced with Republican intransigence they offered 1:1 tax/spending cuts. That was rejected. They upped their offer to 2:1, it was rejected. By the end Obama offered 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases. It was rejected.

If you want to say that the Democrats and Republicans were equally responsible for the debt crisis when the Republicans would not even accept a 3:1 ratio in their favor due to the presence of tax increases that every budget expert acknowledges must take place, you are engaging in mind boggling false equivalence. It seems that the scenario you believe would have been a 'compromise' would have been complete capitulation by the Democrats. That's surrender, not compromise.

Frum was 100% correct when he placed the blame at the feet of congressional Republicans. There's simply no other rational way to look at it.

Okay, I'll concede the compromise argument. I admit I was mistaken.

I suppose to be honest my problem was that Frum and I disagree on whether or not the Republicans were wrong to be uncompromising.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, I'll concede the compromise argument.

I suppose to be honest my problem was that Frum and I disagree on whether or not the Republicans were wrong to be uncompromising.

Well that's of course your opinion, but that would make you one of the people that he is talking about.

 

[Atreus21]

Well that's of course your opinion, but that would make you one of the people that he is talking about.

I don't see how that position is so extreme or insane. I'd like someone to explain to me why a government which doesn't spend anywhere near within its means, and hasn't for a freaking long time, should be given care of still yet more of our money.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see how that position is so extreme or insane. I'd like someone to explain to me why a government which doesn't spend anywhere near within its means, and hasn't for a freaking long time, should be given care of still yet more of our money.

Because national default could have catastrophic worldwide economic consequences. The Republican position on the debt issue made that substantially more likely.

Frum's position isn't that you shouldn't fight for lower taxes and lower spending, his point is that it's insane to risk worldwide meltdown in order to get it.

 

[Craig234]

Before people confuse Frum with some moderate because *relatively* he is, recall:

 

[Zebo]

Before people confuse Frum with some moderate because *relatively* he is, recall:

Yeah I like how he mentions the medicare part D boondoggle as a great service to Americans pimping Bush's Moderate credentials.