Either way, the bottom line is that the debt limit is going to have to be increased regardless. Both parties know this and they know that the final days to act are here. In less than a month the U.S. government will reach their limit and if nothing is passed to increase this limit, then the government will have to default on its debt payments, causing damage to the economy that could be irreversable.
Those in office know what they are doing. The right is going to try their hardest to cut the debt, claiming not to vote for an increase, yet they know just as well as everyone else does that in the end they will have to vote for it regardless. The left is trying to mark republicans as holding the country hostage. The blame game continues.
All the while you are having to sit at home and watch as all this goes down. I am quite surprised that the left hasn't used the excuse of the vote "being needed" for "humanitarian reasons" as they do on every other issue. This is just like the healthcare, where if you do nothing then the world is going to end and it is so urgent that you the entire system has to be redone and socialized NOW, in order to survive.
The debt limit has to be increased. There is no other way around it when you have a left president and senate. Spending will rule the debate until atleast, and hopefully, the next election. Maybe then we can get the government under control and have the spending issue resolved. Until then, vote for the increase, and focus more on getting jobs, and work on decreasing regulation for demestic energy. In other words, focus on the economy in ways that don't increase spending. Limit the millions of overlapping regulation and let businesses breathe. Then you will see the full power of capitalism.
You have 2 kids. You have to break them up for getting into a scuffle. One says it's the other one's fault, the exact same thing is said of the 2nd child. In every situation similar to that one - is the adult to merely brush it off and tell BOTH to cut it out? Is it fair to put an equal amount of blame on each one? Are the 2 of them to be looked at as if no matter what is going on, THEY better stop it? Let's say the 2nd child didn't instigate the scuffle, BUT, the scuffle escalated because the 2nd child was in the position that he or she had to defend him/herself. Would it be seen as both being irresponsible and mischievous?
ReplyDeleteMy problem w/all of the conflation that goes on about Congress is; if there is one side that continually instigates recklessness and childishness, why does the other side of the aisle have to suffer from the "false equivalence" label? To consistently have to "pull teeth" to convince grown and (supposedly) responsible leaders of this nation to do the right thing when it comes to moving this country in the right direction, seems to me to be totally ridiculous!!! But yet and still in many CLEAR black and white cases, it happens. How does a political party repeatedly get blamed for cat-fighting for standing up for the middle class - which is practically 90+% of the population in this country? Why would the responsible party be subjected to chastisement when they attempt to defend millions who are out of work due to NO fault of their own?!?! I don’t see fairness from the American people and pundits alike, broad-stroking irresponsibility on both parties as if BOTH sides are not looking out for the well being of this country. Maybe if time was taken to listen to what’s being said by both sides of the aisle, maybe the “reasons” voiced from one division can be unambiguously distinguished from the “excuses” of the other.
Maybe there's a legitimate reason why the 2nd child struck back. Maybe there is true substance to why the 2nd child didn't just give in and allow the other one to run them over. Maybe... Just maybe, these "scuffles" need to be looked into just a tad bit closer to get to the bottom of the fray. And then perhaps, once that NEEDED clarity has been discovered, the vindicated can be given a hand in showing the instigator the errs of his ways.