quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Hi Firm

What you've presented is a nice story- but I'm sorry, it's got enough holes in it to sink the Titanic.

Historically- the Republicans have been hell bent on tying the hands of the Democrats- witness Clinton's impeachment over a sexual peccadillo and the recent intransigence over passing any bills.

Krugman had a good analogy which I'll borrow from....

The US economy is a morbidly obese patient on the table with a heart attack. Do you send in a surgeon to fix the heart- or do you send in a nutritionist to tell him to quit eating 4 cheeseburgers at a sitting? In the long run- you do need the nutritionist- but he's gonna die if he's not on the table in 5 minutes.

Arguing about long term debt where you've got decades to solve the problem- and have made damn all progress when it was a Republican administration in charge- while the economy remains moribund is just a poor sense of triage.

In short- had the Republicans put such a priority on reducing long term debt when they held both the administration and Congress- it'd be a lot more believable- but I'm not buying the sudden conversion to deficit hawks. This smacks more of politics as usual.

Sorry- but that's the way I see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You are still not seeing it, are you?

I just trying to get you to see that there are at least two sides to the issue.  While you will acknowledge that both parties are responsible, at the end of the day you do indeed place the blame on the Republicans:

And what I want you to understand is that there are rarely ever only two sides to an issue. This junk about there being two sides to every issue is a product of a weak mainstream media that has a pair of partisans scream at each other for an hour. The fact remains that not everyone in this world is either a raging liberal or a die-hard conservative. You're going through great pains to fit me into the former characature that you're willfully twisting my words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

Yes, I thought Republicans did a bad thing. And yes, I thought the Democratic reaction was also a bad thing. Both parties are to blame. And yet, through some verbal legerdemain, you're trying to make it sound like I blame the Republicans the most.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

I pointed out that it could be viewed as the Democrats attempting to push their legislative agenda to maintain a failed spending policy.

The truth is, both are correct interpretations, but how you see it as to where the "fault" lies says much about your internal biases (that's not a dig, we all have them.  The question is whether or not we recognize them).

There's nothing inherently wrong with a party pushing their legislative agenda; that's what we'd expect political parties to do. As Depeche Mode would say: parties are parties. It only really became a problem when the debt ceiling vote came into play.

Correct or otherwise, I'd point out that my interpretation hews pretty closely to the S&P's interpretation, while yours does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

Your view that Republicans are at fault is obviously present in your example, as well:

Republicans were wrong for holding someone hostage at gunpoint. Democrats were wrong for not going, "Easy now, we'll comply with your demands as long as you don't shoot."

In this analogy, it's again the Republicans who are "the evil-doers" and it's simply a minor fault that the good-hearted Democrats had poor negotiation skills.

I think you took my analogy too literally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

A counter-analogy:

The Democrats were wrong for selling our kids into future debt slavery. The Republicans were wrong for not stepping up sooner.

Both fit your "if/then" logic, but it obvious that each one is sympathetic to a particular point of view.  Yours appears to be sympathetic with the Democratic side, and laying primary blame on the Republican side.

Your analogy relies on judgement calls and opinions as to which party has better policy proposals; mine does not. That's the main difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

Imagine, for instance, that it was the Democrats that refused to pass the debt ceiling extension without also passing one of their legislative priorities (chai lattes in the water fountains, perhaps). And, likewise, it was instead the Republicams whom refused to work with the Democrats on this point.

What we have here is a completely opposite scenario from the one that actually happened. My opinion on the matter would change; I'd blame the Democrats instead of the Republicans for pulling the pin, and I'd blame the Republicans instead of the Democrats for the subsequent recalcitrance. It doesn't matter which party did the wrong action, they still did something wrong.

Regarding your counter-analogy, that wouldn't happen. Even in the exact opposite scenario, you could still apply your same analogy. That might have been why the S&P didn't bring you in to their advisory meetings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm not willfully twisting your words, just pointing out that despite the fact that you claim "both sides" are to blame, you are operating and posting on the assumption that the Republicans hold the majority the blame in this specific instance.

You do.  Your words are your words.

quote:


Actually your interpretation does not hew to the S&P's interpretation.  S&P went to great lengths to not blame either party, but simply point out that the impasse at the time, in which neither party would compromise, leading to the downgrade.  They did not make a judgment about whether taxes should be raised, or spending cut. Simply that failure to reach an agreement on either or both subject was the danger.

quote:

Again, your own words place the responsibility on the Republicans, because their were "pushing their legislative agenda", while giving the Dems a pass when at the exact same time they were "pushing their legislative agenda".

quote:


You may believe so, but what are people who hold a gun to someone's head, and make demands?  Close friends?  And the guy who tries to calm down an explosive situation by saying "Easy now ..." (but didn't, in this case), is a raving maniac?  Where does the greater moral opprobrium lay?  It was your analogy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

A counter-analogy:

The Democrats were wrong for selling our kids into future debt slavery. The Republicans were wrong for not stepping up sooner.

Both fit your "if/then" logic, but it obvious that each one is sympathetic to a particular point of view.  Yours appears to be sympathetic with the Democratic side, and laying primary blame on the Republican side.

Your analogy relies on judgement calls and opinions as to which party has better policy proposals; mine does not. That's the main difference.

I sorry Bantha, but that is a priceless statement of bias.

Of course I weighted mine in the opposite direction from yours.  The purpose of my analogy was to expose the bias in yours, by doing the same thing from the other side.  I guess I succeeded.  But you again miss the point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

Imagine, for instance, that it was the Democrats that refused to pass the debt ceiling extension without also passing one of their legislative priorities (chai lattes in the water fountains, perhaps). And, likewise, it was instead the Republicams whom refused to work with the Democrats on this point.

What we have here is a completely opposite scenario from the one that actually happened. My opinion on the matter would change; I'd blame the Democrats instead of the Republicans for pulling the pin, and I'd blame the Republicans instead of the Democrats for the subsequent recalcitrance. It doesn't matter which party did the wrong action, they still did something wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

You're making stuff up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

quote:

There's nothing inherently wrong with a party pushing their legislative agenda; that's what we'd expect political parties to do. As Depeche Mode would say: parties are parties. It only really became a problem when the debt ceiling vote came into play.

Correct or otherwise, I'd point out that my interpretation hews pretty closely to the S&P's interpretation, while yours does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Bantha, this is firm's thing. He loves arguing over extremely narrow interpretations of words and phrases because he thinks only he is smart enough to win these debates. Engaging him in this will get you no where as he will never acknowledge that you are right and will just keep repeating the same nonsense and trying ever narrower semantic arguments.

You mean every time I caught you in redefining things to suit you, I called you on it, doncha, Ken?

I knew that there was a reason you stay on hide most of the time.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct


There are 60 reactors under construction globally each with a capacity of 1-1.5GW so call it 100 GW in round numbers- and it's going to take between 8-10 years to come online.
Sam