audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
- Thread Starter
- #181
What, you dont want to talk about how I just caught you failing to realize I already explained liberalism vs conservatism almost exactly the same way you did sarcastically, only a few posts later? Quick, change the subject again prox.You've previously defined conservatism as a resistive force to liberalism, keeping society from going too far toward socialism. The brakes/car analogy should be pretty obvious.
Yes, increasing the debt is bad. But it's not nearly as bad as defaulting on it, causing a global economic crisis. The necessity to raise it is concrete.
They dealt with the issue as it came up. Both parties took it to the last minute, but that isn't what is important. What is important is why. Democrats wanted a balanced approach, both cutting spending and raising taxes on the people for whose tax cuts created all this debt in the first place. Republican weren't willing to raise taxes on the richest people one penny. They want to put ALL the debt burden on the people who can afford it least. Characterize this any other way than the republicans only care about the rich. The fact is you can't, and this is ever more evidence that if you care about the average person, and our economy by extension, vote Democrat.
The Democrats plan is a 'balanced approach', nice one. They want what they've wanted for months, to end the Bush tax cuts. Just like the Republicans want to sustain them, as they have wanted for months. You say the timing isn't important, that's because you fail to see this entire 'crisis' was created, by both parties, on purpose. To raise pressure to get their way. Both sides raise the stakes because they see a political stepping stone in this debt ceiling 'crisis'. Instead of seeing this bigger picture, you are too busy standing around pointing fingers at everyone wearing a different colored jersey than yours.
If you want to use the car analogy, the brakes go both ways.
I guess at this point I can only assume you are too scared to address the points I made in my long reply above. Kinda says something about credibility and sincerity when one of us keeps addressing the others points, while the other one changes the subject every time the discussion goes against him.
