Summary
To consider how it goes:
Seattle: It's odd to see it argued that it's wrong to ask for something in return for extending the debt limit. That was the whole point for it being established in the first place. (#44↑)
Tiassa: Certainly, you can support this assertion with the historical record … When did who establish that the point of the debt limit was to bargain with the other party before agreeing to pay for outstanding obligations? (#45↑)
Seattle: It's common sense and it flows from the thing itself. What is the purpose of a debt limit that needs to be continually extended if not in an attempt to keep the debt level down or to require discussion and compromise from Congress? (#46↑)
Thus: Certainly, we can support this assertion with the historical record?
No, we cannot. When did who establish that the point of the debt limit was to bargain with the other party before agreeing to pay for outstanding obligations?
Nobody; rather, it is supposedly commmon sense. Thus, the
debt limit is
leverage to demand political satisfaction before paying debts already accrued or obligations already undertaken, and this "common sense" "flows from the thing itself".
†
Tape-stop. Time out.
Do you recall
complaining↑, and not so long ago, at that: "You are allowed to bait me and others by implying that 'we' might be stupid over and over but you don't get any warning emails do you?"
Well, let's take a look at what I
did say↑:
• … simplistic mush about spending and tax, with the regular talking points about GDP and budgets and no debate and all the same boo-hoo we hear from Republicans, anyway, is actually part of an historical discussion fouled nearly to the point of being delusional. That is, it's a fine discussion about fancy, but it is also true that Americans will destroy the place with this voodoo, and inasmuch as it's partisan, we should remember these are also the presuppositions of those who would murder government.
• … if this seems like a lot of words to make the point, the short form is to remind that, sure, I can accept that you really are that stupid, if you insist. It's like your cluelessness about racism. The whole bit where ostensibly educated and informed people can't manage anything better than the murmur and buzz of base superstition is what it is, but, no, it's not credible, and neither are they.
I actually stand by those statements. One describes observable conservative and Republican Party history; the other simply reminds that playing games dwelling in ignorance does not do anything to establish credibility. Such as it is, you falsely attributed a statement to PJ in order to torch the straw man, and to the one, sure, it kind of looks like you knew what you were doing but, to the other, if you really insist, people can—and easily, at this point—accept that you didn't.
Neither is this unique behavior. Still, trade in potsherds—(kind of like your bit on the
"Achilles heal"↗ of liberalism and something about "economic illiteracy")—is unreliable, and when the answer is no, you cannot support it—(because it is "common sense" that "flows from the thing itself")—you actually demonstrate the point about ostensibly educated and informed people failing to manage anything better than the murmur and buzz of base superstition. It's like
excusing your dabble in racism↗, and what I describe as the passionate but clueless advocate; some people have much to say about an issue, but apparently are somehow unaware of the history¹, and inasmuch as you don't like the implications of certain behavior, the better thing really is to not behave that way:
Really? You're upset that I do not find the murmur and buzz of base superstition credible, but you're going to go with, "It's common sense and it flows from the thing itself"?
Okay. So, let's test that: Do you understand why I refer to debts accrued, oustanding obligations, and what is already undertaken?
You said: "It's odd to see it argued that it's wrong to ask for something in return for extending the debt limit." But part of what debt limit extensions pay for is existing debt service. Thus, according to that aspect, you find it odd that someone would say it's wrong to ask for satisfaction before agreeing to meet existing obligations. And is that
really the argument you want to go with? Is that
really the "common sense" that "flows from the thing itself"?
Because you were just complaining about the implications of that very behavior.
†
Consider what I suggested to Sarkus, about why people behave in certain ways; the epistemic mystery is not a bothsides behavior, and there are many ways it influences discourse. And at that point, it becomes a complex discussion, because while it has common sources and needs, not all of it is, for instance, a Southern Strategy. But you have to remember that your "economic illiteracy" chatter is forty year-old politicking and conservative more-than-everism; the actual explosion in the deficit was for Reagan's space laser that never worked, and what we blame Democrats for is not wanting to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare to pay for a space laser that never worked—in other words, Ronald Reagan wanted a space laser, so it was time to cut these things he always opposed. And if the last twenty years have blown smoking holes to the smoking bits in the smoking crater of the conservative and anti-liberal economic narrative, well, the big smoking hole full of smoking holes in smoking holes has been a long time in the blowing smoke.
We're how many days past the deadline, and House Republicans have not sensibly agreed to raise the debt ceiling; inasmuch as nobody ought to be surprised, we can only wonder why anyone would have pretended otherwise.
There is a certain degree to which one side of our two-sided American political adventure is make-believe and say-so. And, actually, the say-so part is an interesting—and, yes, complicated—tale, but think about what it means in practice: If refusing to pay existing debt until one receives explicit additional satisfaction now passes for sensibly attending those debt obligations, how does that work? We don't know, somebody just said so, and, well, that's just it, we don't know why. But someone says so, which means it must be true.
Not all of it is antifeminist reactionism; some of it has always been the cocksure comfort of traditional power knowing it is right. These days, it's pretty widespread, and has been for a while, because it is the most part of what remains for conservatives. Crackpottery about liberal economic illiteracy, and belief in Republican debt rhetoric, were falling apart twenty years ago, and broke fifteen years ago.
It's one thing to complain about implications, but people like you have had a lifetime to check in with reality, and forty years later the politic is still to just make it up as you go. Superstition and disrespect probably seemed like a better idea a couple generations back, when conservatives felt much more confident about their historical footing. After decades of reality intervening, sure, some might wonder at the holdouts bitterly clinging to articles of faith and idyll that will never actually come true. Again: When the ostensibly educated and informed cannot manage anything better than the murmur and buzz of base superstition, no, they are not credible.
And in assessing the actual record compared to your make-believe, yes, it's true, at some point it will occur to wonder why you bother, and why anyone else is expected to sift your potsherds.
It's kind of like other conservative articles of faith: Making believe like you do gets pretty stupid over time, but if you insist, yes, I will believe you.
Try this: Think back to last year, when you
complained↗ about site traffic, and the idea that you are, in that context, a
disincentive↗. Then then look at your behavior in this thread, and ask yourself who would actually look forward to engaging with you. You said you would "like to see this site become more of a friendly, general discussion forum", and, sure, I said
at the time↗, that was actually kind of funny, coming from you. In this thread, you've provided a clear example of the contrast. That is, we might wonder what part of the cynicism, misrepresentation, zealotry, and make-believe you think lends to a friendly anything.
As a basic discursive function, you might as well be telling me the Good News about Jesus Christ is common sense that flows from existence itself, but cannot explain what that means.
So, again: When did who establish that the point of the debt limit was to bargain with the other party before agreeing to pay for outstanding obligations? How is the purpose of the debt limit to renege on obligations already undertaken?
Think it through, this time.
____________________
Notes:
¹ It's a tabula rasa demand that comes with complications.
