Republicans have a short-term memory problem

[eeyore1954]

But as I understand it the only point of the OP is that the RNC jumped on a statement pretty obviously only because Obama said it and not because of the content of the statement.

This is a standard operating procedure for both parties. That is my Tu Quoque.

Although in this case I do not think it is only because President Obama said it. It is my contention the GOP as a whole does believe we have an immediate debt crisis. I suspect the GOP is upset with Boehner and Ryan for their comments.

 

[eeyore1954]

Perhaps they ought to have a chat with their own party, then.

Why should they have a chat with their own party? I would prefer they say what they believe.

Still no tweet yet from @GOP for Boehner and Ryan calling their statements unbelievable and asking them what "$16.7 T in debt" is.

Would you ever expect a tweet like that from either party except in the case where someone has done or said something very bad?

 

[A'isha]

This is a standard operating procedure for both parties. That is my Tu Quoque.

"Both sides are bad, so vote Republican!"

Although in this case I do not think it is only because President Obama said it. It is my contention the GOP as a whole does believe we have an immediate debt problem. I suspect the GOP is upset with Boehner and Ryan for their comments.

Strange that they're being so quiet about it, then, isn't it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a standard operating procedure for both parties. That is my Tu Quoque.

Ah--you're making a tu quoque. I misunderstood and thought you were saying the OP is making a tu quoque.

So do you have examples where the DNC bashed a Republican president for something even though top Democratic leaders in Congress agreed with that president? I can't think of any examples.

Although in this case I do not think it is only because President Obama said it. It is my contention the GOP as a whole does believe we have an immediate debt problem. I suspect the GOP is upset with Boehner and Ryan for their comments.

So you think they just have a curious way of expressing that dissatisfaction with Boehner and Ryan? (By bashing Obama?) Or has the RNC since expressed that dissatisfaction?

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Deficits can matter even though there is not an immediate debt problem.

I guess the title of this thread is true. Thanks for demonstrating.

Lets say my family spending was incurring a deficit every year but at the time I have a good amount of liquid assets. I am not at a debt crisis yet but the fact that I am spending more than I bring in does matter and can lead to a debt crisis.

 

[A'isha]

Why should they have a chat with their own party? I would prefer they say what they believe.

Because Boehner and Ryan would seem to be strikingly at odds with their own party on this particular matter. Seems to me like that's something they'd want to get sorted out.

Would you ever expect a tweet like that from either party except in the case where someone has done or said something very bad?

I expect it because the GOP was certainly quick to tweet that when it was Obama saying that there's no immediate debt crisis, but is apparently dead-set on giving Boehner and Ryan a complete pass for saying the exact same thing.

 

[A'isha]

Lets say my family spending was incurring a deficit every year but at the time I have a good amount of liquid assets. I am not at a debt crisis yet but the fact that I am spending more than I bring in does matter and can lead to a debt crisis.

So, what Obama said was entirely true, then?

 

[eeyore1954]

Because Boehner and Ryan would seem to be strikingly at odds with their own party on this particular matter. Seems to me like that's something they'd want to get sorted out.

Why? You want your politicians to always just parrot the party line.

I am not sure there is a set party line on this topic but I am sure many disagree with them.

I expect it because the GOP was certainly quick to tweet that when it was Obama saying that there's no immediate debt crisis, but is apparently dead-set on giving Boehner and Ryan a complete pass for saying the exact same thing.

I would fully expect the other party to handle a similar situation the same. And not tweeting is not the same as giving a complete pass.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another piece to this whole thing is the fact that Ryan and Boehner blamed Obama and the Democrats for the credit downgrade. Accepting that the downgrade was a meaningful indicator of an immediate credit problem is inconsistent with their current position.

[ETA: It's as if they're saying that there is no immediate problem, but that the immediate problem is nevertheless Obama's fault.]

Obama's position has been consistent. He pointed out that S & P gave their reasoning (in part the refusal of Senate Republicans to consider increasing tax revenues, but also the general dysfunction brought on by brinksmanship), and observed that the market continues to show great confidence in the U.S. debt, so the credit downgrade was in fact inaccurate and unwarranted (that is, there is no immediate credit problem).

 

[eeyore1954]

So, what Obama said was entirely true, then?

Does it logically follow that what he said was entirely true from what I said?

 

[A'isha]

Why? You want your politicians to always just parrot the party line.

If the position held by a politician gets labeled as "unbelievable" by his own party, perhaps that's not the right party for him to be in.

I would fully expect the other party to handle a similar situation the same. And not tweeting is not the same as giving a complete pass.

Not tweeting is also not handling "a similar situation the same". And calling a statement "unbelievable" when the President makes it while saying nothing at all about virtually identical statements made by Boehner and Ryan is, indeed, giving them a complete pass.

Does it logically follow that what he said was entirely true from what I said?

Was it unbelievable, then?

 

[eeyore1954]

Another piece to this whole thing is the fact that Ryan and Boehner blamed Obama and the Democrats for the credit downgrade. Accepting that the downgrade was a meaningful indicator of an immediate credit problem is inconsistent with their current position.

[ETA: It's as if they're saying that there is no immediate problem, but that the immediate problem is nevertheless Obama's fault.]

How is blaming President Obama for the downgrade inconsistent with their current position. I think both of their current positions is we are not at the point of a financial crisis yet but we are heading to a crisis. Wouldn't a downgrade from AAA to AA+ be consistent with that belief.

[ETA: It's as if they're saying that there is no immediate problem, but that the immediate problem is nevertheless Obama's fault.]

I think the problem with this statement is there is a difference between a problem and a crisis.

This doesn't mean I agree with blaming the current president alone for the downgrade.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How is blaming President Obama for the downgrade inconsistent with their current position.

Blame implies a current problem. The downgrade in credit rating means that we have a current credit problem. Boehner and Ryan both seemed to agree back then that we do have a current problem, and they blamed Obama.

I think the problem with this statement is there is a difference between a problem and a crisis.

Really? That's the only point of all this? You think they believe we have an immediate "problem" but that the problem isn't a "crisis"?

FWIW, Boehner's exact words to ABC were, "It’s not an immediate problem".

ETA: And the nuance in the position of Ryan and Boehner seems to be built on a strawman. They claim that their difference with Obama is that they say Obama says we don't need to do anything now to address the long term debt problem. But that's false. Obama even campaigned on what he called a "balanced approach" to the long term debt problem, that is, a combination of reining in spending and increasing revenues.

 

[BenBurch]

Does it logically follow that what he said was entirely true from what I said?

It follows that you need to define for us how you specifically believe his statement is not entirely true.

 

[pgwenthold]

This may warrant a split of the thread, but I would ask, what would be signs that we had an immediate debt crisis (or problem, however you want to describe it)? Other than "ooooh, $17 trillion...."

My first thought, which may be naive, is that interest rates would balloon, as investors would need more incentive to lend to the US government to make it worth the risk. Instead, the government is getting the money for some of the cheapest interest rates ever. That's not the sign of a risky investment.

Of course, we would see all the consequences of higher interest rates, but what else should we see if we were really having an immediate debt crisis?

 

[eeyore1954]

Really? That's the only point of all this? You think they believe we have an immediate "problem" but that the problem isn't a "crisis"?

FWIW, Boehner's exact words to ABC were, "It’s not an immediate problem".

That is the way I understood what was said. not an immediate crisis but one that is looming.
I have not listened to the actual exchange but everywhere I look the quote is

We do not have an immediate debt crisis,” Boehner said on ABC News’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “But we all know that we have one looming.

 

[eeyore1954]

It follows that you need to define for us how you specifically believe his statement is not entirely true.

Why I never said I agreed or disagreed that his statement was entirely true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is the way I understood what was said. not an immediate crisis but one that is looming.
I have not listened to the actual exchange but everywhere I look the quote is

The one I quoted above was from This Week on ABC yesterday. (Martha Raditz interview.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-speaker-house-john-boehner/story?id=18740183&page=2

I just saw another where one of those two used "problem" and "crisis" interchangeably--sorry, I closed that window. But I guarantee you their position is not that there is an immediate problem but not an immediate crisis. They're using "problem" and "crisis" interchangeably in saying we don't have an immediate debt problem/crisis.

[ETA: Here it is. The CBS link from the OP: "'So we do not have a debt crisis right now,' Ryan continued. 'But, we see it coming. We know it's irrefutably happening. And the point we're trying to make with our budget is, let's get ahead of this problem.'"]

Again, though, they're distinguishing themselves from Obama based on a strawman position (that Obama thinks we shouldn't do anything now to address the long term debt problem). It's an especially clumsy lie since Obama campaigned on his "balanced" approach to this long term problem, and much of the debates focused on exactly this issue. Also, wasn't the whole sequester thing Obama's idea? (Or at least an idea he pushed?) And we recently got through the tax part of the fiscal cliff issue with Obama pushing for at least some increase in tax revenues in order to help reduce the deficit in the short term standing up to the Norquist pledgers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This may warrant a split of the thread, but I would ask, what would be signs that we had an immediate debt crisis (or problem, however you want to describe it)? Other than "ooooh, $17 trillion...."

My first thought, which may be naive, is that interest rates would balloon, as investors would need more incentive to lend to the US government to make it worth the risk. Instead, the government is getting the money for some of the cheapest interest rates ever. That's not the sign of a risky investment.

Of course, we would see all the consequences of higher interest rates, but what else should we see if we were really having an immediate debt crisis?

Connected to interest rates, we would see less enthusiasm for buying government securities. In other words, we'd have to increase the rates paid in order to attract enough investment to fund federal debt.

But that's not what's happening now.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Republican party will attack anything Obama says just because it was Obama who said it, even if it was said by Republican congressman or vice presidents. The truth value doesn't matter.

That's what I see the point of the OP citing the RNC tweet. It looks like evidence of just that sort of thing.

I don't think there's any problem with members of the GOP not walking in lock step with one another. In fact, this is also evidence that Boehner and Ryan obviously aren't parroting talking points put out by the RNC. And that's a good thing, IMO.

But I also think Boehner and Ryan's attempting to distinguish their own from Obama's position is bogus.