Ceilings, wo-oh-oh ceilings, ceilings, ceilings of debt!

I Am Starting To Question Karl Rove’s Intellectual Honesty | The New Republic


Karl Rove, still unremorseful about his administration’s eight-year spree of deficit-increasing measures, argues today that the debt ceiling has to be raised only because of the Democrats’ big-gummint ways:

A vote to raise the debt ceiling is an acknowledgment of past actions—in this case Mr. Obama’s massive spending since coming to office. Republicans are not to be blamed for Mr. Obama’s spending.

Heavens no. The debt ceiling is only being raised because of Obama’s spending. So I guess we never had to raise the debt ceiling before Obama did we? let’s consult another authority on this subject — the same column by Rove:

Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), like Mr. Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. But the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee said Monday that the S&P announcement sends a “very clear” signal to Republicans not to “play games with the debt ceiling.” 

Wait, Obama was president in 2006, too? Or perhaps they were voting in 2006 to raise the debt ceiling in anticipation of Obama’s profligacy?

Or maybe the debt ceiling is raised regularly under every administration, regardless of whether the deficit is growing or shrinking, and it’s not really an “acknowledgement” of anything at all, but it is a chance for partisan hacks to make a demagogic attack against the president. Nah.


4 comments on “Ceilings, wo-oh-oh ceilings, ceilings, ceilings of debt!

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. From the Happy Horsehockey Pile file

    The outcome of the 2011 budget skirmish demonstrated that neither Republicans nor Democrats are anxious to precipitate a crisis of government, and perhaps Obama is banking on that. But instead of looking for common ground – a slow walk back from the precipice – he is polarizing the fiscal issue with an ideological stance that ignores the incontrovertible reality of America’s debt problem. We cannot continue as he proposes. Others recognize that, including a number of Democrats in Congress.

    Perhaps this is what America needed: to see an ideologue take the insistent positions of the collectivist left to their natural conclusions. For Obama, the virtually unmanageable size of the federal debt is not an issue that should make us change policies. The main issue for him is preventing a reduction in the reach of government. He is impervious to the demands of reality, and will apparently stay his ideological course.

    Even many Democrats must recognize now that they will have to work without Obama until the end of this Congress.

    We run up a heel of a debt by reducing taxation of the wealthy while spending a trillion borrowed bucks on a war in Iraq that did nothing good for us or anyone.

    I doubt that those things can be said to be a result of Obama’s tin ear or lack of leadership.

    By: fuster on April 14, 2011
    at 1:48 am


    Nobody recently has been paying much attention to the eight year trillion dollar total cost of Iraq, fuster. They’re more concerned about the ten year ten trillion + dollar cost of maintaining last year’s budget increase, which the Demos seem determined to sustain after having failed to increase taxes during the two years during which they could have done anything they wanted.

    sully on April 14, 2011
    at 10:45 pm

  2. “The demands of reality.” “Incontrovertible reality of America’s debt problem.”

    Hard to imagine more “ideological” phrases than those: My point of view is “reality,” a reality that itself is able to make “demands.” Your disagreement or divergence from that point of view is by definition insanity – schizophrenia or psychosis perhaps.

    I thought you’d like the Nina.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *