Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So, i had a random thought today as i often do. could all of this stonewalling between the 2 parties be an attempt by the right, tea party or whoever to force the President into using his 14th Amendment powers?
Then just to turn around and try to impeach him for doing it?
From the NYtimes:
"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/30 02:57:19
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
I"m going to go out on a limb here (since all I'm doing is spewing my personal opinion), and postulate that both sides feel like they've been screwed over in the last decade.
The democrats look at the in-roads the Tea Party has made in D.C., Bush's 8 years in office (which many Dems still think he stole from Gore), the Bush tax cuts, and the war; and they think, "it's time we got some of ours!"
The Republicans on the other hand, see Obama's Presidency as a complete and utter disaster. Both sides are so firmly entrenched because they feel they've been screwed that neither side wants to give an inch. The politicians in Washington are afraid that if they give too much away, they'll dis-insentivize their core party support in the upcoming election.
No, because the 14th amendment doesn't authorize the President to do what the NYT is claiming he has the right to do.
alarmingrick wrote:"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "i really feel like the R's have really not been sincere in their side of the talks."
Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
That takes some pretty heavy (and awkward) interpretation to get the resutls that is claimed...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
biccat wrote:No, because the 14th amendment doesn't authorize the President to do what the NYT is claiming he has the right to do.
alarmingrick wrote:"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "i really feel like the R's have really not been sincere in their side of the talks."
Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
wait wait wait... if this is true and they were serious... their plan would save more right? Isn't this the exact opposite of what is happening? I'm pretty sure the Dem plan saves 1 trillion more than the corporate [MOD EDIT - Do NOT try to 'work around' the swear filter.] that is the Republican plan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/31 20:53:01
When Bush Jr. (and his administration) raised the debt ceiling seven times, I don't remember any big stink over those actions like this one.
do say.....
From 2006 during a debate to raise the debt ceiling....
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
biccat wrote:Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
If the measure of compromise was putting a bill into the house that your side loves, but had zero chance of passing the senate, which obviously it isn't.
Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others. When this debate began Boehner said he wanted a net savings that was no more than 15% revenue increases, and no more than that. Well, the Democrats offered up better than that more than a month ago, but the Republicans didn't even consider taking the deal.
I've explained to you before. You will again pretend it isn't true, because that lets you continue. This is a problem. It is, in large part, a symbol of the greater problem that's causing the logjam in Washington right now. Too many ideologues reacting to the world they like to pretend exists.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Most of the debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the medicaid drug act and the Iraq war, all of which they voted for with NO PLAN TO FUND THEM.
Despite nearly a decade of Republican mismanagement there were no signs that our debt had suddenly become unsustainable until they found it was a useful weapon to hold the government hostage for the second time this year.
The Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. None. They ran up this debt and now refuse to discuss any way to pay for it, except on the backs of the poor and working class.
Most of the debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the medicaid drug act and the Iraq war, all of which they voted for with NO PLAN TO FUND THEM.
Despite nearly a decade of Republican mismanagement there were no signs that our debt had suddenly become unsustainable until they found it was a useful weapon to hold the government hostage for the second time this year.
The Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. None. They ran up this debt and now refuse to discuss any way to pay for it, except on the backs of the poor and working class.
Well said , KK!
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
BTW, the 14th ammendment thing, that just means POTUS must pay any debts legally incurred. It in no way allows him to issue new debt, which is the issue with having no money.
So the Constitution says the President MUST pay Goldman Sacks et al, before he pays the troops, social security, whatever.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Sounds like Obama is sticking to his guns, no matter how old those guns are.
Geeze. Whoever thought having an honest, reliable, politician who says what he means and sticks by his word would cause so much fuss?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/31 17:37:35
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Sounds like Obama is sticking to his guns, no matter how old those guns are.
Geeze. Whoever thought having an honest, reliable, politician who says what he means and sticks by his word would cause so much fuss?
The 'D' should have been your first clue....
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
From 2006 during a debate to raise the debt ceiling....
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Obama did, however, vote in favor of TARP, which raised the debt ceiling by $700 billion.
Additionally, Obama (and other Democrat leaders) have openly said that they're opposition to the 2006 increase was politically motivated, which moves the argument on the Republican side into either "They did it, so we can too!" territory, or the much more effective "This is immoral and/or irresponsible!" territory.
Of course, the reality is that those Republicans currently trying to oppose any debt ceiling increase were largely not in office for the previous votes to increase, and the one's that were have essentially avoided the issue of political motivation altogether, in part because the Democrats took it away by saying they were wrong for exactly the reason they claim that the Republicans are now wrong.
At the moment the fight is between a group of Republicans who are either ideologically committed to not raising the debt ceiling, or acting in representation of constituencies that are, and a group of Republicans that want to raise the debt ceiling in concert with being seen to address the deficit in some capacity. Because of this it isn't so much that the Republicans are being obstructionist, as they are squabbling amongst themselves for leadership of the Party.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:BTW, the 14th ammendment thing, that just means POTUS must pay any debts legally incurred. It in no way allows him to issue new debt, which is the issue with having no money.
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
sebster wrote:If the measure of compromise was putting a bill into the house that your side loves, but had zero chance of passing the senate, which obviously it isn't.
So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
sebster wrote:Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others. When this debate began Boehner said he wanted a net savings that was no more than 15% revenue increases, and no more than that. Well, the Democrats offered up better than that more than a month ago, but the Republicans didn't even consider taking the deal.
Which is plainly false, since the Democrats didn't offer anything of the sort "more than a month ago." But like you said, compromise is about accepting that you will have to concede something to get others. For example, the President wants an increase in the debt limit of $2 Trillion+. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts.
biccat wrote:
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
The NYT article presented does not advance the claim that the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, it advances the claim that others claim the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, while also stating that the Administration does not believe it has such a power.
I mean, this is the first line of the article:
While President Obama’s critics on the right regularly call him a tyrant, in the debt-limit showdown he is flatly rejecting presidential powers that others claim for him.
With the "others" bit backed up by this:
Several House Democratic leaders, former President Bill Clinton and some constitutional lawyers in recent days have said Mr. Obama should, if necessary, invoke the amendment, which holds that “the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned.”
And the Administration's position given by this:
But Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, said at his Friday briefing for White House reporters: “This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling. Congress has the authorities necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations.”
Honestly, I don't see how you could read, from the article, that the NYT is advocating either side. Unless you believe that reporting on what others are saying is a tacit endorsement of what is being said, in which case you must have some strange opinions about conservative media and Islamic terrorism, or liberal media and gay marriage.
biccat wrote:
In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts
That doesn't imply that nothing is being given up, it implies that some of spending cuts the Republicans want are being countered by proposed tax increases by Democrats. The Reid bill is a good example of this.
Additionally, it is disingenuous to suppose that the President is the only party witch an active interest in raising the debt ceiling when Republican leaders have also expressed an interest in it.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
biccat wrote:
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
The NYT article presented does not advance the claim that the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, it advances the claim that others claim the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, while also stating that the Administration does not believe it has such a power.
Actually, the article does advance that claim, specifically by failing to accurately present both sides of the debate.
In fact, can you identify any opposition to the constitutional interpretation advanced, other than "what the language of the Civil War-era amendment means is unclear"? The interpretation advanced by this article is novel and, quite frankly, absurd. But for some reason, the NYT was unable to find anyone to contradict the position.
dogma wrote:That doesn't imply that nothing is being given up, it implies that some of spending cuts the Republicans want are being countered by proposed tax increases by Democrats. The Reid bill is a good example of this.
That doesn't follow. The only way you could show that tax increases are being proposed as a counter to spending cuts is by showing that there's a general agreement between raising the debt ceiling and some level of cuts. This hasn't happened, so I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusion.
biccat wrote:
Actually, the article does advance that claim, specifically by failing to accurately present both sides of the debate.
Sure it doesn't accurately present either side of the debate, it presents them an summary. I mean, it isn't specifically accurate, but that is the nature of summary.
One side claims that the President has the power to overrule the debt limit, and the other claims that he does not. Accurately presenting each side does not involve claiming that one is correct.
For someone that complains about biased news, you seem awfully keen to advocate biased news.
biccat wrote:
In fact, can you identify any opposition to the constitutional interpretation advanced, other than "what the language of the Civil War-era amendment means is unclear"?
I already did: the quote from the Administration. Apparently you didn't read my post.
biccat wrote:
The interpretation advanced by this article is novel and, quite frankly, absurd. But for some reason, the NYT was unable to find anyone to contradict the position.
What interpretation? At what point does the article explicitly advance any interpretation of the 14th?
biccat wrote:
That doesn't follow. The only way you could show that tax increases are being proposed as a counter to spending cuts is by showing that there's a general agreement between raising the debt ceiling and some level of cuts. This hasn't happened, so I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusion.
The Reid bill versus the Cantor bill.
I don't need to show that Republicans and Democrats are, collectively, countering one another, only that some Republicans and some Democrats are countering one another; because compromise is non-specific.
I alluded to this above.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/08/01 11:37:33
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Which is plainly false, since the Democrats didn't offer anything of the sort "more than a month ago."
Is the problem just that you don't actually know the substance of the debate? Are you claiming Boehner never laid out an 85/15 split as the target, or are you claiming that the Democrat offer of 83/17 was substantially different from that?
But like you said, compromise is about accepting that you will have to concede something to get others. For example, the President wants an increase in the debt limit of $2 Trillion+. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts.
Both sides want to fund the continuing operation of the country. Outside of the loonie fringe of one party, everyone realises that this requires increasing the debt limit, because default is bad.
The actual debate is over how much the ceiling is raised by, and what revenue increases and expenditure reductions are made to improve the bottom line in the meantime.
In this debate, the Democrats wanted something near a 50/50 proportion, and ceded that position a long time ago. Meanwhile, the Republicans wanted something like 85/15, and have been pretending that they haven't been offered that position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/08/01 02:59:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
Steadfastly refusing to agree to ANYTHING except exactly what you want (which is pretty much what the Dems got, given the details I'm seeing from the 'compromise') doesn't make the other side unwilling to compromise. It makes you a jerk.
sebster wrote:Is the problem just that you don't actually know the substance of the debate? Are you claiming Boehner never laid out an 85/15 split as the target, or are you claiming that the Democrat offer of 83/17 was substantially different from that?
Perhaps if you would make it clear what Democrat plan or concession you're referring to. Are you referring to Obama's "We'll accept this...no, wait, we won't" moment?
sebster wrote:Both sides want to fund the continuing operation of the country. Outside of the loonie fringe of one party, everyone realises that this requires increasing the debt limit, because default is bad.
I'm not sure you understand what is meant by default. Failing to pass the debt ceiling increase will not result in default, at least not for a significant amount of time. If we're at the point where we can't service our current debt without taking on more debt then we're already hosed.
Fortunately, this isn't the case, because there is more than enough of a revinue stream into the US government to satisfy our current debt obligations.
sebster wrote:In this debate, the Democrats wanted something near a 50/50 proportion, and ceded that position a long time ago. Meanwhile, the Republicans wanted something like 85/15, and have been pretending that they haven't been offered that position.
The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
You're both right.
Webster wrote:com·pro·mise/ˈkämprəˌmīz/ Noun: An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
Both sides have to support a compromise, otherwise it doesn't work.
And claiming democrats haven't tried to compromise makes me giggle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/08/01 17:23:35
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?
As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.
But of course, all our circumstances are different....
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
sebster wrote:
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
Those are both accurate definitions of "compromise". As I said earlier, it is a nonspecific term.
biccat wrote:
Perhaps if you would make it clear what Democrat plan or concession you're referring to. Are you referring to Obama's "We'll accept this...no, wait, we won't" moment?
You were unwilling to above, and yet you request it now?
Perhaps, if you want specificity, you should begin there.
Just a suggestion.
biccat wrote:
The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.
Really?
Lowering rates, and broadening the base.
Broadening the base means increasing the effective tax rate of at least some people. And, last time I checked, John Boehner had an R after his name, and was considered a leader of said R group.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:You were unwilling to above, and yet you request it now?
Not sure what you're talking about. Was it something in your inflamatory post above? I've been advised by the moderators to ignore troll posts, so I'm trying to make judgment calls on whether to respond to your posts or not. I may have missed something, so perhaps you could specify what request you made.
dogma wrote:Really?
Lowering rates, and broadening the base.
Broadening the base means increasing the effective tax rate of at least some people. And, last time I checked, John Boehner had an R after his name, and was considered a leader of said R group.
Really. You can increase tax revinue by means other than raising taxes. For example, if you increase economic performance, more people will be making money, thereby leading to more tax income. As Marco Rubio said in an excellent speech earlier during this debate, "we need more taxpayers, not more taxes."
However, you're technically right that increasing employment would lead to a higher effective tax rate on their earnings.
biccat wrote:
Not sure what you're talking about. Was it something in your inflamatory post above?
It is inflammatory to ask questions regarding your beliefs about specific topics?
Or are you referring to my statement about bias, and your seemingly odd relationship with it?
biccat wrote:
I've been advised by the moderators to ignore troll posts, so I'm trying to make judgment calls on whether to respond to your posts or not. I may have missed something, so perhaps you could specify what request you made.
No, you clearly stated things about Republicans and Democrats, both in general, regarding debt negotiations, and seemed keen to proceed in that manner, but now you seem to be recanting.
I'm merely stating that if you're interested in discussing a specific debt proposal then you should probably lead the way. I mean, there aren't that many worth mentioning, and on the Republican side two of the prominent ones contravene what you're saying regarding the absence of tax increases (Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell by technicality).
biccat wrote:
Really. You can increase tax revinue by means other than raising taxes. For example, if you increase economic performance, more people will be making money, thereby leading to more tax income. As Marco Rubio said in an excellent speech earlier during this debate, "we need more taxpayers, not more taxes."
However, you're technically right that increasing employment would lead to a higher effective tax rate on their earnings.
Indeed you can, but that wasn't what Mr. Boehner was talking about. Unless he intends to lower the rate of employment, and broaden the base of employment; which would not beyond the political rhetoric of either party.
I suppose he could have been talking about lowering the rate of taxes, and broadening the base of employment, but that would be an odd change of topic without a specific redirect given the question asked; meaning that it was either a gaffe or a statement about raising taxes.
Keep in mind, I was claiming that your statement, that no Republican leader has ever been in favor of tax increases, was wrong. Not that there was no way to increase revenue without increasing taxes.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
