Skip to main content

View Diary: Who's going to blink? (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For the sequester, both parties are to blame, (4+ / 0-)

    and it's no good pretending otherwise.  Saying this is not giving comfort to the enemy.  Democrats controlled the Senate; this law could not have passed without their complicity.  Didn't McConnell say he got 98% of what he wanted?

    You might say, the alternative was worse.  But it wasn't.  Clinton knew what he was doing when he stood up to the Republicans and their ridiculous threat of shutting down the federal government.

    •  um, you're wrong here. (0+ / 0-)

      the democrats PREVENTED a total meltdown of not only our own economy, but the world economy, as well.

      the republicans have been obstructing and damaging us in every way possible - and you are falling into the trap by blaming the democrats.

      that was the plan - and it appears to have worked when other democrats and progressives deflect the blame onto democrats instead of where it actually belongs:  tea party republicans, republicans, koch brothers, money brokers, etc.

      don't fall for it.  if you and others do, the republicans will have succeeded in destroying this nation and any others they can take with us.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 12:35:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, yeah I've fallen into the Trap. (0+ / 0-)

        When you have an example of the world economy "melting down" because a government chose to bail out people not banks, maybe I'll listen to you.

        •  who, exactly, do you think would pay the price (0+ / 0-)

          if the banks failed?

          [hint: little people whose money is IN those banks - think '20s]

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 12:52:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's what FDIC was meant to be for. To protect (0+ / 0-)

            the "little people" (to use your condescending phrase).  Not bloated executive bonuses.

            To add, the sequester isn't a (direct) consequence of the bailout.  It came about because of the deficit. Republicans wanted to turn the screws on the poor a full turn, and Democrats only wanted to turn them half a turn.  So they agreed on 98% of a turn (as estimated by McConnell), followed by more pain a few months down the line.  

            •  fer chrissakes! if you don't get "little people" (0+ / 0-)

              in friggin' quotes as it was meant and you see it as "condescending", then i've nothing more to say here.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 01:13:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't see any quotes, frigging (0+ / 0-)

                or otherwise, in your comment. Still don't.
                It was I who used the quotes to indicate that I was, well, quoting.

                I'm happy to believe that you did not intend condescension in talking of "little people". Note, however, that telling me I'm "falling into the trap"  can scarcely be construed as anything but...

          •  Um, I don't know any (0+ / 0-)

            "little people" who have more than $250,000 in any one bank account. That means their money is covered by FDIC, even if it's just bits and bytes in somebody's computer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site