Explaining The Debt Ceiling Debate

Kevin Drum aptly notes that over at YouGov, they've done up a chart that essentially explains "all of modern politics." It definitely explains why the "debt ceiling debate" has proceeded the way it has.

Per YouGov:

Americans are fairly evenly divided on the question of compromising in order to get things down, but the party difference is wide. By nearly two to one, Republicans want their representatives to stick to their principles, while by a somewhat wider margin, Democrats would want their representatives to compromise to get things done.

Let's visualize this.

Everyone is just doing what comes naturally, it seems.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[sfizi]

05:21 PM on 07/20/2011

What is there to explain !

[Schaef]

01:33 PM on 07/18/2011

"Who would ever think a wealthy person would want more money."

Yes, because the only way they ever became wealthy was by betting back and forth a million at a time and releasing confidential tax information to each other to do it.

"To show it is valid and comparable to the Buffett example. Which of course, yours is not."

Another nonsensical (and repeated) claim. You don't need to read a media report that I said something. I said it DIRECTLY TO YOU. How could you be posting your responses, if you can't verify my original posts without media confirmation?

"Not interested in mere assertions­."

Clearly you're not interested. But relevance is not determined by your level of interest, but the correlation between two pieces of information.

"Unverifiab­le, anonymous internet assertion."

You keep saying this but you have presented zero points of data that specifically quantify Buffet's taxation. The only difference between his claim and mine is that you know his full name.

"If [you] would like to try and explain the fairness in a system... give it a shot."

You're right to say it's a challenge, considering the difficulty inherent in addressing an issue which you have approached from three completely different standards and given zero consideration to the one-for-one comparison I made based on a single standard, not only provided by your source, but the first such standard and the one to which I have faithfully adhered throughout the discussion.

[mp905]

10:35 PM on 07/14/2011

The chart is beautiful in its simplicity. Republicans stick to their guns, Democrats compromise, take one step to the right. Repeat. Continue until the US is a corporate theocracy.

[aaranged]

03:23 PM on 07/14/2011

Thank goodness America is a two party state! Other than that, think of the difficulties graphic designers would face in coming up with such infographics.

[Madagain]

05:07 AM on 07/14/2011

And yet, the GOP are the first to charge President Obama with the intransigence they exibit in every negotiation. Up is down and right is left, for the party of NO.

[Dave F]

04:39 PM on 07/13/2011

That explains why when the GOP takes over a House of Congress, they are called "do nothing" Congresses. The GOP wants to prove that government can't work, then they get elected and do nothing to prove the point - oh, and then they call that "sticking by their principles," so the base keeps voting for them.

[Erin DeCaprio]

09:58 PM on 07/12/2011

I like to think that one of the core principles of government reps IS to get things done.

[JShankel]

05:12 PM on 07/12/2011

Did you hear the one about Republican fiscal responsibility?  Order everything on the menu and then when the waiter presents the bill, tell him it wouldn't be fiscally responsible to expect the customer to pay.  Then pass a bill taking away the waiter's health insurance to cover the cost of the meal.

[wrightthewrong]

06:25 PM on 07/14/2011

And don't forget -- be sure to tell the waiter that the next person sitting at the table is responsible for the bill...

[MGWilson]

04:39 PM on 07/12/2011

I prefer a congress person that is smart enough to know when one or the other is more important.

[Douvie]

04:43 PM on 07/12/2011

F/F.

[WoodyCPM]

04:48 PM on 07/12/2011

Wouldn't that be nice.

[ALABAMALEFTIST]

04:29 PM on 07/12/2011

Quite likely there will be an heroic last minute "Grand Compromise". Someone will shout that our great system actually works. Unfortunately, the compromiseit will be between a right wing neoliberal solution and an extreme right wing neoliberal solution. The workers will bleed some, a few old people will go hungry and a few sick children will die but it will not be enough to shake the shining city on a hill Horatio Alger delusion, and the rich will haul huge sacks of money to the Seychelles where they can vacation with Will and Kate. Then we can gear up for another war to bring hope, democracy,capitalism and McDonald's cheeseburgers to the downtrodden masses overseas.

[WoodyCPM]

04:49 PM on 07/12/2011

I'm happy to see that you're writing this down. I hope you write a book. F/F

[robadeaux]

04:54 PM on 07/12/2011

maybe we could have that war right here and reduce transportation costs a bit... the saved money can go right to the bottom line of the war monger profiteers.

[norby413]

05:14 PM on 07/12/2011

That would be one way to get OUR infrastructure rebuilt...

[Json]

05:25 PM on 07/12/2011

President Thomas 'Tug' Benson: Here's the target area.
Gerou: That's Minnesota, sir.
President Thomas 'Tug' Benson: Damn it, man, that's the genius of my plan. Why go over there to fight? We can do it right here at home, and get in some good fishing while we're at it.
Gerou: Sir, the enemy is over there.
President Thomas 'Tug' Benson: Then we'll fly them over here. Their families too. We'll teach them to skate... Do I have to think of everything?

[redscarecrow]

04:27 PM on 07/12/2011

The two parties (actualy one) don't have principles they have donors. That's the explanation.

[para cord]

04:22 PM on 07/12/2011

Yep. If you can't vote for someone who sticks to principles, you have NO IDEA what they're going to do.

Dems don't have many principles, so its easier for them to "compromise."

[USAFree1]

04:32 PM on 07/12/2011

See rolor's comment below

[Tori Mccuen]

04:32 PM on 07/12/2011

Do those republican principles include putting the burden on those that are already struggling and rewarding those that have seen an average annual increase of 10-14% in the past decade? And do they include allowing big business to continue to reap the benefits of tax loopholes because those same businesses are lining their pockets. Are you talking about sticking to those principles?

[rolor]

04:22 PM on 07/12/2011

Ideology over country has clearly been the right-wing approach toward nation-building. They have proven time and again that they are nothing more than a western version of the Taliban.

[saltpeter]

08:21 AM on 07/13/2011

They will do everything it takes to double down on the failure that is trickle down economics because coming up with new and viable ideas is just too much hassle. It's easier for them to get a new group of gullible goons to pander to than to re-evaluate their failed philosophies.

[the-lexicon]

04:17 PM on 07/12/2011

Republicans introduced a lot of spending bills over the last ten years.

Democrats introduced a few as well.

Now, Republicans in congress are saying they're not going to pay for these passed bills.

And, they're demanding that the democrats accept that all the democrat bills be the ones to be defunded.

Let's make this simple. IF the republicans are actually interested in deficit reduction, let them withdraw as many spending bills as they themselves have introduced over the last ten years, as they need to, to stop spending!

It was the republicans, after all, that did all that spending. They spent like drunken sailors between 2001 and 2007, though many like to blame the democrats of 2007-2008.

[para cord]

04:23 PM on 07/12/2011

Nope, they're saying they are going to cut the breadth and scope of those bills.

If you but the deluxe cable package and then are short on dough, you call them back and cut it down.

[kamachanda]

05:10 PM on 07/12/2011

If you purchased a deluxe cable package, you have a contract for that package lasting one to two years. You have committed to a certain amount of expense. This is particularly true if the cable company does not welcome you as liberators, spread flowers at your feet and pay for your cable out of their other cable revenue.

[norby413]

05:16 PM on 07/12/2011

YOU don't know how cable contracts work....LOL!

[Al Maginnes]

05:42 PM on 07/12/2011

Don't say Republicans spend like drunken sailors! You're insulting drunken sailors everywhere.

[saltpeter]

08:26 AM on 07/13/2011

The only difference is drunken sailors actually pay for what they spend.

[The Open Mind]

11:41 AM on 07/13/2011

LOL!

[powermuffn]

04:12 PM on 07/12/2011

It's not surprising that Republicans vote this way and carry this kind of a chip on their shoulder. Their philosophy toward this particular administration is "destruction at all costs", and why is that, America? Can we not accept exactly "who" or "what" defines the President that we elected by a great majority? That he is not performing to our expectations notwithstanding, the story on the Republican side is very different from that of the Democrats. There are ways to finesse a "no new taxes" pledge, such as the one extracted by dictator-in-chief Grover Norquist. Instead of raising tax rates, you plug a loophole in the name of reform, add an enhancement here, and a "user fee" there and you have done what you could and still be able to say you didn't raise "new taxes".

But to the delight of Mr. Norquist, the Republicans are taking the stance that not ONE CENT of new revenue can be raised, no matter the euphemism. Some Democrats are being cantankerous about the resulting "negotiations", true, but Republicans are refusing to negotiate at all. That's not the same thing.

No one should be confused about what the President faces here: On one side, grousing and grumbling about perceived sacrifices -- and on the other, a brick wall.