The Diane Rehm Show

"and the cites for previous comment. cause unlike ecgberht, I prefer to be right and show proof than to practice mis-statist policies."
First, government publications and the NY Times do not constitute "proof" except in your alternate reality.
Second, your response was WAY more than 10 words and still hasn't answered the simplest of questions. Instead of guessing what I "meant" by my question, or launchig into a Clinton kiss-ass/Bush-bash session, just ... answer ... the ... question.
Why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling? Again, I can answer in 10 words or less. You can't seem to do it four or five lengthy posts.
And finally, "Republicans wont have as much incentive to run up the debt".
Over 40% (and growing) of the nation's budget is owing to social justice programs started and enlarged by Democrats since 1930.

I take that to mean, "no I cannot answer the question in 10 words or less". It has nothing to do with "honor" or "red herring" or "infantile argument". What it has to do with is an ability to boil the most complex issues down to simple principles. That's a sign of intelligence. Think e=mc2.
"perhaps someone who cares about these issues can read my comments and cites". Another fantasy of yours. Trust me, bubala, ain't nobody reading this but you and me.
The rest of this is your opinion on fiscal policy and how the people's money should be spent. Like my granny said, "opinions are like ass holes. Everybody's got one".

Why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling?

waiting ecgberht, hapless king of great britain, ally to the pope,

what is this e=mc2 equivalent for the debt ceiling?

hmmmm. time is ticking. I will give you 100 minutes to respond. That is at least 10 minutes per precious word. If only I knew that 10 word statements were equivalent to considered and ponderous academic exercises with endless endnotes.

yes, I realize you are sooooo brilliant --- ten words or less, the sound bite on steroids. Those 15 second clips of politicians are way to long allowing for more than 50 words. This could be the beginning of the a new debate form for Republicans: only 10 words per answer.

waiting...

waiting....

"Why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling?"
Because the Federal Government spends more than it takes in.

Nothing to do with "honor" or "red herring" or "infantile argument".
A simple concept that you don't get. Now put that obvious answer, which you weren't able to come up with, in the context of my post from 12:09 yesterday and the downgrade from S&P.
The FG spends more than it takes in. The fact that the debt ceiling needed to be increased (and the Federal debt has increased about 40% in the past 2 1/2 years) says that the trend shows no sign of slowing down. Now you speak of, "the untruth that us bonds wont be paid back". I think this simpleton notion comes from the idea that "it is unthinkable that the US would ever default". A lot of people hold that view. I love this country. It's the greatest in history. But every great country that has fallen has fallen due to poor fiscal policy. And it doesn't mean that we are immune from the same fiscal mistakes. Here is an important lesson for you; some may think, when they look at the U.S. that America and default could never be in the same sentence. When money men look at the U.S., they see it differently. They see it in terms of dollars and cents, in terms of fiscal soundness - just like a bank does when it decides whether to make you that mortgage loan or not. So if you think that the concepts of America and default create cognitive dissonance for you, the take away lesson from the downgrade is; Money men don't care. Print that out and stick it on your mirror and look at it every day. It's an important idea. They are completely dispassionate. Money men don't care - about anything but our ability to pay back our loans and remain fiscally sound. As great as this country is and was, to them that assurance is not set in stone.

Poor ecgberht, despite being aware of Baran and packet switching, a comment left on the Internet is not tree falling in a forest, never to be heard. Just click on http://tinyurl.com/ecgberhtondrshow to read any and all of his (or her) comments on this site (or use the search). Eventually the comments will hit the Internet Archive or similar system. I sometimes check on my first web site started 16 years ago.

After Bill Maher on his show expressed disdain for Internet political chats on his RealTime show, I decided to take the plunge again to see if it was still so bad. Having written and studied online politics for a couple decades, I assumed he was right. Of course there are some listservs that can be quite good, but based on perusals of CNN and WAMU, Maher was right. I tried to engage with clearly one of the most knowledgeable on the chat, but I did not feel we ever had an interaction that improved either of our arguments.

I think that very little meeting of the minds happen, and definitely no synthesis of ideas. And new ideas outside of conspiracy theories seem few and far between. What I most dislike is that the DRSHOW does little to help provide primers for each topic (though the lack of them is the norm). ecgberht and I competed to explain things. Obviously, I thought that mine were correct, but since there is no neutral party to officiate, nothing seemed to change. I did try and look up ecgberht's assertions and did find one thing I didn't know or had forgotten about Barney Frank, but often they were unsupportable or essentially opinions.

cont.