Harry Reid Happy to Play Politics With the Debt Limit When the Other Party Is In Charge

|

Here's his vote.

In the debt limit debate, Democratic leadership has spent a lot of time complaining about Republicans being intransigent, refusing to work together, and playing politics rather than working toward solutions. Of course, as Byron York notes, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's vote record on previous debt limit hikes suggests that, historically, that's exactly how he's treated debt limit battles too:

According to "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases," a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000.  Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.

He's not the only one. York reports that Sen. Dick Durbin, Senate Democrats' second in command, has an equally partisan vote record, always voting against his opponents in the GOP. And then there's Obama, who, as Senator, declared that his predecessor's request to raise the debt limit represented a "failure of leadership"—and then voted against it. 

NEXT: George Will Review: "America is moving in the libertarians' direction"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Partisan asshole is partisan. Not much of a shock, so I’ll pimp my latest cartoon.

      1. Pimping is HARD goddamm work when everyone knows you only have that one hideously deformed hooker in your stable.

    1. The fact that Chip Bok gets paid and you don’t is a real shame.

      1. Thanks. It would be nice to get paid. Maybe I should start pimping something else…

        1. The fact that Chip Bok gets paid and you don’t is a real shame.

          Yep. The free market is a friggin’ shame.

          Free minds and free markets?.

        2. Maybe you could be an irrelevant troll. That seems to be someone’s mission in life.

          1. Are you talking to me, “Episiarch”?

            You said that a person (Bok) getting paid for providing a service was a “real shame.” I pointed out the irony in your saying so on a libertarian site that uses the tagline, “Free Minds and Free Markets.” I would contend that you are the “irrelevant” one here, regardless of what you call me (a “troll”? How quaint!)

            1. Pretty sure he was referring to rectal’s incessant blogwhoring.

        3. How hilarious. It thinks I actually addressed it instead of you, BP.

          1. Well hopefully it will be gone before it gets to know you better. The caliber of troll around here just fucking sucks. Worse, I think my cartoon about that made HERC leave. If it weren’t for PALEOCRITA, we’d be in troll hell, Epi.

            1. If only your cartoons could make all of them leave.

              1. Well your cartoon make me laugh, and not because it was funny either

    2. Me likedy, BP.

  2. Even yet still more proof that these guys are a bunch of hypocritical assholes. Blue team good, red team ba-aa-aa-aa-ad.

    1. Here was mine:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

      I really should take the 3 minutes to learn how to do embedded links.

      1. You can right click the video and select “Copy video URL at current time”.

        1. My. God.

  3. PDF alert!

    Hey, it just means they’re fiscally responsible some of the time. Have our Senate Rethug friends ever not voted to increase the ceiling?

  4. Harry Reid’s getting really tiresome now. Can we replace him with somebody more productive and interesting, like, I don’t know, a garden gnome?

    1. Harry Reid: Nevadas way of making the rest of the country suffer for the last 30 years!

    2. Harry Reid does all he can to make all gambling–except for in Nevada–illegal. He’s the casinos’ best friend. With that kind of backing, he ain’t going nowhere.

      1. I’d say he’s gambling big time with the entire Fed budget.

      2. So that’s 1 confirmed politician-owned-by-the-mob.

  5. Let me be clear.

    I have no recollection of ever having said, “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. … 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 and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

    1. He never said it.

      And we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

      1. …is off the books.

        1. That’s because it’s peace funding.

    2. The Tea Party Republicans should release that exact quote in a press release.

      1. Then Dems would just point out their hypocrisy. Politicians don’t want to get into a hypocrisy war given that no one wins.

        1. How about a nice game of chess?

          1. How about a little poontang before the whole planet is blown the fuck up?

            1. Ska, you need to report to sexual-harassment sensitivity training.

              Now.

  6. Conversely, there must be a slew of Republicans who are now steadfastly refusing to increase the limit but who had no problem raising it during the Bush years.

    Hypocrisy knows no party. Or, should I say, knows all.

    1. Republicans aren’t refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The House has passed two proposals that would raise the debt ceiling. Reid refuses to hold a vote on either bill.

    2. For many, it is as you say. But many also were not in Congress then.

      1. I hasten to add that it remains to be seen how they would react to a Republican administration and that they should probably be considered guilty until proving themselves innocent.

        1. “…they should probably be considered guilty until proving themselves innocent.”

          In the case of our political masters? Absolutely.

          1. our political masters

            That sumbitch ain’t been born!

    3. It must be pointed out that half of the 22 Republicans who voted against it in the House were freshman though. So at least those guys can’t be accused of anything. The other 11 would need more research which I don’t care to do.

      1. Bachmann and Broun have never voted for a debt ceiling increase (unlike Reason‘s favorite statist Jeff Flake).

        The “Gephardt rule” prevented debt ceiling vote roll calls in the House for many years.The 2010 vote was along party lines with all Republicans opposing.

        1. I hadn’t paid much attention to Jeff Flake, but reading his voting record, how the hell does the Republican Liberty Caucus endorse this guy. These allegedly “libertarian” republicans apparently don’t know what the term means.

          1. OTOH, he is a typical libertarian

      2. One of them was Ron Paul.

  7. This guy is a whack job! And someone tell Obama we have a major dilemma on our hands, and to quit hiding and get is head out of his ass!

    1. I’m enjoying viewing myself from the inside.

  8. One of the reasons we ended up with Obama as president, rather than some other entrenched big name Democrat, was because the Democrats were so pathetic in their rubber-stamping of everything the Bush Administration did.

    Obama presented some genuine opposition when he was part of the loyal opposition.

    In terms of Tea Party candidates throwing a monkey wrench into the budget debates, I consider that the responsibility of the loyal opposition. I know that’s a hard concept for some people to comprehend–especially in times of national crisis.

    …but fer Christ’s sake, we’ve been in a permanent state of national crisis for ten years now. If the loyal opposition refrained from opposing until there weren’t any national crises anymore, then they’d never oppose anything!

    God bless the loyal opposition–Democrat or Republican–when they have the cajones to oppose.

    1. Thread winner!

    2. Sorry to nitpick, Ken: Cojones

      (‘cajon’ is a drawer)

      1. Whatever.

        1. Don’t make me slam a cajon on your cojones, nitpicker.

    3. but fer Christ’s sake, we’ve been in a permanent state of national crisis for ten years now.

      10? Try 70. First we had to sacrifice because Hitler was going to take over the world, then because the Soviets were going to take over the world, and for about the last 10 to 20, the Muslims are the new bad guys. This is leaving out all of the lesser du jour crises (Anthrax in the mail, killer bees, Global Cooling/Warming/Change, right wing militias aka rednecks playing with guns in the woods, DDT, dirty bombs, E. coli, Y2K, West Nile virus, etc.)

      Apologies to all of the panics I left out. We loved and feared you just as much when we were concerned about you.

      1. Great Depression.

        The Fed tried “moral suasion” during the late twenties.

        Try 83 or so years.

    4. Good points. I recall how Iraq II was a crisis and we had to vote cause the nerve gas was on the way and our air conditioning wouldn’t last more than a month, et al. And I recall the two other predominant democratic presidential candidates going along.
      I know its a radical notion, but the point of congress is not lifelong employment.
      Vote on issues and you may not get re-elected –thats how its designed.

  9. I heard Jeff Flake on NPR yesterday and I think he has a good idea for a compromise. Iirc he said he would sign on to pretty much any deal for raising the debt limit if Congress passed (or promised to pass, something along these lines) a balanced budget amenmdment.

    1. Here’s his quote, again, sounds like a great deal to me:

      FLAKE: Perhaps. Let me just tell you, for myself, I would just take the Reid bill in its entirety, just add the balanced budget amendment. And I wouldn’t even insist on the balanced budget amendment that I like, the ones with super majority requirements or – I would just say a plain, vanilla balanced budget amendment.

      1. A BBA that ignores military and entitlement spending is essentially meaningless.

    2. Sorry, but this BBA posturing is just more crap. TPTB already ignore the Constitution and the ceiling. They can, and will, ignore a BBA.

      1. They will do one better and craft a BBA so that is actually allows them to do what they want. For the statist fuck the only thing better than ignoring the Constitution when it prevents you from “doing the right thing” is rewriting it so that it allows you to “do the right thing”.

    3. Have you been living in a cave or something? Isn’t that the core idea the TP types have been pushing? Stupid and easily circumvented, but eh.

  10. As we speak, Reid is engaged in a filibuster… against his own proposal.

    “We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

    But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

    1. Reid makes about as much sense as this —

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts

      1. Hairy Reed is more like this

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    2. You mean the Republicans aren’t the only ones playing games?

      1. Joeyjojojrshabadoo

        That’s the worst name I’ve ever heard….

        1. Great, now he’ll never come back.

  11. …whatever bill eventually passes, it will be another pork-laden, budget-busting monstrosity that both sides, with the exception of one lonely Texan (maybe a few others), will call a victory for the American Volk. And the stock market will have another slight rally while business will continue to shed jobs — and the “too-big-to-fail” outfits, the govt unions, the National-Security/War Complex and the “friends of Big Govt” will continue to wallow happily in the hog lot. All the while, the poor sap of the average taxpayer will wonder if his meager 401K is safe from the clutches of Reid/Obama/Pelosi/Boehner.

    1. There’s also the lonely Kentuckian.

  12. let me be clear: despite previous partianship, there was NO default like the teaparty want now. return the hobbits to medieval earth

    1. Barack Obama isn’t nearly awesome enough to have read The Lord of the Rings, and it shows — it’s MIDDLE Earth, Brock, MIDDLE Earth!

      1. In the unreleased fourth book of the quartet, Elrond develops a trans-planar time machine and sends Frodo and company to put an end to the Crusades.

        1. In the Fifth book Jon Snow is stabbed to death and we never know who his mother is.

          Plus Davos grows his fingers back gets a dragon and burns down the Wall.

          Also i am pretty sure the sixth book is being set up so the Iron Bank of Bravoos is planning on killing the king because he has not been paying back his debt.

          Which begs the question why is the Iron Throne, Iron men and the Iron Bank all located at completely different ends of the world?

          1. It’s so fucking obvious that Jon Snow is Rheagar Targaryen and Liana Stark’s son that I’m amazed the rest of you idiots don’t see it. He hints at it constantly. It is the perfect combo of ruling families and excludes the Lannisters; fuck, it’s just perfect.

            1. Game of Thrones is sort of like Lost, except that it’s creator has an even harder job of tying way too many separate strings together. But this won’t result in a completely unsatisfying ending like Lost, George R. R. Martin just won’t be able to finish it. That’s why I’m not even going to get into the series.

              1. I went to a signing/speaking with him last night and he actually directly referenced Lost and BSG, mentioned how disappointed he was with both their endings, and remarked that it put a lot of pressure on him not to also fail to wrap things up satisfactorily. He’s a damn fine writer and might be up to the task.

                1. BSG’s ending left me dumbfounded — I sat there for about 10 minutes wondering what the fuck had just happened.

                  Starting Game of Thrones tomorrow — what do you guys think of it?

                2. Finished ADWD yet Epi? Thoughts?

                  1. Finished ADWD yet Epi? Thoughts?

                    Sure ask Epi what he thinks…

                    but ignore the fat kid.

                    1. It has nothing to do with you being fat, I just hate people specifically named Joshua Corning. It’s a long story. And it involves trannies.

                  2. Finished ADWD yet Epi? Thoughts?

                    Fuck no. I’ve decided that I’m not reading any more the books until he’s done, or until the TV show catches up with me (as I must be ahead of the show). Then I can read them all in an orgy of Martin.

                    He did say the Blackfish may make an appearance in season two, and that the episode that he wrote (he gets to write one episode per season) was a real doozy. He also explained why the latest book took so long, and that now his response to “when is the next one” is “when it’s done”.

                    He also said that he had chosen Peter Dinklange for Tyrion even before he knew the show was going to happen. No one else even auditioned.

              2. except that it’s creator has an even harder job of tying way too many separate strings together.

                I think he actively tries to keep the strings separate.

                the lengths he goes to keep all the characters separate is astonishing.

                He will kill off whole armies to insure one stark never meets up with another stark. hell he won’t even let a fake Stark meet up with a real Stark…instead he would rather kill one or both off to prevent it from happening.

              3. Game of Thrones is sort of like Lost, except that it’s creator has an even harder job of tying way too many separate strings together. But this won’t result in a completely unsatisfying ending like Lost, George R. R. Martin just won’t be able to finish it. That’s why I’m not even going to get into the series.

                The more i have thought about this more i think you are wrong.

                True Martin may not be able to finish it…but that is only because he really does not want to. Originally it was 3 books then 5 books and now it is supposed to be 7 books…plus at least two of those books are long as 2 books each.

                There is no great mystery in Game of Thrones like there is in Lost or BSG…nor does it have the multitude of smaller mysteries either.

                Sure there are some unknowns like the afor mentioned who is Jon Snow, but that is easily resolved. the unknowns in Game of throne generally are what the fuck is going to happen. Will Robb avenge his father, will Dany raise and train her dragons, who will ultimately sit on the Iron Throne, who will survive and who will die.

                These lose ends are pretty easily tied up. Just kill off whoever and let win whoever.

                Also unlike Lost and BSG the universe Game of Thrones is set in does have magic. Any inexplicable loose end can simply be resolved by magic.

                1. Question: is Jon Snow Azor Ahai reborn?

                  This panelist says: YES

                  1. Question: is Jon Snow Azor Ahai reborn?

                    I think he is one in a long line of reincarnation of the nameless Night’s King’.

                    Including such turncoats and oathbrakers as Runcel Hightower
                    Rodrik Flint, Tristan Mudd, Mad Marq Rankenfell, and Robin Hill.

                    For the Watch bitches!!!

                    1. 998th

                      9 + 9 + 8 = 26

                      26/2 = 13

                      Jon Snow is the Night’s King.

                  2. Question: is Jon Snow Azor Ahai reborn?

                    No. You stupid chumps, go re-read Game of Thrones and pay special attention to the parts where Ned speaks of Liana’s last moments, Rheagar, and what happened.

                    Jon. Snow. Is. Rheager. And. Liana’s. Son. And when I am shown to be right, I will throw it in all you disbelieving jackasses’ faces.

                    1. And where is it written that Azor Ahai could not be reborn in the person of Rheager and Lyanna’s son? Remember,he had to plunge his sword into a chick to make it magic, so he could marry Dany then do that to her.

                      Every time the Melissandre in the new book asks to see Stannis in the flames as Azor Ahai, it shows her Jon Snow. You’d know that, IF YOU’D READ THE BOOK EPI ZOMG PWND’D!!11!1!

                      And good work on those calculations for the Nights’ King, Joshua.

                    2. And where is it written that Azor Ahai could not be reborn in the person of Rheager and Lyanna’s son?

                      yeah he could be like the Kwisatz Haderach of the Game of Throne books in which he is the culmination of many different prophesies all bound up into one.

                      Nothing prevents him from being the Night’s king, the Azor Ahai and the hair to the throne.

                      Of course this all brings me back to my original point; this is all too convenient and every other story line in the book when it starts heading to a convenient end Martin will suddenly take a 90 degree turn and change everything with a sudden death or some other tragic change to the world.

                2. Also unlike Lost and BSG the universe Game of Thrones is set in does have magic. Any inexplicable loose end can simply be resolved by magic.

                  But both BSG and Lost relied heavily on magic. What are you talking about?

                  1. But both BSG and Lost relied heavily on magic. What are you talking about?

                    Don’t act all Innocent New Mex. Both BSG and Lost flaunted with the possibility that the extra ordinary had plausible explanations and both were set at least originally in universes with histories without magic. One does not need magic to explain spaceship founded colonies or an air plane crashed on an island. Magic is needed to explain the universe of Game of Thrones from the very start. Kind of hard to found the seven kingdoms into one kingdom without dragons and kind of hard to raise an 8000 year old unmelting giant ice wall made to defend against the undead without magic.

                    The use of magic in Lost and BSG was Deus ex machina while in Game of Thrones it is not.

                    1. Joshua Corning|7.31.11 @ 3:13PM|#

                      But both BSG and Lost relied heavily on magic. What are you talking about?

                      Don’t act all Innocent New Mex.

                      I am not. I watched both Lost and BSG. Both had heavy reliance on supernatural causes…and used magic to wrap up the lose ends.

                      Both BSG and Lost flaunted with the possibility that the extra ordinary had plausible explanations and both were set at least originally in universes with histories without magic.

                      No they didn’t and no they weren’t.

                      One does not need magic to explain spaceship founded colonies or an air plane crashed on an island.

                      True, but smoke monsters and mystical prophecies…yeah.

                      Magic is needed to explain the universe of Game of Thrones from the very start. Kind of hard to found the seven kingdoms into one kingdom without dragons and kind of hard to raise an 8000 year old unmelting giant ice wall made to defend against the undead without magic.

                      I’ll have to take your word for it. Haven’t read a word or seen a single second of the series.

                      The use of magic in Lost and BSG was Deus ex machina while in Game of Thrones it is not.

                      The use of magic in Lost was central to the plot from the beginning. It was a magical Island. Ancient prophecy drove the entire storyline of BSG.

                      But sure…there were no wizards and shit.

            2. fuck, it’s just perfect

              If anything can be said about how story lines are tied up in Game of Thrones is that they never ever resolve in anything resembling perfection.

              In fact when story lines appear about to be resolved to any sort of perfection you can guarantee they are about to run astray and end in tragedy. For example when Ned had resolved to take the Black and admit to being a traitor what happened? Joff changed his mind and had his head chopped off. This theme of stolen resolution is repeated over and over in books

              I’m amazed the rest of you idiots don’t see it.

              But yeah before I even touched the books (even before the show had ended) I had deduced from the show that Lyanna was Snow’s mom….of course being so obvious probably guarantees that Lyanna is not Snow’s mom.

              1. But yeah before I even touched the books (even before the show had ended) I had deduced from the show that Lyanna was Snow’s mom

                That would have been sort of hard seeing as they don’t really mention her.

                1. That would have been sort of hard seeing as they don’t really mention her.

                  Yes they do. Her kidnapping is the reason Robert went to war against Aeys. In fact I predicted that she and Robert were Snow’s parents right here at Hit and Run.

                  1. Joshua Corning|6.6.11 @ 12:59PM|#

                    Speaking of Bastards…

                    I have not read Game of Thrones but is it obvious to everyone that John Snow is King Roberts Son via Ned’s sister? and not Ned Stark’s but his Nephew and in fact the legitimate heir to the crown?

                    If you read the book don’t tell me.

                    https://reason.com/blog/2011/06…..nt_2323823

                    1. You failed to get the Targaryen part, though, which is critical.

                    2. You failed to get the Targaryen part, though, which is critical.

                      Why does it have to be Rhaegar again?

                      I mean he did have motive and opportunity after he kidnapped her sure.

                      But Robert had motive as well and who knows what went on before and during that Tourney at Harrenhal.

                      Hell for all we know Howland Reed is Snow’s father.

                      Also if Robert is the father that would explain why he went to war for Lyanna.

                      Rhaegar is the front runner but i think you are jumping a bit far to assume it has to be him.

                      Also isn’t Arya supposed to be Lyanna? Now ask yourself who would Arya sleep with? Rhaegar seems too much of drip in my opinion to win Arya’s heart and so I assume Lyanna would be the same way.

                      Also Ayra did not want to be like Sansa. As in a good and proper lady. Perhaps Robert raped her and she fled with the noble Rhaegar for protection. This does fit nicely with the obvious parallels Jon has with the Bolton bastard who is the spawn of a rape….of course Rhaegar could have raped Lyanna as well so there is that.

                    3. Epi, I don’t know any nice way to tell you this, but… You should read the sixth book. Anything else I say would be a spoiler. Just refer to previous morning links threads where both Warty and I have summarized the sixth book by saying, “fuck, I didn’t see that coming.” And that GRRM is off probation with me.

                    4. You should read the sixth book

                      you mean the 5th book. 6th book has not come out yet…give it 3 years.

                    5. Are there only 5? It seems like 9.

            3. Jon Snow being Liana and Rheagar’s child is how the book would end if it were a fairy tale or a Disney movie. What about Martin makes you think he’ll end this epic series like a fairy tale? How many times does he have to tell you that real life isn’t like the songs before you get the point that there will be no happy ending.

  13. I heard that Harry Reid agreed to play a senior Ron Weasley in any potential Harry Potter spinoffs.

    1. Lmao

  14. What a great photo of Reid!

    1. There is no such thing as a good pic of Reid.

      There’s only a less-bad one.

  15. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.privacy-tools.no.tc

    1. Annoy each other till there’s fighting on the Washington Mall? Great way to elect some better pols, but it won’t get a budget passed.

  16. Debate, where is the result!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.