I believe that you are correct, coach. In many things - perhaps most things - we could make a case for associating the GOP with the words "treason" and "traitorous" ever since the neo-Cons distracted President Bush's attention from the perfectly justifiable and NATO-sanctioned military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to hare off in search of imaginary WMD in Iraq. The most recent case I can point to is GOP/TP lockstep opposition to tightening background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows in the face of indicted traitor, Adam Gadahn's, recent terrorist video.

I think it truly is irrelevant to look at what both parties have done on raising the debt limit in the past. In general, past predicts the future. But, just as when a researcher changes the conditions of an experiment, the change in the political climate we have seen since 2008 represent such a sea change in the status quo of American politics that we can no longer say that past votes on raising the debt limit is a reliable predictor as to what will happen this time. Especially since the election of radical right wingers to state offices, as well as to Congress, it is now apparent that these zealots are not only willing, but eager to impose their radical ideas on an electorate that clearly rejects their ideas as soon as they are proposed or enacted. WI is a clear example of that, as is FL and OH and MI. It is also obvious that these zealots have absolutely no cares about what the voters really want. They only care about imposing their corporate-demanded policies and legislation, and trying to solidify those policies by then using voter suppresson techniques, while also trying to eliminate any sources of funding for opposing viewpoints, and getting the courts to approve very radical changes in how campaigns are financed.

Will, point taken. Insulting was not my intent but direct observation was. I do apologize.

I do believe that there is no one news source that you can watch and get a clear picture on any issue. Everything is leaning more and more to one side or the other.

I would never be so naive as to think I could get everything from one news agency but it would be nice to get a balanced picture from somewhere. As I mentioned in my comment (or at least implied), I do get something from MSNBC, TRMS, and this forum. I also realize that more and more I have to verify so much of what I hear from anywhere...and most people don't have the time or resources to do that...myself include in many areas.

Thanks for your strong urge to be more civil and respectful. Hopefully this more clearly states my point.

Not raising the limit will NOT cause us to "default" on our financial obligations no more than not reaching your personal debt limit would be the cause of personal default.

Try calling your credit card company and saying unless you raise my limit I will not be able to pay you!. Not cutting your expenses, well...now, that's a different story.

Sorry, Rob, but all the economists I have seen on various programs say that NOT raising the debt limit WILL cause us to default. When you or I have bills to pay, and we don't have the money or the line of credit to pay them, we are in default, even if we are simply late on paying. Yet, repubs say it's no big deal, we'll make sure we pay investors to keep things square with the banks, (first we bail them out to save them from the collapse of their own Ponzi schemes, then make sure they are paid before anyone else after our economy tanks from their actions), yet we won't pay our troops, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We have to make sure the rich don't suffer, but who gives a damn about the other 99% of the citizens? They mean nothing, because they don't have the political clout that the ultrarich, their superPACs and the corporations have.