The question is whether you believe the issue would have become an issue even if the Republicans hadn't raised it now. Many people look at this as an intervention; if the US is addicted to oil, we are even more addicted to borrowing. I suppose it really comes down to whether you find multiplier/countercyclical spending arguments persuasive or not; Nobel Laureates come down on both sides.
The Republicans raising the issue was good and healthy for us. The clusterfuck that emerged in the months afterwards because of them refusing to pass any bill that didn't fall neatly into their little new imaginary rules was the problem.
