Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
See what I mean. I missed that Tim changed he time frame to 2007 but the answer would still be the same. A certain percentage of progressives would have been wildly in favor of it. But not all, which is why the Democrats didn't have the spine to do it at any point in time. Even when they had their supermajority and were busy crafting this bill. The Democrats never really wanted to own higher taxes and actually fund these programs they support, and there were parts of the Bush tax cuts they especially liked.
Last edited by a moderator:
SmoovySmoov
The Way of the Samurai
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
From Forbes...
Victory Over Obamacare: How To Embarrass The Democrats Into Funding The Government
Those of you who are supposedly outraged or indignant over the partial government shutdown, or have friends or neighbors who are outraged or indignant, I can tell you all how YOU can fix it. All you have to do is tell pollsters who call that you think Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown. As soon as that hits the papers, the shutdown will be over before the end of the day.
That is because it is Obama and the Democrats who shut down the government, because they are so certain that the Republicans will be blamed for it. And that ploy is part of the quixotic quest of Obama and the Democrats to manipulate the public to take back majority control of the House in the President’s second mid-term. Quixotic because that is unprecedented in American politics, and is never going to happen.
House Republicans sent over to the Democrat majority Senate three Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the government. The Senate Democrat majority shot each one down on a unanimous straight party line vote. Every supposed Senate Democrat moderate marched in goose step with the liberal/left party line. Even supposed maverick Joe Manchin of West Virginia, from a state being crucified by the party liberals, voted with the Senate Democrat majority to shut down the government.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp won her race in North Dakota last year by 1% running as a supposed moderate Democrat. The people of her state overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare. But Heitkamp, like Manchin, would rather shut down the government than compromise over Obamacare.
The last CR the Republican House sent over to the Democrat Senate even funded all of Obamacare, except it required a one year delay in the highly unpopular individual mandate, to match Obama’s arbitrary and illegal one year delay in the employer mandate that Obama declared by decree without legal authorization. And it nullified the special exemption from the requirements of Obamacare for Congress and its staff that the Obama Administration decreed as well without legal authorization.
But every single Democrat in the Senate voted to keep the special exemption from Obamacare for Congress and its staff, and against the same one year delay in the mandate on working people that Obama illegally granted for the mandate on big business. That included every supposed moderate Democrat in the Senate – Heitkamp, Manchin, Landrieu, Kay Hagan of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska, etc. They would rather shut down the government than agree to these highly popular, modest compromises of Obamacare. There goes Harry Reid’s Senate Democrat majority next year, which is really what is going to happen in Obama’s second mid-term election. (President Obama will then be the lamest lame duck ever.).
Indeed, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid even refused a House request for a routine Conference Committee between the House and the Senate to compromise over the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, assuring the continued shutdown Democrats are so certain will unseat the Republican House majority next year instead. To attempt to further manipulate public opinion against the Republicans, President Obama ordered Park Police to barricade the World War II memorial to keep out vets visiting Washington on a privately organized Honor Flight to see it. Similar barricades were set up at monuments all over Washington, including at scenic overlooks on the George Washington Parkway, in service to the cause of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. These crass attempts at manipulating voters that Obama and the Democrats are so certain are too stupid to see what is going on is what really should be angering and driving to indignation you and your friends and neighbors.
House Republicans even started passing targeted funding bills to address particular issues, such as providing continued cancer treatments for children at the National Institutes for Health, keeping national parks open, and funding services for veterans. But Obama and Reid refused to even consider those bills as well.
When a reporter asked Harry Reid why the Senate would not pass a bill so children could continue to get their cancer treatments while the House-Senate budget battle dragged on, Reid responded, “Why would we do that?” and questioned the intelligence of the reporter. The obvious human answer was to save the lives of children. But Reid was not thinking about humanity. He was thinking about the political consequences of engineering a shutdown in further manipulation of the public against Republicans he is so certain the public will blame. In that context, his question made sense, including his disparagement of the reporter’s intelligence. Couldn’t she see the political value in denying health care to cancer stricken children, when the Republicans would be so obviously blamed for that?
But those bills were the beginning of the Republicans stumbling upon the right answer to the Democrats’ ploy. House Republicans should go back to regular order and start passing the remaining 11 or 12 appropriations bills to fund the entire government, except for Obamacare. Pass one each day, and hold a press conference to say the Republicans are ready to go to a Conference Committee with the Democrats if they disagree on the appropriations bill just passed.
But when it comes to the Treasury Department appropriations, the Republicans should just not fund the role of the rogue IRS in administering and enforcing Obamacare. When it comes to appropriations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), House Republicans should just not fund any payments from the Federal Employee Health Benefits program for health insurance on the Obamacare Exchanges for Congress and its staff, eliminating any special exemption for Congress from the requirements of Obamacare, because no other employer is allowed under Obamacare to help employees buy health insurance on the Exchanges. And when it comes to appropriations for HHS, House Republicans should fund the Department, except for any funds to enforce and administer the individual mandate for at least a year, matching Obama’s legally unauthorized one year delay of the employer mandate.
Then if the Democrats disagree with the provisions of these appropriations bills, they can pass their own appropriations bills with different provisions, and go to a Conference Committee with the House to compromise over final legislation. This is standard procedure for passage of bills. Check your high school civics book.
President Obama says he will not negotiate over funding the government. That is all to the good, because he has no role in this appropriations process, until both houses of Congress pass an appropriations bill for his signature.
Then if the President favors the role of the IRS in Obamacare, or a special exemption deal for Congress from Obamacare, or enforcing the individual mandate on working people but not the employer mandate on big business that is in his own Obamacare bill, he can say so in vetoing any of these bills and keeping the government shut down to that extent. But there is no point in negotiating with him in advance, because he thinks the shutdown works to his political advantage, so will not show the leadership to compromise, as Reagan did in working with Congressional Democrats so successfully.
If Senate Democrats never get around to Conference Committee meetings on the appropriations bills, that would only reveal to everyone who is really responsible for the government shutdown after all. That would only mean that 800,000 nonessential federal employees out of 2.9 million would stay on furlough indefinitely. No harm to the public in that, and it would save a lot of money the government doesn’t have besides. Once House Republicans pass their appropriations bills, they can wait for Senate Democrats to show up to do their part as long as it takes.
But to win a complete victory over Obamacare, Republicans will have to advance a complete, alternative, replacement bill, which can capture the support of the public as vastly preferable to Obamacare. Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) has already introduced a comprehensive Republican alternative – H.R. 2300. Last month, the House Republican Study Committee introduced its proposal, authored by Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN). These two bills provide the foundation for a complete replacement for Obamacare that would ultimately be victorious
Roe’s proposal would expand the current tax benefits for employer health insurance to everyone, with a standard health deduction of $7,500 (individual) or $20,000 (family) for all for the purchase of health coverage, regardless of how much the insurance actually cost. That greatly improves incentives over current law, encouraging the purchase of health coverage, but only up to reasonable limits in costs.
Moreover, Roe’s proposal would substantially liberalize Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSA deposits not spent on health care could be withdrawn tax free without penalty, which would greatly strengthen incentives not to waste money on health care when not necessary. Moreover, the proposal would allow unspent Flexible Spending Account (FSA) funds to be rolled over and saved for future use, which would turn 35 million FSA accounts into new HSAs. The poor could also choose HSAs for their Medicaid coverage.
Replacing Obamacare, both plans would also eliminate over $1 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, cutting the now current Obamacare capital gains tax by 16%. Repealing the individual mandate would also effectively be another tax cut, freeing families to choose their own health insurance rather than having Kathleen Sebelius impose her choice on them. Repealing the employer mandate would be another tax cut on jobs, eliminating the driving incentive diminishing American jobs to part time work. Gone also would be the Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has the power to cut Medicare benefits further without Congressional approval.
Roe’s proposal would also address pre-existing conditions by making health insurance guaranteed issue for anyone with continuous coverage, which is feasible and workable on that condition. Both plans would also provide federal funding to help states set up high risk pools, which would cover the uninsured who became too sick to buy new coverage in the market. Both would also increase competition and reduce costs by allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines nationally.
Both plans would capture the public imagination as a far superior, complete alternative to Obamacare, if Price’s refundable health insurance tax credit of roughly $2,500 per person was expanded to everyone, in place of Roe’s standard deduction. With that done right, the two plans joined together would earn a CBO score of universal coverage, unlike Obamacare, which lets down its most ardent supporters by leaving 30 million uninsured 10 years after full implementation, as scored by CBO! Moreover, the credit would provide equal health insurance tax benefits for everyone, unlike the deduction, which cuts taxes more for those with higher incomes, exposing a long time Republican vulnerability.
In addition, the poor would benefit greatly, with a CBO scored savings of $1 to $2 trillion over 10 years, if Medicaid was block granted to the states following the model of the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms of the old AFDC program. The poor would be demonstrably served far better for far less with such Medicaid block grants.
The bottom line is that the resulting Obamacare replacement plan would provide for universal coverage (which Obamacare fails to do), with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a net tax and spending cut of at least $1 trillion over the first 10 years alone. The public would overwhelmingly embrace such a Republican health care alternative as vastly preferable to Obamacare. What a resounding reversal that would be in the public’s appraisal of President Obama and his legacy for Obamacare to be replaced by such a Republican alternative based on freedom of choice, market competition and incentives, rather than Obamacare’s effective take over and control over health care.
Victory Over Obamacare: How To Embarrass The Democrats Into Funding The Government
Those of you who are supposedly outraged or indignant over the partial government shutdown, or have friends or neighbors who are outraged or indignant, I can tell you all how YOU can fix it. All you have to do is tell pollsters who call that you think Obama and the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown. As soon as that hits the papers, the shutdown will be over before the end of the day.
That is because it is Obama and the Democrats who shut down the government, because they are so certain that the Republicans will be blamed for it. And that ploy is part of the quixotic quest of Obama and the Democrats to manipulate the public to take back majority control of the House in the President’s second mid-term. Quixotic because that is unprecedented in American politics, and is never going to happen.
House Republicans sent over to the Democrat majority Senate three Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the government. The Senate Democrat majority shot each one down on a unanimous straight party line vote. Every supposed Senate Democrat moderate marched in goose step with the liberal/left party line. Even supposed maverick Joe Manchin of West Virginia, from a state being crucified by the party liberals, voted with the Senate Democrat majority to shut down the government.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp won her race in North Dakota last year by 1% running as a supposed moderate Democrat. The people of her state overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare. But Heitkamp, like Manchin, would rather shut down the government than compromise over Obamacare.
The last CR the Republican House sent over to the Democrat Senate even funded all of Obamacare, except it required a one year delay in the highly unpopular individual mandate, to match Obama’s arbitrary and illegal one year delay in the employer mandate that Obama declared by decree without legal authorization. And it nullified the special exemption from the requirements of Obamacare for Congress and its staff that the Obama Administration decreed as well without legal authorization.
But every single Democrat in the Senate voted to keep the special exemption from Obamacare for Congress and its staff, and against the same one year delay in the mandate on working people that Obama illegally granted for the mandate on big business. That included every supposed moderate Democrat in the Senate – Heitkamp, Manchin, Landrieu, Kay Hagan of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska, etc. They would rather shut down the government than agree to these highly popular, modest compromises of Obamacare. There goes Harry Reid’s Senate Democrat majority next year, which is really what is going to happen in Obama’s second mid-term election. (President Obama will then be the lamest lame duck ever.).
Indeed, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid even refused a House request for a routine Conference Committee between the House and the Senate to compromise over the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, assuring the continued shutdown Democrats are so certain will unseat the Republican House majority next year instead. To attempt to further manipulate public opinion against the Republicans, President Obama ordered Park Police to barricade the World War II memorial to keep out vets visiting Washington on a privately organized Honor Flight to see it. Similar barricades were set up at monuments all over Washington, including at scenic overlooks on the George Washington Parkway, in service to the cause of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. These crass attempts at manipulating voters that Obama and the Democrats are so certain are too stupid to see what is going on is what really should be angering and driving to indignation you and your friends and neighbors.
House Republicans even started passing targeted funding bills to address particular issues, such as providing continued cancer treatments for children at the National Institutes for Health, keeping national parks open, and funding services for veterans. But Obama and Reid refused to even consider those bills as well.
When a reporter asked Harry Reid why the Senate would not pass a bill so children could continue to get their cancer treatments while the House-Senate budget battle dragged on, Reid responded, “Why would we do that?” and questioned the intelligence of the reporter. The obvious human answer was to save the lives of children. But Reid was not thinking about humanity. He was thinking about the political consequences of engineering a shutdown in further manipulation of the public against Republicans he is so certain the public will blame. In that context, his question made sense, including his disparagement of the reporter’s intelligence. Couldn’t she see the political value in denying health care to cancer stricken children, when the Republicans would be so obviously blamed for that?
But those bills were the beginning of the Republicans stumbling upon the right answer to the Democrats’ ploy. House Republicans should go back to regular order and start passing the remaining 11 or 12 appropriations bills to fund the entire government, except for Obamacare. Pass one each day, and hold a press conference to say the Republicans are ready to go to a Conference Committee with the Democrats if they disagree on the appropriations bill just passed.
But when it comes to the Treasury Department appropriations, the Republicans should just not fund the role of the rogue IRS in administering and enforcing Obamacare. When it comes to appropriations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), House Republicans should just not fund any payments from the Federal Employee Health Benefits program for health insurance on the Obamacare Exchanges for Congress and its staff, eliminating any special exemption for Congress from the requirements of Obamacare, because no other employer is allowed under Obamacare to help employees buy health insurance on the Exchanges. And when it comes to appropriations for HHS, House Republicans should fund the Department, except for any funds to enforce and administer the individual mandate for at least a year, matching Obama’s legally unauthorized one year delay of the employer mandate.
Then if the Democrats disagree with the provisions of these appropriations bills, they can pass their own appropriations bills with different provisions, and go to a Conference Committee with the House to compromise over final legislation. This is standard procedure for passage of bills. Check your high school civics book.
President Obama says he will not negotiate over funding the government. That is all to the good, because he has no role in this appropriations process, until both houses of Congress pass an appropriations bill for his signature.
Then if the President favors the role of the IRS in Obamacare, or a special exemption deal for Congress from Obamacare, or enforcing the individual mandate on working people but not the employer mandate on big business that is in his own Obamacare bill, he can say so in vetoing any of these bills and keeping the government shut down to that extent. But there is no point in negotiating with him in advance, because he thinks the shutdown works to his political advantage, so will not show the leadership to compromise, as Reagan did in working with Congressional Democrats so successfully.
If Senate Democrats never get around to Conference Committee meetings on the appropriations bills, that would only reveal to everyone who is really responsible for the government shutdown after all. That would only mean that 800,000 nonessential federal employees out of 2.9 million would stay on furlough indefinitely. No harm to the public in that, and it would save a lot of money the government doesn’t have besides. Once House Republicans pass their appropriations bills, they can wait for Senate Democrats to show up to do their part as long as it takes.
But to win a complete victory over Obamacare, Republicans will have to advance a complete, alternative, replacement bill, which can capture the support of the public as vastly preferable to Obamacare. Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) has already introduced a comprehensive Republican alternative – H.R. 2300. Last month, the House Republican Study Committee introduced its proposal, authored by Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN). These two bills provide the foundation for a complete replacement for Obamacare that would ultimately be victorious
Roe’s proposal would expand the current tax benefits for employer health insurance to everyone, with a standard health deduction of $7,500 (individual) or $20,000 (family) for all for the purchase of health coverage, regardless of how much the insurance actually cost. That greatly improves incentives over current law, encouraging the purchase of health coverage, but only up to reasonable limits in costs.
Moreover, Roe’s proposal would substantially liberalize Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSA deposits not spent on health care could be withdrawn tax free without penalty, which would greatly strengthen incentives not to waste money on health care when not necessary. Moreover, the proposal would allow unspent Flexible Spending Account (FSA) funds to be rolled over and saved for future use, which would turn 35 million FSA accounts into new HSAs. The poor could also choose HSAs for their Medicaid coverage.
Replacing Obamacare, both plans would also eliminate over $1 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, cutting the now current Obamacare capital gains tax by 16%. Repealing the individual mandate would also effectively be another tax cut, freeing families to choose their own health insurance rather than having Kathleen Sebelius impose her choice on them. Repealing the employer mandate would be another tax cut on jobs, eliminating the driving incentive diminishing American jobs to part time work. Gone also would be the Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has the power to cut Medicare benefits further without Congressional approval.
Roe’s proposal would also address pre-existing conditions by making health insurance guaranteed issue for anyone with continuous coverage, which is feasible and workable on that condition. Both plans would also provide federal funding to help states set up high risk pools, which would cover the uninsured who became too sick to buy new coverage in the market. Both would also increase competition and reduce costs by allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines nationally.
Both plans would capture the public imagination as a far superior, complete alternative to Obamacare, if Price’s refundable health insurance tax credit of roughly $2,500 per person was expanded to everyone, in place of Roe’s standard deduction. With that done right, the two plans joined together would earn a CBO score of universal coverage, unlike Obamacare, which lets down its most ardent supporters by leaving 30 million uninsured 10 years after full implementation, as scored by CBO! Moreover, the credit would provide equal health insurance tax benefits for everyone, unlike the deduction, which cuts taxes more for those with higher incomes, exposing a long time Republican vulnerability.
In addition, the poor would benefit greatly, with a CBO scored savings of $1 to $2 trillion over 10 years, if Medicaid was block granted to the states following the model of the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms of the old AFDC program. The poor would be demonstrably served far better for far less with such Medicaid block grants.
The bottom line is that the resulting Obamacare replacement plan would provide for universal coverage (which Obamacare fails to do), with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a net tax and spending cut of at least $1 trillion over the first 10 years alone. The public would overwhelmingly embrace such a Republican health care alternative as vastly preferable to Obamacare. What a resounding reversal that would be in the public’s appraisal of President Obama and his legacy for Obamacare to be replaced by such a Republican alternative based on freedom of choice, market competition and incentives, rather than Obamacare’s effective take over and control over health care.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, liberals usually reserve such high regard for groups of people that shut down and picket businesses. We know.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
No one is talking about the public in general. We are talking about those that are true self pay. Those without insurance at all. (We could also add in those with pretty much useless insurance but at least they tried.)Where is the evidence that the exception to the rule are those who actually pay their medical bills? Here is a study where one in five have problems paying their medical bills. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57587594/cdc-one-in-five-americans-cant-pay-medical-bills/Are you really so desperate to make this both sides fault that you want to call tommy out because this individual trainer might be the exception to the rule? Could be the noise in the statistics? And if he happens to be the exception that pays out of pocket he is being greatly harmed by the vast majority of his fellow uninsured peers if he ever has any significant medical bills.The Commish said:
Is it reallythat tommy believes that this "calculated risk" is one that places society in too much of harms way to be allowable? (I didn't ask if you agreed with tommy, just whether it was a reasonable position to take?) I
So just some quick off the cuff numbers.
- Your study's headline is 1 in 5 can't pay their bills,
- Of that 36% are self pay. (Among those facing problems with medical bills over the past year, 36 percent were uninsured, 14 percent had private coverage and more than 25 percent had public insurance coverage.)
- That is 7% of the population.
- 15.4% of Americans are uninsured (link) (By the way the number is going down year to year as people move to Medicaid and Medicare)
- So 47% of the self pay population cannot pay their bills
But you are correct. I cannot share the numbers that you really want.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Those people are not who they represent.
ETA: You did notice how federal spending shifted in the late '90s?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Can you please describe, specifically, what is bat#### crazy from the non- Tea Party crowd? Because I don't see it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Liberals, moderates, moderate Republicans, and independents: this is the fault of the Republicans. The Tea Party are behaving like crazy buffoons.
Conservatives, and people who don't pay too much attention to politics: this is everybody's fault. Both sides are acting crazy and both sides are to blame.
Conservatives, and people who don't pay too much attention to politics: this is everybody's fault. Both sides are acting crazy and both sides are to blame.
LinusMarr
Footballguy
What an arrogant POS you are. Yep, you pretty much verified the liberal stereotype. Congrats...
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It's really too bad that you feel forced to resort to personal insults. Can you tell us more about the New World Order, please? I can never get enough of that. Throw in some black helicopters while you're at it.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
What I don't understand is that if President Obama doesn't want the government to be shutdown why doesn't he just put an end to this? Why not issue an order to put everyone back to work? he is the president, he is supposed to be the most powerful person in the country. I'm going to go out on a limb and say if President Reagan was in charge that this would not happen, he would simply say to stop and get people back to work. If you're as old as me you remember that is exactly what he did it during the airline strike. Maybe this president isn't as powerful as he thinks? No that couldn't be it.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Alright everyone. Let us Eminence this one and go about our business. Move this to the "Delete" thread or get rid of it. Let's get a Mod in here to do this, STAT. [/thread]
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
That's a good idea, because what I wrote was insulting and offensive.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Never said that, did I? (that is rhetorical, you don't need to answer) My post was in regards to how nicely you wrapped everything up. You succinctly stated where each person stands and gave a compelling reason as to why they stand where they do. Nothing more needs to be said because you cleared everything up. So, end this thread now before it gets polluted with unessential drivel.
I actually take your comments as complements. People really need to consider the source,
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
Cause I get better lookin' each day
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
But I'm doin' the best that I can!
timschochet
Footballguy
Hey Dr. J, Linus, and JoJo:
Can you guys go, you know, play with your toys in the other room? The grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think they're all in Linus' room watching cartoons right now, humpback. Why don't you go check it out? I'm sure you'll find that a lot more interesting.
Hey Dr. J, Linus, and JoJo:
Can you guys go, you know, play with your toys in the other room? The grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
I think they're all in Linus' room watching cartoons right now, humpback. Why don't you go check it out? I'm sure you'll find that a lot more interesting.
Hey Dr. J, Linus, and JoJo:
Can you guys go, you know, play with your toys in the other room? The grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Oh please. I'm having a little bit of fun. What I wrote is very different from calling somebody a POS, don't you think?I think they're all in Linus' room watching cartoons right now, humpback. Why don't you go check it out? I'm sure you'll find that a lot more interesting.
Hey Dr. J, Linus, and JoJo:
Can you guys go, you know, play with your toys in the other room? The grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.
More interesting than you and the garbage you post on here? Abso-freaking-lutely.I think they're all in Linus' room watching cartoons right now, humpback. Why don't you go check it out? I'm sure you'll find that a lot more interesting.
Hey Dr. J, Linus, and JoJo:
Can you guys go, you know, play with your toys in the other room? The grownups are trying to have a serious discussion here.
dparker713
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
You do realize that given demographics, Texas will be purple or close to it by 2016 and completely lost sometime post 2024, right? That's of course barring a seismic shift in party affiliations, but find me some form of electoral math that works with Texas blue.And really, the Democrats did create this mess in the first place no matter how anyone wants to spin it. The supermajority happened because of extreme backlash towards Bush over economic issues. Instead of making that their top priority, or delivering on Obama's promises of a fundamentally different federal government, they gloated and rammed a pretty unpopular pet program down people's throats which has the potential to be a drag on the economy while the economy continued to blow. They wasted all of their political capital from day 1. The only thing that actually saved Obama and Obamacare is the Republicans having a batch of crap and settling on a pretty Kerry-like candidate in Romney.
The Tea Party might be trying to go big a little too early, we'll see. But I suspect this move is going to pay off well for them. People not liking this crappy federal government is good for all of us though.
cstu
Footballguy
November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days): President Ronald Reagan vowed to make drastic budget cuts, which the House claimed did not cut defense spending enough and did not raise pay for civil servants either. Reagan vetoed all proposals; the shutdown commenced.
September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day): There was really no reason for the government to shut down. Congress just didn’t complete the budget in time. There may have been one too many cocktail parties that year.
December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days): President Reagan had another shutdown during his administration. House and Senate negotiators wanted to dedicate $5.4 billion and $1.2 billion in public works spending to create jobs. The House also opposed funding A MX missile program, which was a priority of Reagan’s at the time. In the end, the House and Senate caved in on their plans for jobs and Reagan made a few compromises and signed a bill that ended the shutdown.
November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days): House Democrats passed an amendment that added $1 billon to educational spending while cutting foreign aid below Reagan’s favored limit. Democrats in the House ended up reducing funding for education but kept the cuts to foreign aid. The compromise was seen as a win for both parties.
September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days): The Democratic controlled House linked the a series of amendments to stop crime, a water projects package and a civil rights measure to the spending bill. A three day spending extension was passed while the parties negotiated.
October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day): Well, the three day extension clearly didn’t work out and the government was back to square one. The water projects and the civil rights measure were removed from the spending bill. A comprise was reached on the crime proposal.
October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day): The shutdown was a result of several disagreements between Regan and the House including a ban for companies creating subsidiaries, requiring a portion of the goods and labor used in oil rigs to be from America and one that expands Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Democrats in the House compromised a few of their demands and passed a measure that reopened the government.
December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day): The dispute sparked when Reagan and Democrats could not agree on funding for the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants. A deal was worked out where nonlethal aid would be provided to the Contras.
You just called an entire group of people 'crazy buffoons' and you are worried about personal insults.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It's also worth noting that the government shutdown was an unintended consequence of the normal budget give and take. No one was trying to shut government down as a weapon in negotiations until Gingrich in the 90s and Republicans ever since.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
This isn't arrogant, this is the way things are. Both sides don't have to be equal or equivalent in the amount of crazy we assign them. Sometimes one party (or parts of one party) is more crazy than the other. The Tea Party basically asked the Democrats to compromise on (funding) a bill that was already on the books, and have been planning this showdown for a while. Don't know how someone can try and turn that around on the Democrats.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's not personal though. Everybody knows what I think of the Tea Party. Like I wrote, my best friend is a TP. I would never call anyone a POS. that's just rude.You just called an entire group of people 'crazy buffoons' and you are worried about personal insults.
If they can get the same results that Gingrich got, more power to them. I just don't see that type of success this time around.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
So you draw the line of being 'just rude' somewhere between 'crazy buffoon' and 'arrogant POS'?That's not personal though. Everybody knows what I think of the Tea Party. Like I wrote, my best friend is a TP. I would never call anyone a POS. that's just rude.You just called an entire group of people 'crazy buffoons' and you are worried about personal insults.
Last edited by a moderator:
If this thread is any indication, the left has more than their fair share of crazy.Well...?
timschochet
Footballguy
The point is, I didn't attack anyone personally. At least, not seriously anyhow.So you draw the line of being 'just rude' somewhere between 'crazy buffoon' and 'arrogant POS'?That's not personal though. Everybody knows what I think of the Tea Party. Like I wrote, my best friend is a TP. I would never call anyone a POS. that's just rude.You just called an entire group of people 'crazy buffoons' and you are worried about personal insults.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'll ask again- what about the lefts position in this situation is on the crazy side? I don't get it.If this thread is any indication, the left has more than their fair share of crazy.Well...?
John Maddens Lunchbox
Footballguy
I'd really like to inhabit the head of a tea party conservative for just one day.
I just don't get the logic.
I just don't get the logic.
Not having read the entire stupid thread, but a few things that standout:I'll ask again- what about the lefts position in this situation is on the crazy side? I don't get it.If this thread is any indication, the left has more than their fair share of crazy.Well...?
Equating the GOP to the Taliban.
Insisting that there is no negotiating.
The scare-mongering over the impacts of the shutdown.
Calling for Boehner's head.
Taking the position that making the GOP look bad is more important than doing what is right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maelstrom
Footballguy
I'd also like to see the answer to this question. Those on the left in this thread are not at issue. The position of those in charge on the gov't shutdown are at issue.I'll ask again- what about the lefts position in this situation is on the crazy side? I don't get it.If this thread is any indication, the left has more than their fair share of crazy.Well...?
Maelstrom
Footballguy
So ... what is so wrong with asking for a vote on a clean (no amendments) version of the spending bill that doesn't defund the ACA?Not having read the entire stupid thread, but a few things that standout:I'll ask again- what about the lefts position in this situation is on the crazy side? I don't get it.If this thread is any indication, the left has more than their fair share of crazy.Well...?
Equating the GOP to the Taliban.
Insisting that there is no negotiating.
The scare-mongering over the impacts of the shutdown.
Calling for Boehner's head.
Taking the position that making the GOP look bad is more important than doing what is right.
I don't usually choose sides, but in this case, it seems pretty clear who has the upper side (even if as you said, they have done a bad job as well in their talking points)
spreagle
Footballguy
Sure everyone can point fingers and call Tea Partiers crazy buffoons, but if we could resurrect the Founding Fathers to fix the mess in Washington, and they had to join a party, what party would they join? Democrat? - absolutely no way, Democrats are the pretty much the opposite of everything the Founders stood for. Republican - probably not due to sheer ineptness and general spinelessness against the Democrats. In my opinion, the Tea Party is the only party that would be somewhat recognizable to the Founders as a legitimate party and that is who they would side with. I guess that makes the Founders crazy buffoons too.
