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
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm going to re read my notes from Con Law, but I don't think he's been in on any votes yet.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will RogersUnified Democrats?
apalmer
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
TimSqooshhole, you are Tea Party-lite because you are ok providing cover to them in the GOP if they keep quiet, pitch in and vote the way you want. You are fine giving KooKs the veneer of respectability for decades in the Republican Party but whine and moan relentlessly the minute your voting partners start actually pressing their own positions.timschochet said:Well, those are the people that I HOPE leave the GOP.Jewell said:
Actually, that's not true. They can stay They're useful as voters and for money. They just shouldn't be allowed to have a say when it really matters. Leave that to the grownups.
TimScrotusm, you have no soul, no principles, no credibility, no sense of humor, no sack, and you are a giant squishball who constantly vomits nonsense all over the FFA, to boot.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Is this kind of crap really necessary?TimSqooshhole, you are Tea Party-lite because you are ok providing cover to them in the GOP if they keep quiet, pitch in and vote the way you want. You are fine giving KooKs the veneer of respectability for decades in the Republican Party but whine and moan relentlessly the minute your voting partners start actually pressing their own positions.timschochet said:Well, those are the people that I HOPE leave the GOP.Jewell said:
Actually, that's not true. They can stay They're useful as voters and for money. They just shouldn't be allowed to have a say when it really matters. Leave that to the grownups.
TimScrotusm, you have no soul, no principles, no credibility, no sense of humor, no sack, and you are a giant squishball who constantly vomits nonsense all over the FFA, to boot.
timschochet
Footballguy
Looks like the answer will be a short term debt ceiling increase in order to give both sides time to negotiate further:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/09/house-republicans-eye-short-term-debt-ceiling-fix-ahead-white-house-meeting/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/09/house-republicans-eye-short-term-debt-ceiling-fix-ahead-white-house-meeting/
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
lol, awesome! Timschoosh has a defender. I hope we can expect to see you post whenever anyone criticizes your little have it every which way buddy.Is this kind of crap really necessary?TimSqooshhole, you are Tea Party-lite because you are ok providing cover to them in the GOP if they keep quiet, pitch in and vote the way you want. You are fine giving KooKs the veneer of respectability for decades in the Republican Party but whine and moan relentlessly the minute your voting partners start actually pressing their own positions.timschochet said:Well, those are the people that I HOPE leave the GOP.Jewell said:
Actually, that's not true. They can stay They're useful as voters and for money. They just shouldn't be allowed to have a say when it really matters. Leave that to the grownups.
TimScrotusm, you have no soul, no principles, no credibility, no sense of humor, no sack, and you are a giant squishball who constantly vomits nonsense all over the FFA, to boot.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm relatively conservative when it comes to my money and pretty moderate on social issues (kinda "do what you want, you don't answer to me) type if you will. Until GWB came along, I could at least identify with a good portion of what the GOP stood for, but not any more. I'm not saying that GWB is the reason. That just seems to be the time where things went downhill VERY quickly. There are a few social things I agree with the Dems on, but they are few and far between and aren't close to the top of my list for things I feel the government should play a role in. I'm not confident either party asks the question "what's best for the country?" anymore. As such, I'm left wondering where to go as well. I've never been able to vote for the primary candidates from either party and I don't see that changing anytime soon.moleculo said:
This.
We need more parties offering dramatically different policies to replace the giant squishfest of bipartisan agreement that has gotten us into this mess.
timschochet
Footballguy
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I'm not at all affiliated with the GOP...I tend to vote all over the board and usually vote libertarian (Johnson '12!), but I tend to vote for R's as much as D's. This whole thing is just foolish though. It's bad for our country, and it reflects really poorly on the party and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.moleculo said:
What I really want is for the US to break up into smaller, more manageable pieces, rather than being a gigantic, continental country micro-managed from Washington.
Yeah, the multiple parties or the US breakup aren't going to happen soon, but people used to think the USSR was forever as well.
shader
Footballguy
Originally, yes. We have long since departed from the model where the government of a state was more important in the life of a citizen than the federal government.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't recall him ever being under the line.Matthias said:over the linelol, awesome! Timschoosh has a defender. I hope we can expect to see you post whenever anyone criticizes your little have it every which way buddy.Is this kind of crap really necessary?TimSqooshhole, you are Tea Party-lite because you are ok providing cover to them in the GOP if they keep quiet, pitch in and vote the way you want. You are fine giving KooKs the veneer of respectability for decades in the Republican Party but whine and moan relentlessly the minute your voting partners start actually pressing their own positions.timschochet said:Well, those are the people that I HOPE leave the GOP.Actually, that's not true. They can stay They're useful as voters and for money. They just shouldn't be allowed to have a say when it really matters. Leave that to the grownups.Jewell said:
TimScrotusm, you have no soul, no principles, no credibility, no sense of humor, no sack, and you are a giant squishball who constantly vomits nonsense all over the FFA, to boot.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It gets lost in the tactical shuffle, but at its heart the disagreement in Washington now is absolutely one about 'what's best for the country.'
For about 30 years, since roughly 1980, we had an agreement (an electoral agreement -- I don't mean every member of Congress agrees, just that the electorate as a whole agreed) that labor had too much power, taxes were too high and the business environment should be improved.
Even the Democrats that won in this time frame, namely Clinton, basically agreed. If he'd run on a traditional Democratic/liberal platform he wouldn't have become President. So most of the big fights were cultural.
This is also why most of the true nuts in Congress are Republicans -- the nutty Democrats stood no chance of getting elected while the playing field, the electoral agreeement, was tilted in favor of the Republicans. There were still tons of them as late as the 1970s, but they mostly went extinct in the 1980s and 1990s. Not to worry though... the odds are that the loony left will be back in office soon enough.
Obama is mostly out of this same centrist mold as Clinton, though tempermentally very different and nowhere near as gifted a politician. But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House -- literally as the 2008 election was going down the financial crisis hit and we started a national debate about whether the agreement that had held for 28 years was going to be changed.
Based on the 2012 election and the series of events since then Obama has largely won that debate, but Congress hasn't ratified that yet and there's not yet a national agreement about how much of 1980-2008 needs to be rolled back. So we're having a generational fight over it.
As nutty as many Republicans are, and no one thinks they're nuttier than I do, most of them really do believe that reducing the deficit and cutting entitlements is good for the country. Big business and the Koch brothers aren't convincing them of that -- big business and the Koch brothers support them because they believe. If individuals have to suffer, that's the price we pay for being a strong country with a thriving economy.
Democrats believe that the pendulum has swung too far for too long and that if we're going to be successful going forward we need to address what they see as genuine issues of inequality and unfairness that have increased in a pretty straight line for 30 years now.
I'm painting with a broad brush there, but I think the gist of it is right. Complicating things is that the Democratic position is still pretty weak since it's fairly new and no one's sure if it's a long-term electoral winner yet. And Republicans haven't reconized the extent of the shift.
So ultimately it's the voters that are going to decide which vision will dominate over time. But that can take several 2-year electoral cycles. In the meantime we have these big fights.
But they aren't meaningless and while the dirt and mud of each day's fight is unseemly this is just how the system works. We're a two party government -- which means that both parties have to be fairly moderate to win elections, and that major turns in the ship of state are very slow and messy. It's a feature, not a bug.
For about 30 years, since roughly 1980, we had an agreement (an electoral agreement -- I don't mean every member of Congress agrees, just that the electorate as a whole agreed) that labor had too much power, taxes were too high and the business environment should be improved.
Even the Democrats that won in this time frame, namely Clinton, basically agreed. If he'd run on a traditional Democratic/liberal platform he wouldn't have become President. So most of the big fights were cultural.
This is also why most of the true nuts in Congress are Republicans -- the nutty Democrats stood no chance of getting elected while the playing field, the electoral agreeement, was tilted in favor of the Republicans. There were still tons of them as late as the 1970s, but they mostly went extinct in the 1980s and 1990s. Not to worry though... the odds are that the loony left will be back in office soon enough.
Obama is mostly out of this same centrist mold as Clinton, though tempermentally very different and nowhere near as gifted a politician. But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House -- literally as the 2008 election was going down the financial crisis hit and we started a national debate about whether the agreement that had held for 28 years was going to be changed.
Based on the 2012 election and the series of events since then Obama has largely won that debate, but Congress hasn't ratified that yet and there's not yet a national agreement about how much of 1980-2008 needs to be rolled back. So we're having a generational fight over it.
As nutty as many Republicans are, and no one thinks they're nuttier than I do, most of them really do believe that reducing the deficit and cutting entitlements is good for the country. Big business and the Koch brothers aren't convincing them of that -- big business and the Koch brothers support them because they believe. If individuals have to suffer, that's the price we pay for being a strong country with a thriving economy.
Democrats believe that the pendulum has swung too far for too long and that if we're going to be successful going forward we need to address what they see as genuine issues of inequality and unfairness that have increased in a pretty straight line for 30 years now.
I'm painting with a broad brush there, but I think the gist of it is right. Complicating things is that the Democratic position is still pretty weak since it's fairly new and no one's sure if it's a long-term electoral winner yet. And Republicans haven't reconized the extent of the shift.
So ultimately it's the voters that are going to decide which vision will dominate over time. But that can take several 2-year electoral cycles. In the meantime we have these big fights.
But they aren't meaningless and while the dirt and mud of each day's fight is unseemly this is just how the system works. We're a two party government -- which means that both parties have to be fairly moderate to win elections, and that major turns in the ship of state are very slow and messy. It's a feature, not a bug.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm honestly trying. But whenever I hear a demand for more states rights, my mind immediately jumps to slavery, Jim Crow, school boards that want to teach Intelligent Design, gun owners who are afraid of the federal government seizing their guns, etc.
If I were the Republicans, I wouldn't worry about this costing me all too many votes even if the people are against this particular tactic right now. With the short news cycle, people are going to care far more about how much they're being bent over by Obamacare by mid 2014 and Republicans are going to be able to sit back and say "see, we tried to stop this. Get us more votes and we'll be successful".
Last edited by a moderator:
spreagle
Footballguy
It would have to be a massive 0.5 trillion debt ceiling increase because the several hundred billion that Treasury raided to avoid the debt ceiling would need to be funded first before a penny was paid to Social Security. Can't leave those obligations hanging and behind Social Security in the pecking order. That would be just another way of prioritizing payments.
Then the Treasury could just go on another 6 months of raid-delay.
I don't think a short debt ceiling increase will happen.
timschochet
Footballguy
AP confirms- Boehner to ask House for short term debt ceiling increase.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/boehners-office-gop-sending-small-group-obama-meeting-20520165
AP Sources: Boehner to Ask House GOP for Short-Term Debt Ceiling Increase.No details yet. Per previous speculation, "short term" means 4-6 weeks.
AP Sources: Boehner to Ask House GOP for Short-Term Debt Ceiling Increase.No details yet. Per previous speculation, "short term" means 4-6 weeks.
timschochet
Footballguy
Boehner said very firmly on This Week last Sunday that he would NOT raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. This appears to be a reversal, though his excuse will likely be that it's only short term. Interesting to see how the Tea Partiers will react.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I doubt it. Call me an optimist, but I think this will allow Obama to give some budget concessions that he indicated he'd be open to anyhow. Obamacare is here to stay, but there may be some revisions to that too once the shutdown is lifted.
If this goes through it's a huge political victory for Obama, a face-saving move for the Republican leadership, and a devastating repudiation of the Tea Party. I hope.
timschochet
Footballguy
Constant crises are a great way to grow the economy and inspire the confidence of consumers and businesses.
timschochet
Footballguy
Check out the comments on the ABC site I linked. If they're any indication, Tea Partiers are freaking out. They're calling Boehner a traitor, a coward, etc. They truly wanted the GOP not to do this.
Sand
Footballguy
No, it really comes down to the Senate. Thomas Sowell has written a pretty incisive article on what is going on here. And, as is typical, he does a good job of cutting through the chaff and getting to the point. Simply put - spending starts in the House. The House has funded government. The Senate won't go along. So, as Sowell states, "because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility." Bingo.Matthias said:
Sand
Footballguy
Haven't we learned yet that a few wackos posting on the internet aren't indicative of a group as a whole? Why do you continue this bull####?
Scoresman
Footballguy
The republican party have managed to convince their followers that health care will bankrupt the economy, from what I've gathered. It's also some crap about a slippery slope leading to communist Russia and simultaneously Nazi Germany, where the government controls your every move and forces you to give up your entire income to a lazy peasant who smokes weed all day watching TV and playing video games while you work your ### off.
Poor people follow them because they also tie in religious morality into their political platform.
Poor people follow them because they also tie in religious morality into their political platform.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because in the past several days the Tea Party voices, on talk radio and elsewhere, have been unified in opposing raising the debt ceiling unilaterally, even for a short period of time. So I am betting the anger at Boehner is pretty representative. I could be wrong; we'll see.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
If you are on Twitter, @RobertCostaNRO is a good follow right now. He's "live-tweeting" the GOP meeting, based on what his sources are telling him. Sounds like Tea Party types putting up some resistance to Boehner's proposal.
Sand
Footballguy
So, the first evidence of the cost of the ACA is at 6x what was anticipated. I knew that the projections were way low, but this is even a bit higher than I expected.
