The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

You assume that I don't see the problems and who's responsible. That's an incorrect assumption. I don't know what you expect me to do I already don't vote for the GOP. Now what?

I based that assumption on the post where you said "when it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible."

I disagree. I think a small minority within the GOP is 90% responsible, and the establishment GOP is 10% responsible for lacking the backbone to stand up to them. Why do you think all of Washington is responsible?

Because, over time, it's not been one single group that has gotten us to this point. As I said before, both parties have plenty of blood on their hands when it comes to putting us in this position. You're looking at this specific point in time. I suspect the GOP would be a lot more willing to work with the Dems had the Dems included them in the initial passing of Obamacare. I said long ago that the only way this was going to work is if they all got locked up in a room together and hammered this thing out without having to worry about being reelected. I KNOW these people can come up with a solution, but they are so concerned about saving face to get reelected, they can't say what they really want to.

So when I say I blame Washington, I am looking at it from a macro level. I'm looking how the bill got proposed, drafted, etc etc. Not just where we're at right now. If the politicians didn't have the foresight to predict opposition like this they aren't very smart. Getting a bill into law isn't just about the idea. It's about the idea plus how it fits into the ideology of both groups and how it can get enough support to be passed into law. That's on Washington IMO.

What bill? Obamacare?

I don't think you can look at this on a macro level. There have been legislative struggles and disagreements for centuries. This is something new. This is a threat to default on our financial obligations unless one party gets what it wants and defunds a law. It's never been done before to my knowledge, and even if it fails it sets a terrible precedent.

I get your frustration, but at this point I think you have to look at what's going on right here and now with these threats instead of dismissing it as just more of the same. If they're serious about the debt limit threats it's not more of the same, not even close.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Democrats are so set on Americans enjoying Obamacare they will shut down the government to keep it rolling!

 

[RCon]

Fine, a simpler question. Is there any amount of debt and/or government spending that justifies a government shutdown?

No, because it's a meaningless gesture with respect to the debt. Mandatory spending and debt payments continue in a shutdown, and that comprises 70% of federal spending. Also, of the portion that's discretionary, the majority is military spending, which is pretty much the worst possible thing to eliminate if you want the country to, you know, not get blown up.

If those percentages shifted significantly it might be a different story. But a long term shutdown would impact the economy, which would impact tax receipts, so I'm still not sure how much it would solve anything.

So if a government shutdown can't get politicians to reduce an unlimited amount of debt, what can?

Nothing.

And, frankly, if you're right that nothing can ever get our politicians to take the country's problems seriously, then count me in the camp of let's just have the disaster now and ride it out rather than leaving it for my children and grandchildren to experience. Let's shut it down and keep the debt ceiling, ride out five years of pain, and fix things once and for all.

Yeah, five years of a tanked economy should fix things right up and we'll be back on track. Greece is what, 1-2 years away from decades of prosperity and a balanced budget?

Five years

Five years, ten years, twenty years, doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it needs to happen at some point. Might as well rip the band aid off versus hoping it can stay on forever.

Would you be cool with a huge tax increase as a means of "ripping off the band aid'? Six of one, half dozen of the other, and at least then our government wouldn't have to default on its obligations.

As part of the solution? Sure.

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible. If that's what you're talking about here, then so be it. So stupid of me to hold Washington responsible for doing their job. If that's not what you're talking about then explain.

One party wants to pass a continuing resolution and raise the debt limit, the other refuses (for now) to do so unless a duly enacted law is defunded. Either you're OK with that tactic or you're not. Regardless of how you feel, blaming "Washington" really means you're blaming nobody because it gives the people on the other side a pass. It's lazy and irresponsible. If one party knows that they can demand anything they want because people will blame an impasse on "Washington" instead of bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly in the next election, they'll just make more ridiculous demands leading to more standoffs. Basically, you're part of the problem.

Oh bull####....what's lazy and irresponsible is taking sides and enabling the finger pointing while they just kick the can down the road. No thanks. These people were elected to do a job so do the job and stop whining about how hard it is. Seriously, if I pulled a tenth of the crap these morons have I'd have been fired 5 days into my job. What's worse for me is that I haven't voted for a single person in our Congress or the White House. These parties know their voting constituents will vote for them simply because of the label beside their name and they will feed them whatever line they can to get their vote. I do agree that people not bothering to understand the particulars and voting accordingly are the problem....anyone voting for these idiots is part of the problem.

There is plenty of blood on the hands of both sides that can be attributed to the state of affairs in this country. It's short sighted to look at the hear and now and say X is the problem. Doing so holds all else constant and that's simply not true. That we are in the position where the GOP can do what it's doing is troubling to me. It shouldn't have even come to this. The GOP is playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning. In time it will be the Dems.

I stand by what I posted. This lazy but angry "blame 'em all!" attitude is part of the problem. How do you expect things to get better if you don't take the time to figure out who you hold responsible (or if you prefer, more responsible) and vote accordingly? If you think the GOP is "playing the crazy card right now with their pissing and moaning," what's their motivation not to do so if people like you just write it off when you step into the voting booth by lazily assuming the Dems would do the same? I don't know of any instance in which the Dems have threatened to put the government into default unless enacted legislation is defunded. Do you? If not, why do you assume they'd do the same in time?

You assume that I don't see the problems and who's responsible. That's an incorrect assumption. I don't know what you expect me to do I already don't vote for the GOP. Now what?

I based that assumption on the post where you said "when it comes to issues like this, I hold Washington responsible."

I disagree. I think a small minority within the GOP is 90% responsible, and the establishment GOP is 10% responsible for lacking the backbone to stand up to them. Why do you think all of Washington is responsible?

Because, over time, it's not been one single group that has gotten us to this point. As I said before, both parties have plenty of blood on their hands when it comes to putting us in this position. You're looking at this specific point in time. I suspect the GOP would be a lot more willing to work with the Dems had the Dems included them in the initial passing of Obamacare. I said long ago that the only way this was going to work is if they all got locked up in a room together and hammered this thing out without having to worry about being reelected. I KNOW these people can come up with a solution, but they are so concerned about saving face to get reelected, they can't say what they really want to.

So when I say I blame Washington, I am looking at it from a macro level. I'm looking how the bill got proposed, drafted, etc etc. Not just where we're at right now. If the politicians didn't have the foresight to predict opposition like this they aren't very smart. Getting a bill into law isn't just about the idea. It's about the idea plus how it fits into the ideology of both groups and how it can get enough support to be passed into law. That's on Washington IMO.

What bill? Obamacare?

I don't think you can look at this on a macro level. There have been legislative struggles and disagreements for centuries. This is something new. This is a threat to default on our financial obligations unless one party gets what it wants and defunds a law. It's never been done before to my knowledge, and even if it fails it sets a terrible precedent.

I get your frustration, but at this point I think you have to look at what's going on right here and now with these threats instead of dismissing it as just more of the same. If they're serious about the debt limit threats it's not more of the same, not even close.

Threats aren't new. What they are threatening might be. At this point I don't care. I know they aren't going to shut things down and affect any substantial change. They'll shut things down for a period of time that makes it hard on their middle class, grandstand, then cave after "deliberating". The result? Kick the can further down the road while the country continues to sink. I'll ask again. What's my recourse? What am I suppose to do other than not vote for any of them? I'm not confident in either party. They've not shown me any substantial evidence that either side can actually help this country in my voting life time. I'm already not voting for them. What do I do? I see the problems. I see the threats and I understand each. Now what?

 

[sublimeone]

Shut the whole ####### thing down. Republicans control the house, that means they get a seat at the table. If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are too arrogant to negotiate at all on their catastrophe of a law then republicans have no other choice.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

 

[matuski]

Desperation.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In return for a one-year suspension of the debt ceiling, House Republicans are demanding a year-long delay of Obamacare, adoption of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s tax-reform plan, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, more offshore oil drilling, more drilling on federally protected lands, looser regulations around ash coal, a suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon emissions, more power over the regulatory process in general, reform of the federal employee retirement program, changes to the Dodd-Frank Act, more power over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s budget, repeal of the Social Services block grant, expanded means-testing for Medicare benefits, repeal of the public health trust fund and more.Yes, that’s right: “and more.”

If this policy grab bag sounds familiar, it’s because Republicans have proposed it all before. It was, more or less, Mitt Romney’s agenda during the 2012 presidential campaign.

 

[humpback]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama,

:

October?

 

[Dr Oadi]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama,

:

October?

Obama voter.

 

[squistion]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama,

:

October?

Obama voter.

Indeed, surveys/polls have always shown that progressives are not as well educated as their conservative counterparts. That said, even George Bush or **** Cheney were known to make a factual error on occasion.

 

[timschochet]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

To be fair, the House Republicans were also elected. Their resistance to Obamacare is part of our pluralistic system of government. I detest the way theyre going about this, I think it's stupid and disastrous, but it is NOT undemocratic.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

To be fair, the House Republicans were also elected...

But not thanks to the popular vote. I would suggest a referendum on policy is not achieved through "Gerrymandering", but then again I don't think 2012 was a referendum on ObamaCare as much as a referendum against the delusional.

 

[Mr.Pack]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

So when Scott Walker was elected in WI. He should have been allowed to enact what he wanted to right? Because like you said, he won.

Yet your boys chose to run to a different state because they didn't like what Walker had proposed. They ran away for over a month.

But that was OK, right?

Hypocrites indeed

 

[njherdfan]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

To be fair, the House Republicans were also elected. Their resistance to Obamacare is part of our pluralistic system of government. I detest the way theyre going about this, I think it's stupid and disastrous, but it is NOT undemocratic.

By this logic, then elected representatives can do anything they want, simply by virtue of being elected. What they're doing absolutely is undemocratic; the democratic method of fighting Obamacare would be either 1) stopping it from getting passed, or 2) repealing it. The precedent of letting a law that was already passed be held up by the people who originally opposed it is not a good one.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Not only held up by the majority, but ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. The hypocrisy of the Republican party extends beyond their actions in this matter. They claim to be opposed to government waste, but they are just contributing to government waste with their current strategy. Further, their actions of even introducing the possibility of a government shut down are going to do a lot of damage to the economy, which was one of their platform issues in the election.

Shameful.

 

[timschochet]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

To be fair, the House Republicans were also elected. Their resistance to Obamacare is part of our pluralistic system of government. I detest the way theyre going about this, I think it's stupid and disastrous, but it is NOT undemocratic.

By this logic, then elected representatives can do anything they want, simply by virtue of being elected. What they're doing absolutely is undemocratic; the democratic method of fighting Obamacare would be either 1) stopping it from getting passed, or 2) repealing it. The precedent of letting a law that was already passed be held up by the people who originally opposed it is not a good one.

They CAN do anything they want, within the rules. In order to get the budget approved, and the debt ceiling raised, you need a majority vote in the House of Representatives. If enough Republicans vote against, then that majority vote isn't happening. That's the way our system is supposed to work. I don't see how you can call that undemocratic.

I'm the last guy who wants to be defending what the House Republicans are doing, but they certainly have a right to do it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Should be good fun when the next Republican President runs up against the debt limit and Dems insist on abortion on demand at any point during a pregnancy, a national handgun ban, and a top tax rate of 60% before they'll raise it.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Bingo. The Republicans are making up new rules with this precedent. Basically they are saying we know better than previous administrations/legislators, and even though we don't have a majority to get our way, we are going to hold the economy in hostage until we do get our way.

It is undemocratic because it circumvents the process of appealing previous legislation, and allows a small group of people to change laws outside the normal process. I can't explain it any simpler than that. You honestly can't understand this?

While it is going to piss me off no end to see the hit to my portfolio when these clowns fail to raise the debt ceiling, I can only hope the people who elected these simpletons will vote them out of office next election.

 

[Dr Oadi]

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15.

I thought the house wanted to shutdown the government?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Bingo. The Republicans are making up new rules with this precedent. Basically they are saying we know better than previous administrations/legislators, and even though we don't have a majority to get our way, we are going to hold the economy in hostage until we do get our way.

It is undemocratic because it circumvents the process of appealing previous legislation, and allows a small group of people to change laws outside the normal process. I can't explain it any simpler than that. You honestly can't understand this?

While it is going to piss me off no end to see the hit to my portfolio when these clowns fail to raise the debt ceiling, I can only hope the people who elected these simpletons will vote them out of office next election.

It's not undemocratic if it's within the rules. You and a couple other posters continually saying it is doesn't make it so.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Should be good fun when the next Republican President runs up against the debt limit and Dems insist on abortion on demand at any point during a pregnancy, a national handgun ban, and a top tax rate of 60% before they'll raise it.

Ok.

 

[badmojo1006]

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15.

I thought the house wanted to shutdown the government?

You left out the part where they want to delay Obamacare for a year

 

[spreagle]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

 

[joffer]

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15.

I thought the house wanted to shutdown the government?

You left out the part where they want to delay Obamacare for a year

pfft.....details.

 

[RCon]

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15.

I thought the house wanted to shutdown the government?

You left out the part where they want to delay Obamacare for a year

Obama has already delayed half of it for a year, what's the difference?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It would seem that a rift has been opened to the Plane of Stupidity.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

Pretty damning analysis of the Tea Partiers and the GOP'ers they elect..

 

[Dr Oadi]

The House approved a spending bill early Sunday morning that would fund the government through Dec. 15.

I thought the house wanted to shutdown the government?

You left out the part where they want to delay Obamacare for a year

Obama has already delayed half of it for a year, what's the difference?

tea parties bad. Obama good.

 

[timschochet]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/28/prepare-for-shutdown/

PDATED 9/29/13 at 12:40 a.m. - The government is headed for a shutdown after House Republicans on Saturday voted 231-192 to delay President Obama’s signature health care law as a precondition for funding the government. The White House and Democratic leaders in the Senate said they would reject all efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act, setting the stage for mass disruption of government services and payments beginning Tuesday.

“The House is about to vote to shut down the government — nothing more, nothing less,” Dan Pfeiffer, a senior White House adviser, told NBC News before the vote.

House Republicans first unveiled their proposal, which would keep the government open until Dec. 15 in exchange for a one-year delay of Obamacare, earlier Saturday. While Republicans portrayed the move as a compromise from their earlier vote to defund the law entirely, Senate Democrats and the White House likened it to extortion and accused House leaders of giving in to their most extreme members’ demands.

The House GOP’s decision to drive a hard line on health care rather than pass a “clean” spending bill means a government shutdown — the first since 1996 — is practically inevitable on Oct. 1. The White House announced in a statement that Obama would veto the House’s bill, but the odds of it ever reaching the president’s desk are extremely low. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wouldn’t even bring it to the floor for a vote.

“To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of the medical device tax,” Reid said in a statement Saturday. “After weeks of futile political games from Republicans, we are still at square one: Republicans must decide whether to pass the Senate’s clean CR, or force a Republican government shutdown.”

The House’s move is a significant victory for conservatives, who have spent months agitating for a no-holds-barred confrontation over Obamacare, whose insurance exchanges open for enrollment the same day that government funding runs out. The new bill came after conservative Republicans resisted Boehner’s attempt to persuade the caucus to delay the fight until the Oct. 17 debt-ceiling deadline.

Republicans enthusiastically embraced Obamacare delay in a special closed-door meeting on Saturday, breaking out into huge applause as members cheered “Let’s vote!”

“The whole room: ‘Let’s vote!’” Congressman John Culberson of Texas recalled. “I said, like 9/11, ‘let’s roll!’”

Culberson was referring to a quote from Todd Beamer aboard United Airlines Flight 93, a plane hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists on Sept. 11 that crashed in Pennsylvania after Beamer and other passengers fought to regain control.

The House GOP’s plan virtually ensures that the clock will run out before Congress can pass a stopgap budget that will keep the government open after Monday. On Friday, the Senate passed a six-week budget extension stripped of a provision to defund Obamacare, which the House had previously inserted.

The new House Republican plan attaches a longer stopgap budget to a one-year delay of Obamacare, as well as a repeal of the health reform law’s tax on medical device makers, which passed 248-174 on Saturday night. Seventeen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the repeal of the 2.3 percent tax on sales of medical devices. Two moderate Democrats also voted for the Obamacare delay—Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina. Two Republicans voted with Democrats against it: Reps. Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna, both of New York.

The House passed a separate bill with unanimous bipartisan support to ensure that military service members would continued to be paid in the advent of a shutdown. Prior to the vote, Democrat members leaving a caucus meeting Saturday evening explained their support for the measure, despite their opposition to the GOP’s Obamacare delay. “Just because Congress can do our job doesn’t mean our military men and women are not doing theirs, and they should be paid,” said Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran.

GOP members broadly denied that a shutdown was inevitable, insisting it would be the Senate’s responsibility to act. Even moderate Republicans who previously called the conservatives’ defunding push unrealistic said they backed the new plan, arguing that it would bring Democrats to the negotiating table over Obamacare. Congressman Tom Cole, who once called a shutdown to block the Affordable Care Act a “suicidal political tactic,” told reporters the latest proposal might garner votes from red state Democrats in the Senate, despite their stated opposition to a delay.

“I’m very supportive of it,” he said. “I think our conference is totally unified behind this.”

Congressman Michael Grimm of New York, a vocal critic of Cruz, suggested that President Obama might be willing to negotiate on an Obamacare delay if Republicans agreed to reverse some of the sequestration cuts and tied it to a debt-ceiling hike. Obama, for his part, has said he refuses to negotiate over the country’s creditworthiness at all.

“My sense is there would be sweeteners to go with it,” Grimm said.

House Republicans demurred, however, when asked what comes next if and when the Senate rejects the measure.

Polls suggest that the public will be more inclined to blame Republicans for a shutdown, which could put pressure on Boehner to relent. But the path towards a resolution is highly uncertain in light of an even more serious fiscal deadline: the Oct. 17 deadline for raising the debt ceiling or risk default.

“I fear this is a warmup act to the debt ceiling,” said former White House economist Jared Bernstein. “The inability to get a clean [short-term budget] out of the House—something I believe the Republican leadership actually wants—should dispel any lingering doubts about who’s in control over there.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently they're really going to do it. I was really hoping I would be wrong about this and that it was all a bluff. But it looks as if the government is about to be shutdown come tomorrow.

 

[spreagle]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

Pretty damning analysis of the Tea Partiers and the GOP'ers they elect..

Actually I meant to be more damning of the Democrats and Republicans, both who know how the debt game is played. Tea Partiers, being newbs to the game, might be actually be serious.

I remember when Obama came to office and the debt was under 10 trillion and thinking, boy, 20 trillion is gonna be a lot of debt and it will be that when Obama leaves. And it did double, like it doubles every 8 years, no matter who the president is (should have been more under Obama in not for artificial low interest rates). It will be near 40 trillion by the end of the next two term president, and 80 trillion by the end of the next one. There is no stopping it, so do the theatrics, then raise it I say.

 

[timschochet]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

Pretty damning analysis of the Tea Partiers and the GOP'ers they elect..

Actually I meant to be more damning of the Democrats and Republicans, both who know how the debt game is played. Tea Partiers, being newbs to the game, might be actually be serious.

I remember when Obama came to office and the debt was under 10 trillion and thinking, boy, 20 trillion is gonna be a lot of debt and it will be that when Obama leaves. And it did double, like it doubles every 8 years, no matter who the president is (should have been more under Obama in not for artificial low interest rates). It will be near 40 trillion by the end of the next two term president, and 80 trillion by the end of the next one. There is no stopping it, so do the theatrics, then raise it I say.

The Tea Partiers are dead serious. That's why the "theatrics" are dangerous.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Apparently they're really going to do it. I was really hoping I would be wrong about this and that it was all a bluff. But it looks as if the government is about to be shutdown come tomorrow.

Still defending that Romney vote Tim?

 

[jonessed]

We had a referendum on the healthcare bill last October. It was called a Presidential election and the majority of people vote FOR Obama, and a major part of his platform was the healthcare bill. That's the principle behind democracy--majority rules. Seems the Republican's only like democracy when is suits their interests.

Hypocrites

To be fair, the House Republicans were also elected. Their resistance to Obamacare is part of our pluralistic system of government. I detest the way theyre going about this, I think it's stupid and disastrous, but it is NOT undemocratic.

By this logic, then elected representatives can do anything they want, simply by virtue of being elected. What they're doing absolutely is undemocratic; the democratic method of fighting Obamacare would be either 1) stopping it from getting passed, or 2) repealing it. The precedent of letting a law that was already passed be held up by the people who originally opposed it is not a good one.

Or selectively choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

 

[timschochet]

The shutdown, assuming it comes, will not inconvenience anyone for a few weeks yet- especially since military will continue to be paid. Here's predicting that over the next few days guys like Joe T and Max Threshold come in here and post, "Where's the crisis?" and "Oh gee, nobody died!" etc. etc.

 

[timschochet]

Apparently they're really going to do it. I was really hoping I would be wrong about this and that it was all a bluff. But it looks as if the government is about to be shutdown come tomorrow.

Still defending that Romney vote Tim?

Yes. What does that have to do with this?

 

[timschochet]

Tommy, just to be clear: one part (a small part) of the reason I voted for Romney is because I wanted to see Obamacare defunded or repealed. I don't like Obamacare. I don't hate it, but I don't like it; I think it makes things worse, and I would be glad to see it gone. But Romney lost that election. The American public decided they wanted 4 more years of President Obama, and obviously Obamacare is part of that package. So be it.

Now the House Republicans want to blackmail Obama: either Obamacare is "delayed" (which means it will never go through) or the government is shut down and the debt ceiling won't be raised. It's terrible. It's a foolish way to govern. It could turn into an economic disaster. And it's exactly the sort of thing I have feared from the moment the Tea Party became prominent in conservative politics.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The shutdown, assuming it comes, will not inconvenience anyone for a few weeks yet- especially since military will continue to be paid. Here's predicting that over the next few days guys like Joe T and Max Threshold come in here and post, "Where's the crisis?" and "Oh gee, nobody died!" etc. etc.

Trying to throw up a smokescreen to divert attention away from your ridiculous posts?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

That fact that these clowns will continue to be paid if there is a government shutdown makes this even more of an outrage.

 

[timschochet]

That fact that these clowns will continue to be paid if there is a government shutdown makes this even more of an outrage.

This is correct. But hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be placed on unpaid leave.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

Pretty damning analysis of the Tea Partiers and the GOP'ers they elect..

Actually I meant to be more damning of the Democrats and Republicans, both who know how the debt game is played. Tea Partiers, being newbs to the game, might be actually be serious.

I remember when Obama came to office and the debt was under 10 trillion and thinking, boy, 20 trillion is gonna be a lot of debt and it will be that when Obama leaves. And it did double, like it doubles every 8 years, no matter who the president is (should have been more under Obama in not for artificial low interest rates). It will be near 40 trillion by the end of the next two term president, and 80 trillion by the end of the next one. There is no stopping it, so do the theatrics, then raise it I say.

The way you address the deficits is to raise taxes. Raising taxes is how you get the electorate to also demand meaningful spending cuts. That is what happens when you are forced to pay full sticker price for government. Artificially discounted products aren't demanded less. It (along with our economic prowess) is how we got deficits under control in the past, the recent past. If you are serious about deficits and ultimately the debt then politicians appealing to you are promising higher taxes. Who is that again?

 

[humpback]

I hope people understand the debt ceiling hike can't pass through easily with no problems, all this debt-ceiling drama and nail biting is make-believe, but necessary, to convince everyone that some bean counter types in Washington are very very concerned with fiscal responsibility, when in actuality they really aren't, pretty much all want to ... HAVE TO ... run up trillions more debt. They have to make it look like they don't want to do it and it is a really tough, reasoned and prudent determination that it is in everyone's best interest to hike the debt ceiling another two trillion.

Pretty damning analysis of the Tea Partiers and the GOP'ers they elect..

Actually I meant to be more damning of the Democrats and Republicans, both who know how the debt game is played. Tea Partiers, being newbs to the game, might be actually be serious.

I remember when Obama came to office and the debt was under 10 trillion and thinking, boy, 20 trillion is gonna be a lot of debt and it will be that when Obama leaves. And it did double, like it doubles every 8 years, no matter who the president is (should have been more under Obama in not for artificial low interest rates). It will be near 40 trillion by the end of the next two term president, and 80 trillion by the end of the next one. There is no stopping it, so do the theatrics, then raise it I say.

The way you address the deficits is to raise taxes. Raising taxes is how you get the electorate to also demand meaningful spending cuts. That is what happens when you are forced to pay full sticker price for government. Artificially discounted products aren't demanded less. It (along with our economic prowess) is how we got deficits under control in the past, the recent past. If you are serious about deficits and ultimately the debt then politicians appealing to you are promising higher taxes. Who is that again?

No one.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Tommy, just to be clear: one part (a small part) of the reason I voted for Romney is because I wanted to see Obamacare defunded or repealed. I don't like Obamacare. I don't hate it, but I don't like it; I think it makes things worse, and I would be glad to see it gone....

With or without ObamaCare there is no turning back.

I wonder if Democrats attached an amendment to a spending bill to eliminate ObamaCare in favor of single payer if anyone would even notice the single payer part?

 

[Fritz Funk]

The Tea Party & Duck Dynasty are pretty much the only things keeping America alive.

 

[spreagle]

This is a contrary opinion but I think the Tea Party is about to make the Republicans and Democrats look REAL bad on the national debt. Don't forget the debt ceiling issue is THE most important thing for the Tea Partiers, after all why even be a Tea Partier if you are just going to crank the debt up along with the Republicans and Democrats. The debt ceiling is a yawner for Republicans and Democrats because they've raised it countless times. All attention is about to be focused on the Tea Party, as Democrats and Republicans step aside, and the Tea Partiers will use that extra attention to their advantage ... just like my 3 year old several years ago ... a Christmas song and dance was coming up at part time daycare and I had him convinced this was a very important concert ... possibly the most important ever. I told him if the other kids didn't do much it was up to him to dance hard and carry the show. So as expected the other kids basically stood around doing nothing and he started dancing harder and harder and pretty soon they all parted and circled around him and he was literally carrying the show (I got it on video)! The crowd went nuts, and they didn't say sit down you crazy son of a teabagger sympathizer.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Serious question.

Has there ever been a conservative that went out of his way to distance himself from being a conservative more than tim? It's fascinating to watch sometimes.

 

[timschochet]

This is a contrary opinion but I think the Tea Party is about to make the Republicans and Democrats look REAL bad on the national debt. Don't forget the debt ceiling issue is THE most important thing for the Tea Partiers, after all why even be a Tea Partier if you are just going to crank the debt up along with the Republicans and Democrats. The debt ceiling is a yawner for Republicans and Democrats because they've raised it countless times. All attention is about to be focused on the Tea Party, as Democrats and Republicans step aside, and the Tea Partiers will use that extra attention to their advantage ... just like my 3 year old several years ago ... a Christmas song and dance was coming up at part time daycare and I had him convinced this was a very important concert ... possibly the most important ever. I told him if the other kids didn't do much it was up to him to dance hard and carry the show. So as expected the other kids basically stood around doing nothing and he started dancing harder and harder and pretty soon they all parted and circled around him and he was literally carrying the show (I got it on video)! The crowd went nuts, and they didn't say sit down you crazy son of a teabagger sympathizer.

IMO, that's because most of them don't get that raising the debt ceiling means paying for bills which have already been accrued. The polls consistently show that the public doesn't understand this, and I am betting that's even more pronounced among Tea Party members.

In any case, rather than make the Tea Party "look good", a serious failure to raise the debt ceiling would likely lead to the utter destruction of the Tea Party as a political movement. But the damage that would be done would be so great at that point that it wouldn't matter much.

 

[timschochet]

Serious question.

Has there ever been a conservative that went out of his way to distance himself from being a conservative more than tim? It's fascinating to watch sometimes.

I am not a conservative. I a moderate with certain fiscal conservative views.