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

[RCon]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

 

[timschochet]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

 

[DrJ]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

Most definitely agree on this one. Tim tries to call himself a "fiscal conservative" but the guy goes ape#### over any proposed cuts and starts parroting a bunch of drama. This is the type of stuff that has the Tea Party resorting to their tactics. And then the types like Tim want to cry foul when they resort to the only tactics they have at their disposal to try and stop this nonsense.

 

[timschochet]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

There are plenty of ways to significantly reduce the deficit through spending cuts that won't send us into recession? Please expand.

 

[DrJ]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

I'm declaring myself as someone unwilling to accept the status quo of unsustainable levels of government spending and as someone who will support any means necessary to end it. Anyone that can do basic math can look at these numbers and tell that it's not sustainable. Being completely unwilling to come up with any spending cuts after a bi partisan conferences and a bunch of political show is what's extreme to me.

Your contrived nonsense says to me that you're an extremist that supports big government and you're unwilling to accept anything that might compromise it. The fact that you can do this and call yourself a "fiscal conservative" with a straight face is kind of incredible to me and I personally hope that the Republican party dies a painful death if this is what their supporters are in favor of. This is where the liberal lite label I attach to your kind comes from.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I wonder if the House had terms greater than 2 years, whether any of this would have happened.

I thought the same thing about having a true Senate again and getting rid of the 17th Amendment.

How would gerrymandered state legislatures help in this instance?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Curious at why you think I'm not Independent?

Well...

I just picture a cartoon out there somewhere with the skyline of Washington burning and nothing but rubble while two Democrats high five each other and say, "Yay! We won!"

Someone who can draw, get on it!

It is possible to make fun of one side, and not be affiliated with the other. I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to alot of partisan hacks out there. But there are millions of people who laugh at both sides and can clearly see how inept they both are at just about everything.

Very true.

I am Anti-KooK, not Pro-Democrat.

yet somehow every time you post you post extreme left rhetoric and talking points. But you're not pro-Democrat at all. Sure.

Link?

 

[RCon]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

There are plenty of ways to significantly reduce the deficit through spending cuts that won't send us into recession? Please expand.

I specifically noted "or raise taxes" in my reply. And let's see... the sequester cuts didn't send us into a recession, despite being untargeted, stupid cuts, right? Surely, targeted, intelligent cuts would be even less likely to send us into a recession than the sequester cuts. We could reduce defense spending, I'm certain. We could introduce chained CPI. We could legalize and tax marijuana. We could stop spending billions on the war on drugs. We could eliminate the tax benefit of employer provided healthcare. That's just five minutes off the top of my head.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Well that was fun.

 

[RCon]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

It's hardly extremist to believe that our current path is unsustainable.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We won't know the ultimate political winners and losers until we see the results of the 2014 elections. ...

I'd go with this...

Voters have less of an attention span then that of a fly. By this time next year no one will remember any of this.

We "win" with this nonsense only if some action is taken on some of the stuff backlogged which could likely get some bipartisan support (at least in some forms) such as the immigration reform you mentioned. And this would be now not in the future.

I can't imagine the democrats (since a democrat is in the White House) making any midterm gains. For whatever reason(s) it doesn't tend to work that way.

 

[joffer]

Maybe Obama will veto it

 

[timschochet]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

Of course not. But surely you see the difference between "some pain" and "let it burn down." It's the "some pain" that makes you a traditional conservative. It's the "let it burn down" that makes him a radical Tea Party member.

 

[DrJ]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

It's hardly extremist to believe that our current path is unsustainable.

I even noted in this post that I'm willing to compromise on my ideals. But every time we talk about the slightest spending cuts Tim digs in and cries about how it's going to tank the economy. And he's calling me the extremist. It's amusing. How he can actually do this and try and label himself "fiscal conservative" requires a whole lot of mental gymnastics.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I just picture a cartoon out there somewhere with the skyline of Washington burning and nothing but rubble while two Democrats high five each other and say, "Yay! We won!"

Someone who can draw, get on it!

Isn't anyone celebrating the bicentennial of Aug 24th with a big re-enactment? (But I would think this is the anti DC crowd, not the big federal government democrats.)

 

[DrJ]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

Of course not. But surely you see the difference between "some pain" and "let it burn down." It's the "some pain" that makes you a traditional conservative. It's the "let it burn down" that makes him a radical Tea Party member.

If someone else isn't going to budge even the slightest and your options are to let them deal you a #### sandwich or actually stand up for what you believe in, you're forcing me to behave in an extremist fashion.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm reading all the time about new technology which is going to completely transform our society over the next few decades- ... there really is no limit IMO.

As long as we are the nation mining the asteroid belt all will be good.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we implement a "kick the can" tax? Maybe grant the IRS "publishing rights" or something to collect a few pennies in royalties each time it used? Should close our immediate budget hole pretty nicely. At least until people can break the habits to avoid using it to avoid the tax.

 

[timschochet]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

There are plenty of ways to significantly reduce the deficit through spending cuts that won't send us into recession? Please expand.

I specifically noted "or raise taxes" in my reply. And let's see... the sequester cuts didn't send us into a recession, despite being untargeted, stupid cuts, right? Surely, targeted, intelligent cuts would be even less likely to send us into a recession than the sequester cuts. We could reduce defense spending, I'm certain. We could introduce chained CPI. We could legalize and tax marijuana. We could stop spending billions on the war on drugs. We could eliminate the tax benefit of employer provided healthcare. That's just five minutes off the top of my head.

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.

And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

 

[RCon]

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

Now you've defeated your own argument. If a crash is inevitable, it's certainly not an extremist position to want the crash to occur to ourselves rather than to our children. Almost every parent feels that urge.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

 

[DrJ]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

There are plenty of ways to significantly reduce the deficit through spending cuts that won't send us into recession? Please expand.

I specifically noted "or raise taxes" in my reply. And let's see... the sequester cuts didn't send us into a recession, despite being untargeted, stupid cuts, right? Surely, targeted, intelligent cuts would be even less likely to send us into a recession than the sequester cuts. We could reduce defense spending, I'm certain. We could introduce chained CPI. We could legalize and tax marijuana. We could stop spending billions on the war on drugs. We could eliminate the tax benefit of employer provided healthcare. That's just five minutes off the top of my head.

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.

And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

If we actually flat line spending as wcrob suggested (which will require entitlement reform and a spending freeze on the military) then the economy will naturally shrink the deficit. We could even do PayGo as Obama once proposed and make sure than any increase in spending is offset with new receipts. It might take a decade or longer, but it would actually happen. If we could then maintain the balanced budget, the debt to GDP ratio will naturally shrink. This is all that needs to happen. But even gradual plans that might take 10 or 15 years are too extreme for you big government types. You leave people that consider this a real problem no alternative than the tactics you're seeing and getting bent out of shape about. If you believe someone is heading towards a cliff and you can't even get them to gently apply the brake to get a little more time to think about things, what do you have left but "extremist" choices if you genuinely fear for this person's life?

 

[DrJ]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

I realize you'll try and play all sorts of gymnastics to justify how it all went wrong.

 

[Fennis]

https://www.facebook.com/OfficeofSpeakerBoehner

Look at those comments. Holy #### that is scary. Fortunately there is one common demographic you can see. Old and white.

Hurry up and die you backward ####s.

I'll take my time, thank you very much.

 

[Amused to Death]

Can we implement a "kick the can" tax? Maybe grant the IRS "publishing rights" or something to collect a few pennies in royalties each time it used? Should close our immediate budget hole pretty nicely. At least until people can break the habits to avoid using it to avoid the tax.

Been watching Fox all night, Hannity's on now. "Kick the can" is a mandatory phrase for the Fox team. Oh, and Hannity's head is about to explode. Great entertainment atm.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

Of course not. But surely you see the difference between "some pain" and "let it burn down." It's the "some pain" that makes you a traditional conservative. It's the "let it burn down" that makes him a radical Tea Party member.

If someone else isn't going to budge even the slightest and your options are to let them deal you a #### sandwich or actually stand up for what you believe in, you're forcing me to behave in an extremist fashion.

Why do I refuse to budge in the slightest? Because nothing you are in favor of will affect the debt in the slightest, but it will cause significant pain.

The best analogy I can give you is this- suppose we were the CEO's of a company losing a million dollars a year and we were trying to save ourselves from bankruptcy We were a multibillion dollar company with lots of assets and earning capacity, so we could continue to hang around for decades even losing a million dollars a year. Still, something has to be done, because eventually, in the long run, we would be unsustainable.

So you approach me with a plan to fire 200 people. I hate to do this, I don't want to fire anyone and neither do you. But your calculations show that if we fire these people and then have others absorb their duties it will save us around $50,000 net a year. I tell you no, saving $50,000 when you're losing a million is meaningless. It's not worth firing all those people to save $50,000. You reply that we have to start somewhere, and that whatever you propose I turn down. Then you threaten to blow the company up. Your argument: might as well declare BK now rather than wait around for 20 years. Sure, everybody loses their jobs, but they will eventually lose them anyhow. I say no, I'm not going to allow all those people to lose their jobs, and maybe we can solve this in some other way. 20 years is a long time away yet.

And that's the difference between us.

 

[3C's]

shut it down!

 

[DrJ]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

Of course not. But surely you see the difference between "some pain" and "let it burn down." It's the "some pain" that makes you a traditional conservative. It's the "let it burn down" that makes him a radical Tea Party member.

If someone else isn't going to budge even the slightest and your options are to let them deal you a #### sandwich or actually stand up for what you believe in, you're forcing me to behave in an extremist fashion.

Why do I refuse to budge in the slightest? Because nothing you are in favor of will affect the debt in the slightest, but it will cause significant pain.

The best analogy I can give you is this- suppose we were the CEO's of a company losing a million dollars a year and we were trying to save ourselves from bankruptcy We were a multibillion dollar company with lots of assets and earning capacity, so we could continue to hang around for decades even losing a million dollars a year. Still, something has to be done, because eventually, in the long run, we would be unsustainable.

So you approach me with a plan to fire 200 people. I hate to do this, I don't want to fire anyone and neither do you. But your calculations show that if we fire these people and then have others absorb their duties it will save us around $50,000 net a year. I tell you no, saving $50,000 when you're losing a million is meaningless. It's not worth firing all those people to save $50,000. You reply that we have to start somewhere, and that whatever you propose I turn down. Then you threaten to blow the company up. Your argument: might as well declare BK now rather than wait around for 20 years. Sure, everybody loses their jobs, but they will eventually lose them anyhow. I say no, I'm not going to allow all those people to lose their jobs, and maybe we can solve this in some other way. 20 years is a long time away yet.

And that's the difference between us.

Your position is that the company should just sit back and keep losing a million dollars a year and just hope that one day their sales will magically increase. At least I'm actively trying to cut this deficit and address the problem.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

I realize you'll try and play all sorts of gymnastics to justify how it all went wrong.

Civics 101: "The power of the purse" resides in the executive branch.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

It's hardly extremist to believe that our current path is unsustainable.

The current path is a deficit that is declining by hundreds of billions per year.

 

[DrJ]

Civics 101: "The power of the purse" resides in the executive branch.

Translation: Since the numbers look ####ty and there's really no way to dress them up, I'll try and be witty.

 

[DrJ]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

Also on this point, one has to assume that Obama's policies have been implemented since he's only used 2 vetos since he's been in office. There almost hasn't been a bill presented to him that he felt needed to be reworked.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Civics 101: "The power of the purse" resides in the executive branch.

Translation: Since the numbers look ####ty and there's really no way to dress them up, I'll try and be witty.

Nope. The lack of even the most basic understanding of the drivers of the deficits cause those screaming to blow it all up merely to thwart rather than promote the goals claiming to be pursuing. Goals that are necessary to be pursued, but every opportunity is destroyed by idiotic misconceptions.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion.

But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

Also on this point, one has to assume that Obama's policies have been implemented since he's only used 2 vetos since he's been in office. There almost hasn't been a bill presented to him that he felt needed to be reworked.

Q.E.D.

 

[humpback]

Maybe the Tea Party types would be a little less rabid if we actually made some steps toward balancing the budget rather than it being a ridiculous circus that amounts to almost nothing and has everyone kicking and screaming over even that. Would I like to balance the budget overnight? Ideally, yes. Would I be willing to do it more incrementally if I had faith it would actually happen eventually. Yes. It's less than ideal, but at least a step in the right direction. We cannot continue running trillion dollar deficits and have any hope this is going to happen though, and even attempts at a reasonable budget solutions all go up in flames. I'm content to let it burn down if that's the route it's going to take anyways.

Though you and I disagree quite a bit, the bolded represents the main reason I feel compelled to oppose the Tea Party. When you express such a viewpoint you're declaring yourself as part of the extreme. You're a radical- not part of the political process that makes this country great and stable. No offense, but your willingness to push for political "solutions" that will bring this outcome about (let it burn down) are dangerous and must be defeated.

It's not necessarily extremist to believe that some pain is better than worse pain later, or that accepting pain for oneself is preferable to save their children pain.

It's hardly extremist to believe that our current path is unsustainable.

The current path is a deficit that is declining by hundreds of billions per year.

 

[dparker713]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

Well, the Republicans used the 1994 shutdown and the cover of balancing the budget to begin to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. Then, once the budget was balanced they passed tax cuts that again moved money from the poor to the rich. So no, they don't need to be tied together, but they have been.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

 

[timschochet]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

 

[fatness]

https://www.facebook.com/OfficeofSpeakerBoehner

Look at those comments. Holy #### that is scary. Fortunately there is one common demographic you can see. Old and white.

I don't think "the people" means what they think it means.

 

[timschochet]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

 

[Schlzm]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

I know there is pretty much zero chance of this happening, but just for ####s and giggles, how would you react if Obama vetoed the bill?Schlzm

 

[Jewell]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

 

[[icon]]

This thread and the shortsighted, childish idiocy displayed by BOTH sides is precisely why this bandaid is just that, and why this country will be a shell of itself in our lifetimes.

I know the blue team is beating their chests right now and pointing fingers like lil kids in the faces of the read team... And frankly, red team sorta deserves it a little because they definitely held the candle a little too close to the skin.

The problem is, while all you dipsharts are slap fighting about who gets to drive, the car is headed off the pier. Unfortunately nobody on EITHER SIDE has enough brains to stop stink eyeing the guy who's in the same damn car as them and focus on the road.

Typically, I'll get a couple morons who'll say "LOL REPUBS R MAD" (even though I've spoken scathing measures against both sides):.. And I'll get idiots on the right who will talk #### about something else. Bottom like is you ########s who have set anchors on EITHER side are ####### ruining this country. The saddest part is I don't think ANY of you see it... On either side.

Anyways congrats blue team. Yay points. We ####ed that read team realllll good this time. At least for a month. Till they've really dug their heels in and the maybe this Time they don't cave...

Because the only options are red and blue... Right? :(

 

[3C's]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

bunch of P's that are worried about getting hammered in primaries.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'd like to congratulate Tim for pretty much every fruitcake on this forum for several weeks, well played.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

Why are you assuming that all 142 of those Republicans were influenced by the Tea Party?

 

[[icon]]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

bunch of P's that are worried about getting hammered in primaries.

Make no bones about it... #### like this is what forces extremism. The tea party are idiots that are so far out on the right that it scares EVERY rational thinker. The problem is after staring into the abyss of stupidity that is this blue vs red slapfight, you dumbasses are forcing more and more people either to the sidelines (like myself) or to extremist countermeasures (like the tea party).

It's bad for everyone. Anyone claiming victory tonight is an idiot :(

 

[Schlzm]

Looks like the Government finally figured out that the NSA Spying, ObamaCare glitches, IRS scandals, Benghazi problems, and Syria were finally pushed far enough off the front pages. Good job not letting another crisis go to waste.

You forgot Fast and Furious, Egypt, and the various angencies grabbing up guns and ammo for secret "task forces". Time does heal all wounds I guess.Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

I know there is pretty much zero chance of this happening, but just for ####s and giggles, how would you react if Obama vetoed the bill?Schlzm

I'd laugh hysterically. Then I'd call for his immediate impeachment.

 

[Run It Up]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

bunch of P's that are worried about getting hammered in primaries.

Make no bones about it... #### like this is what forces extremism. The tea party are idiots that are so far out on the right that it scares EVERY rational thinker. The problem is after staring into the abyss of stupidity that is this blue vs red slapfight, you dumbasses are forcing more and more people either to the sidelines (like myself) or to extremist countermeasures (like the tea party).

It's bad for everyone. Anyone claiming victory tonight is an idiot :(

Liberal pinko commie here, disappointed that we got here to begin with, satisfied at the outcome however.

Extra points for conservatives continuing to destroy their own party.