The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[fatness]

Inside the Messy but Moneyed Republican Plan to Neutralize the Tea Party

It took a tea-party insurrection that disabled the federal government and wrecked the Republican brand, but after months of handwringing, establishment Republicans are preparing to attack ultraconservative ideologues across red America.

From Alabama to Alaska, the center-right, business-oriented wing of the Republican Party is gearing up for a series of skirmishes that it hopes can prevent the 2014 midterm election from turning into another missed opportunity. This will not be a coordinated operation. It will be messy, ugly, and prone to backfiring. And if the comeback succeeds, it will be in fits and starts, most likely culminating in the selection of a presidential nominee in 2016.

"Hopefully we'll go into eight to 10 races and beat the snot out of them," said former Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio, whose new political group, Defending Main Street, aims to raise $8 million to fend off tea-party challenges against more mainstream Republican incumbents. "We're going to be very aggressive and we're going to get in their faces."

Tactics being discussed among Republican strategists, donors, and party leaders include running attack ads against tea-party candidates for Congress; overthrowing Ron Paul's libertarian acolytes dominating the Iowa and Minnesota state parties; promoting open primaries over nominating conventions, which can produce Republican hard-liners such as Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli and shutdown-instigator Mike Lee of Utah; and countering political juggernauts Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks that target Republican incumbents who have consorted with Democrats.

The latest round of polling offered evidence of this exile: 64 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party in a new CNN/ORC International poll. The party's image also sunk to an all-time low in the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey.

The damage to the party is obvious in the Virginia governor's race, where two weeks before the election, Republicans are already writing off Cuccinelli, their tea-party-backed nominee. As he lags behind Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the polls, Republicans are condemning the state party for choosing its nominee at a convention dominated by conservative activists instead of in a regular primary.

 

[Otis]

Link

 

[Riversco]

I'm going to be nice to Tim today and point out that when Wisconsin state democrats crossed state lines and fled in order to avoid voting, Tim criticized democrats as well.

I haven't made up my mind on this issue yet. I can see both sides, based on the arguments being made. However, is there ANY justification for what the Democrat officials are doing? It seems absolutely shameful to me. Their job is to vote for or against this proposal, and if they lose they need to go to the voters and argue their case for the next election. Refusing to vote, an attempt to derail the process, is an attack on our political system. Or am I wrong about this?

I want to repeat again, though, that I don't have anything against this governor, or the unions: they're both honestly fighting for their interests. I have great sympathy for the teachers, but I don't think they were right to walk off their jobs. But the worst people in this whole drama are the Democrats in the State legislature. Their decision to disappear and go to other states is the most dangerous, anti-democratic aspect of this entire affair. How dare they do such a thing? It's terrible.

But the worst people in this whole drama are the Democrats in the State legislature. Their decision to disappear and go to other states is the most dangerous, anti-democratic aspect of this entire affair. How dare they do such a thing? It's terrible.

Efforts underway to recall & remove from office absent Democrats

Well, IMO that's going too far. I don't think they should be recalled or removed or put in jail. It's not at that level, IMO. But they really have a duty to return.

But the worst people in this whole drama are the Democrats in the State legislature. Their decision to disappear and go to other states is the most dangerous, anti-democratic aspect of this entire affair. How dare they do such a thing? It's terrible.

Efforts underway to recall & remove from office absent Democrats

Well, IMO that's going too far. I don't think they should be recalled or removed or put in jail. It's not at that level, IMO. But they really have a duty to return.

Why not??
They were "hired" to do a job. They are not doing that job. Removing them from office is probably a little steep since we need representation.

But there needs to be consequences for their actions. How about, if you are a no show for more than 5 days then you forfeit your ability for re-election?

If myself and a few co-workers didn't like the way things were happening at work ( which is about every week) and decided to just disappear so we didn't have to deal with it I guarantee you there wouldn't be a job for us to return to.

The reason that I would not punish them, despite the fact that I find their act reprehensible, is that it was a collective action taken by all Democrats. That means that it was a decision made at the highest level and likely at least some of them did not have a real choice in the matter. So I don't think any action should be taken except to punish them next time around at the ballot box.

PS I like your compromise; I'd go for it. But I'm afraid this governor won't.

Republicans ought to give him more credit on this.

 

[fatness]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57609204/will-the-shutdown-shut-out-the-tea-partys-next-generation/

67 percent of tea party supporters believe that most Americans share their views

They're un-skewing the polls again, I see. President Romney approves.

 

[ffldrew]

Looks like Janet Yellen is getting taken as a hostage by Rand Paul

 

[Slapdash]

Looks like Janet Yellen is getting taken as a hostage by Rand Paul

I'm sure this clown will end up filibustering her.

 

[ffldrew]

Looks like Janet Yellen is getting taken as a hostage by Rand Paul

I'm sure this clown will end up filibustering her.

Stated today he is putting a hold on her nomination

 

[Dr Oadi]

Government shutdown and more jobs than expected are added to the economy!

 

[Joe T]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

 

[timschochet]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

1. The update is that the shutdown accomplished no positive purpose but managed to hurt a lot of people.

2. Yes, the sequester is still causing pain. What's important is that the pain is completely unnecessary.

3. No, the economy is not tanking, thankfully.

4. Currently, all of the "doom and gloom" talk is coming from conservatives over Obamacare.

I don't think that those who were hurt as a result of the shutdown, or those who continue to be hurt as a result of the sequester, would be amused by your apparent contempt for them.

 

[Joe T]

How much did the sequester save? Can't remember... 1 trillion over 10 years?

Seems like a pretty good deal for America and the American people.

 

[Gr00vus]

Stewart had a nice little piece on gerrymandering last night that makes me think none of this will end up changing much in terms of actual voting results. I want to punch that Brace guy in the cooch.

 

[Joe T]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

1. The update is that the shutdown accomplished no positive purpose but managed to hurt a lot of people.2. Yes, the sequester is still causing pain. What's important is that the pain is completely unnecessary.

3. No, the economy is not tanking, thankfully.

4. Currently, all of the "doom and gloom" talk is coming from conservatives over Obamacare.

I don't think that those who were hurt as a result of the shutdown, or those who continue to be hurt as a result of the sequester, would be amused by your apparent contempt for them.

I don't think those who lost health insurance due to Obamacare would be amused by your contempt for them.

 

[Schlzm]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

1. The update is that the shutdown accomplished no positive purpose but managed to hurt a lot of people.2. Yes, the sequester is still causing pain. What's important is that the pain is completely unnecessary.

3. No, the economy is not tanking, thankfully.

4. Currently, all of the "doom and gloom" talk is coming from conservatives over Obamacare.

I don't think that those who were hurt as a result of the shutdown, or those who continue to be hurt as a result of the sequester, would be amused by your apparent contempt for them.

They need to lighten up then. It's the holidays, bunch of debbie downers moping about because they can't take a joke.Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

1. The update is that the shutdown accomplished no positive purpose but managed to hurt a lot of people.2. Yes, the sequester is still causing pain. What's important is that the pain is completely unnecessary.

3. No, the economy is not tanking, thankfully.

4. Currently, all of the "doom and gloom" talk is coming from conservatives over Obamacare.

I don't think that those who were hurt as a result of the shutdown, or those who continue to be hurt as a result of the sequester, would be amused by your apparent contempt for them.

I don't think those who lost health insurance due to Obamacare would be amused by your contempt for them.

Good, because I've never expressed contempt for them. In fact it worries me greatly, and I've expressed this over and over.

 

[Joe T]

Update?

Is the sequester still causing pain? Economy tanking? Doom and gloom everywhere?

1. The update is that the shutdown accomplished no positive purpose but managed to hurt a lot of people.2. Yes, the sequester is still causing pain. What's important is that the pain is completely unnecessary.

3. No, the economy is not tanking, thankfully.

4. Currently, all of the "doom and gloom" talk is coming from conservatives over Obamacare.

I don't think that those who were hurt as a result of the shutdown, or those who continue to be hurt as a result of the sequester, would be amused by your apparent contempt for them.

I don't think those who lost health insurance due to Obamacare would be amused by your contempt for them.

Good, because I've never expressed contempt for them. In fact it worries me greatly, and I've expressed this over and over.

Good. Me too.

 

[Joe T]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

 

[timschochet]

How much did the sequester save? Can't remember... 1 trillion over 10 years?

Seems like a pretty good deal for America and the American people.

So in other words, during that time span, our deficit will increase by 900 billion a year instead of 1 trillion a year. So that the end of 10 years, our total debt will be 24 trillion instead of 25 trillion. (And this is all assuming we don't have any new large unforeseen expenditures which is likely.

24 trillion instead of 25 trillion. And for that arbitrary we cut a lot of useful jobs, and sent those people to unemployment. Yeah that sure sounds like a good deal.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

 

[Schlzm]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

 

[bagger]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

we the people would have lost more than that if they didn't.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

 

[Mr.Pack]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

Ignoring facts is one of TGunZ's strengths.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

 

[Joe T]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Link to Obamamotors?

 

[Joe T]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

"I only listen to hard evidence, not anecdotes." And in this case, for the first time in possibly ever, the U.S. government cut costs. That is a resounding success since that was the goal.

 

[Joe T]

Let's see some goals here:

Sequester:

Cut government costs = success

Obamacare:

Build a website = fail

Reduce insurance rates = fail

Increase the number of people with health insurance = fail

I know its early, but the facts are pretty clear here and it is an amazing story.

 

[Schlzm]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

we the people would have lost more than that if they didn't.

The collapse of GM wouldn't have really damaged us all thart much since another player(s) would have been able to purchase their assets and utilize them. Some union stooges would have to go get another job, like normal people, but I don't think that would have affected us either.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

Heads up! Lawndart incoming!Schlzm

ETA: In that specific case I looked at a lot of things, however the end result is that a ton of money was once again thrown at a problem to provide support for a tiny group at the expense of everyone else and still had a negative ROI while supporters cheer how great it is.

 

[Mad Cow]

My personal experience with the shutdown is this - it came at the perfect time to kill the processing of my SBA loan for my new building, causing a lot of waiting and re-doing of forms and such. Total cost to me in interest - just north of $10,000. Thanks #####es.

Can anyone else claim to have been hit so hard by the shutdown that isn't an employee?

 

[Slapdash]

I see these idiots in Congress have agreed to raise the "9/11 Security Fee". This is OK with Ryan and Boehner since a fee isn't a tax.

 

[shader]

Let's see some goals here:

Sequester:

Cut government costs = success

Obamacare:

Build a website = fail

Reduce insurance rates = fail

Increase the number of people with health insurance = fail

I know its early, but the facts are pretty clear here and it is an amazing story.

These are not meaningful cuts. You can't make cuts over a ten year period and claim that you saved the gov't that full amount. Future sessions of congress are not required to bide by those cuts so they don't count.

Engaging in meaningful cuts is political suicide. It's quite obvious that neither the Republicans nor the Demorats have the guts to try and actually make meaningful cuts. They are going to ride this out as long as they can. But it's ridiculous to act as if they've done anything meaningful here, in regards to cuts.

 

[Joe T]

Let's see some goals here:

Sequester:

Cut government costs = success

Obamacare:

Build a website = fail

Reduce insurance rates = fail

Increase the number of people with health insurance = fail

I know its early, but the facts are pretty clear here and it is an amazing story.

These are not meaningful cuts. You can't make cuts over a ten year period and claim that you saved the gov't that full amount. Future sessions of congress are not required to bide by those cuts so they don't count.

Engaging in meaningful cuts is political suicide. It's quite obvious that neither the Republicans nor the Demorats have the guts to try and actually make meaningful cuts. They are going to ride this out as long as they can. But it's ridiculous to act as if they've done anything meaningful here, in regards to cuts.

$80 Billion in cuts this year (FY13) weren't real? Cool. So I guess there is a good reason for the lack of people complaining about these cuts and the lack of doom and gloom that was predicted, but never happened.

 

[shader]

Let's see some goals here:

Sequester:

Cut government costs = success

Obamacare:

Build a website = fail

Reduce insurance rates = fail

Increase the number of people with health insurance = fail

I know its early, but the facts are pretty clear here and it is an amazing story.

These are not meaningful cuts. You can't make cuts over a ten year period and claim that you saved the gov't that full amount. Future sessions of congress are not required to bide by those cuts so they don't count.

Engaging in meaningful cuts is political suicide. It's quite obvious that neither the Republicans nor the Demorats have the guts to try and actually make meaningful cuts. They are going to ride this out as long as they can. But it's ridiculous to act as if they've done anything meaningful here, in regards to cuts.

$80 Billion in cuts this year (FY13) weren't real? Cool. So I guess there is a good reason for the lack of people complaining about these cuts and the lack of doom and gloom that was predicted, but never happened.

They weren't meaningful in terms of doing anything to fix the budget problem. I wasn't referring to the impact that they had on people who may have lost their job or been affected.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

Heads up! Lawndart incoming!Schlzm

ETA: In that specific case I looked at a lot of things, however the end result is that a ton of money was once again thrown at a problem to provide support for a tiny group at the expense of everyone else and still had a negative ROI while supporters cheer how great it is.

What specifically did you look at? What was your calculation of the unemployment benefit savings due to those folks not losing their jobs?

 

[Schlzm]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

Heads up! Lawndart incoming!Schlzm

ETA: In that specific case I looked at a lot of things, however the end result is that a ton of money was once again thrown at a problem to provide support for a tiny group at the expense of everyone else and still had a negative ROI while supporters cheer how great it is.

What specifically did you look at? What was your calculation of the unemployment benefit savings due to those folks not losing their jobs?

I looked at the reinvestment of a failing company into a successful company as actually benefitting the economy through new jobs and more efficient markets. I looked at reducing largesse of the untennable promises to the unions. I looked at taking skilled workers and realigning them into an efficient business model. At the time unenmployment hadn't been turned into a disgraceful monetary blackhole therefore those individuals would have no choice but to find themselves in a position where they would, hopefully, reinsert themselves into the workforce and actually add something to the local economy instead of taking from the national, puffing their chests out with pride while their communities crumble around them. Those are things I looked at. What were you looking at? Oh and also the feds didn't "take over" the auto-industry. Also please answer my question above since I took the time to answer yours when I generally feel most of the drivel typed by you as pointless at best, yes please feel free to take this as some sort of personal attack and feel incensed over it. #### happens.

Schlzm

ETA: Just because I can, it's assessing not accessing. If I was accessing the money spent on that crap, I probably wouldn't be spending time posting about this, I would be affecting it.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE9BA0WN20131212

(Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday were falling in line behind a bipartisan two-year budget deal, indicating that the normally rambunctious group of lawmakers is not spoiling for a year-end fiscal fight.

Despite conservative groups' denunciation of the plan and public opposition from some members associated with the conservative Tea Party movement, the Republican-controlled House was planning to vote on Thursday to pass the deal, Representative Kevin McCarthy, the third-ranking Republican told Reuters.

A key House panel, on a 9-3 vote, cleared the legislation for debate and votes in the full House. The Republican-controlled Rules Committee refused to allow Democrats to offer an amendment to extend federal unemployment benefits that expire later this month.

The agreement, if approved, would be the first to bridge the bitter partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats in Washington that has paralyzed Congress since 2010. It is aimed primarily at breaking a cycle of fiscal crises in Washington following last October's chaotic 16-day closure of many federal agencies.

While it includes modest deficit reduction measures - $85 billion in savings over ten years and an easing of across-the-board budget cuts known as the "sequester" - it effectively concedes that larger scale savings of the sort envisioned in various "grand bargain" proposals are out-of-reach politically.

For some Republicans, it could have the added merit of keeping the public's attention focused on President Barack Obama's healthcare law and its rocky rollout instead of on another budget battle in the midst of holiday season.

Republicans were hammered in public opinion polls for their role in the October shutdown, but this faded quickly as the media later shifted its focus to the Obamacare troubles.

The party's divisions, enflamed during the shutdown, were still on display Thursday.

Organizations influential with House conservatives - such as the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity - continued denouncing the agreement.

 

[timschochet]

This is great news. Bipartisan effort, easing of the stupid sequester across the board cuts. Of course the Tea Party hates it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This is great news. Bipartisan effort, easing of the stupid sequester across the board cuts.

Agreed. Feels like change is afoot. Maybe.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

Like the Auto industry? What a failure that turned out to be.

Ignoring the fact that they only bailed out the auto industry and through the stock shuffle that was used to make that happen that we the people lost over $10bb on that deal, yeah what a great success to point to! How's the student loan industry doing?Schlzm

So when accessing the costs and benefits of the Auto bailout, the only number you look to is the return on the stock?

Heads up! Lawndart incoming!Schlzm

ETA: In that specific case I looked at a lot of things, however the end result is that a ton of money was once again thrown at a problem to provide support for a tiny group at the expense of everyone else and still had a negative ROI while supporters cheer how great it is.

What specifically did you look at? What was your calculation of the unemployment benefit savings due to those folks not losing their jobs?

I looked at the reinvestment of a failing company into a successful company as actually benefitting the economy through new jobs and more efficient markets. I looked at reducing largesse of the untennable promises to the unions. I looked at taking skilled workers and realigning them into an efficient business model. At the time unenmployment hadn't been turned into a disgraceful monetary blackhole therefore those individuals would have no choice but to find themselves in a position where they would, hopefully, reinsert themselves into the workforce and actually add something to the local economy instead of taking from the national, puffing their chests out with pride while their communities crumble around them.Those are things I looked at. What were you looking at? Oh and also the feds didn't "take over" the auto-industry. Also please answer my question above since I took the time to answer yours when I generally feel most of the drivel typed by you as pointless at best, yes please feel free to take this as some sort of personal attack and feel incensed over it. #### happens.

Schlzm

ETA: Just because I can, it's assessing not accessing. If I was accessing the money spent on that crap, I probably wouldn't be spending time posting about this, I would be affecting it.

Cool. Can you share the results from you analysis, i.e. numbers? Again, I'd be specifically interested in how much you calculated we saved in unemployment insurance, since that seems like a very important part to include when coming to the "we lost over $10bn" conclusion you claimed was not based on simply the stock sale.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This is great news. Bipartisan effort, easing of the stupid sequester across the board cuts.

Agreed. Feels like change is afoot. Maybe.

I wish I was optimistic. To me, this reeks of Ryan and Boehner being more politically savvy than the ideologue Republican groups denouncing the deal.

But I guess even something as simple as avoiding gov't shutdowns counts as progress with House Republicans these days.

 

[RCon]

Well, yes, anyone who believes we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending would dislike a deal that doesn't do so. Why is this surprising?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Well, yes, anyone who believes we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending would dislike a deal that doesn't do so. Why is this surprising?

Paul Ryan doesn't believe we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending?

 

[timschochet]

Well, yes, anyone who believes we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending would dislike a deal that doesn't do so. Why is this surprising?

Then

1. You should have disliked the sequester, since none of those cuts were "meaningful".

2. You should like this deal, since it gets rid of some of the worst of the stupid, meaningless cuts that were part of the sequester.

 

[RCon]

Well, yes, anyone who believes we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending would dislike a deal that doesn't do so. Why is this surprising?

Then

1. You should have disliked the sequester, since none of those cuts were "meaningful".

2. You should like this deal, since it gets rid of some of the worst of the stupid, meaningless cuts that were part of the sequester.

1. I disliked the sequester, when compared to meaningful cuts. I liked it, when compared to "nothing".

2. I dislike this deal, when compared to meaningful cuts. I dislike it, when compared to the sequester, as these cuts are even less meaningful than those.

 

[timschochet]

Well, yes, anyone who believes we need to make meaningful cuts to government spending would dislike a deal that doesn't do so. Why is this surprising?

Then

1. You should have disliked the sequester, since none of those cuts were "meaningful".

2. You should like this deal, since it gets rid of some of the worst of the stupid, meaningless cuts that were part of the sequester.

1. I disliked the sequester, when compared to meaningful cuts. I liked it, when compared to "nothing".

2. I dislike this deal, when compared to meaningful cuts. I dislike it, when compared to the sequester, as these cuts are even less meaningful than those.

Yeah, you keep repeating this mantra, "when compared to nothing" or "we gotta start somewhere." I don't get it. If you owned a multimillion dollar business that was currently losing $100,000 a year, and somebody proposed to you a way to save $50 a month, would you consider that a "good start"? It just makes no sense.

Right now the debt is around 15 trillion dollars. In ten years time it's going to be between 24-28 trillion dollars. There is NOTHING we can do to stop that from happening. No amount of cuts that we could possibly do will make any difference at all. It is what it is. Hopefully we'll grow our economy out of it. But if we don't- well, you're like the dude running around the Titanic, desperately looking for a way out when there isn't one. Me, I'm pouring myself another drink and listening to the band. What difference does it make? We're both going to end up in the water...

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. I disliked the sequester, when compared to meaningful cuts. I liked it, when compared to "nothing".

2. I dislike this deal, when compared to meaningful cuts. I dislike it, when compared to the sequester, as these cuts are even less meaningful than those.

This seems like a overly simplistic way to look at things. All federal expenditures are equal? Would you like a deal that cut $400 billion of our current $500 billion-ish defense spending but spent $200 billion on a study to determine whether men are happier if they tuck their undershirts into their boxers? After all, that would save $200 billion! Meaningful cuts!

 

[RCon]

Yeah, you keep repeating this mantra, "when compared to nothing" or "we gotta start somewhere." I don't get it. If you owned a multimillion dollar business that was currently losing $100,000 a year, and somebody proposed to you a way to save $50 a month, would you consider that a "good start"? It just makes no sense.Right now the debt is around 15 trillion dollars. In ten years time it's going to be between 24-28 trillion dollars. There is NOTHING we can do to stop that from happening. No amount of cuts that we could possibly do will make any difference at all. It is what it is. Hopefully we'll grow our economy out of it. But if we don't- well, you're like the dude running around the Titanic, desperately looking for a way out when there isn't one. Me, I'm pouring myself another drink and listening to the band. What difference does it make? We're both going to end up in the water...

No, I wouldn't consider it a "good start". I would consider it a crappy start. I would also consider it better than nothing. I don't understand why you think those statements are incompatible.

 

[Statorama]

This deal is horrific and makes me feel like Sasha Grey about ten minutes into a shoot

 

[RCon]

1. I disliked the sequester, when compared to meaningful cuts. I liked it, when compared to "nothing".

2. I dislike this deal, when compared to meaningful cuts. I dislike it, when compared to the sequester, as these cuts are even less meaningful than those.

This seems like a overly simplistic way to look at things. All federal expenditures are equal? Would you like a deal that cut $400 billion of our current $500 billion-ish defense spending but spent $200 billion on a study to determine whether men are happier if they tuck their undershirts into their boxers? After all, that would save $200 billion! Meaningful cuts!

What I would personally do is freeze government spending at present levels, in an across-the-board fashion, until the deficit is eliminated. I would favor this, or anything along these lines, because I realize that "targeted, thoughtful cuts" are impossible.