PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party = treason


Hari Seldon
07-30-2011, 04:09 PM
My wife made that observation this morning as we heard the news. They are seriously trying to overthrow the government and much more likely to succeed than the pathetic American Communist Part ever could have imagined.

At this point, Obama's latest proposal is far to the right of what any Democrat or most Republicans, for that matter, would agree with. Still the party of intransigence parties on and seem perfectly content to bring the entire economy down with them. And the rest of the Republicans seem to go along with that.

In any other democracy, the government would have fallen after last November and the Republicans would now have the responsibility to do what they will. I don't think it would include bringing down the whole economy, causing interest rates to rise and the rest of it. In fact, it was only a decade ago that the Republicans decided to end the large surplus bequeathed to them by Clinton. The debt was going down (slowly, but steadily) and they had to end that.

No other democracy that I am aware allows its business to be hijacked by unlimited debates or the threat of them. Well, maybe the Tea Party will succeed and a new constitution will emerge. It must have occurred to many that there must be a reason that no other country allows a government that has lost the confidence of the legislature to survive, crippled. And almost no other country has a genuine bicameral legislature. In England the Lords and in Canada the senate mostly just go along with commons, since they know they are unelected.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 04:19 PM
How, exactly, are they trying to "overthrow" the government? The got elected, and they are pursuing their political beliefs within the system of government we have.

And treason? The OP sounds like left wing version of some of the nuttiness that comes out of.. The Tea Partiers.

Let's not have another 5 page debate where people create their own definition of treason when it is clearly outlined in the constitution.

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 04:27 PM
How, exactly, are they trying to "overthrow" the government? The got elected, and they are pursuing their political beliefs within the system of government we have. A system they are trying to subvert and break.

And treason?
Fine. Do you prefer "enemies of humanity" instead? They're trying to wreck the world economy.

Let's not have another 5 page debate where people create their own definition of treason when it is clearly outlined in the constitution. A definition so narrow you could deliberately destroy the country without legally being guilty of treason, as long as you did it the right way. This is a case where law and reality don't match up.

BDoors
07-30-2011, 04:32 PM
Some other important countries do operate under a bicameral system, but I'm not sure how many of them suffer from the unjustified level of reverence for the constitution that is drummed into Americans from a young age. The US system has been a great success for 200+ years. It is very hard for people to accept that it may be flawed.

Whack-a-Mole
07-30-2011, 04:33 PM
"Treason" has a specific definition and Tea Partiers do not meet it.

That said I think what they are on about is criminal. If not in a strictly legal sense certainly in a moral sense.

Really Not All That Bright
07-30-2011, 04:38 PM
how, exactly, are they trying to "overthrow" the government? The got elected, and they are pursuing their political beliefs within the system of government we have.

And treason? The op sounds like left wing version of some of the nuttiness that comes out of.. The tea partiers.

Let's not have another 5 page debate where people create their own definition of treason when it is clearly outlined in the constitution.
+1,000,000.

Wesley Clark
07-30-2011, 04:41 PM
The sad part is we won't learn anything as a collective electorate after it is all over. People have voted anti-incumbent the last 3 elections. I don't know what people are going to do in 2012, there are no more 'anti-incumbents' to vote for in my view if you are going by party line. People had their anti-incumbent movements in 2006, 2008 and 2010.

If people vote anti-tea party in 2012 they will vote pro-tea party (or something like it) in 2014 and the beat will go on.

Little Nemo
07-30-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't feel they're treasonous by any reasonable definition.

I think they're wrong and their policies are foolish but I see no evidence they are trying to overthrow the government or destroy the nation.

I feel the problem of the Tea Party will be resolved by normal democratic means. They are now demonstrating that they are incapable of running the government and the majority of them will probably be voted out of office in the next election.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 04:47 PM
Will Obama be committing "treason" if the Republicans manage to get a bill through that raises the debt limit in two steps (once now and once again before the next election), and he vetoes it, as he has promised to do?

Did Obama commit "treason" when he voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006?

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 04:50 PM
Will Obama be committing "treason" if the Republicans manage to get a bill through that raises the debt limit in two steps (once now and once again before the next election), and he vetoes it, as he has promised to do?

Did Obama commit "treason" when he voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006?
Is Obama trying to crash the national and world economy? Is he deliberately trying to harm the country? Then no.

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party
07-30-2011, 04:52 PM
In any other democracy, the government would have fallen after last November and the Republicans would now have the responsibility to do what they will. I don't think it would include bringing down the whole economy, causing interest rates to rise and the rest of it. In fact, it was only a decade ago that the Republicans decided to end the large surplus bequeathed to them by Clinton. The debt was going down (slowly, but steadily) and they had to end that.


Pretty much. This whole spectacle is showing up the American system of government as much as it is the political subdivisions in America. Unable to get a supply bill passed? What a fucking joke.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 04:53 PM
Is Obama trying to crash the national and world economy?
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit. So, if one is trying to crash the world economy, then the other is, too.

Is he deliberately trying to harm the country?
That's a subjective question, depending on what your definition of "harm" is.

BlackKnight
07-30-2011, 05:05 PM
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit.
Likewise, bank robbers and SWAT teams are equally responsible for hostage deaths.

Chronos
07-30-2011, 05:06 PM
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit.This gets back to the old debate of "do what I say, or I shoot the hostages". The Republican insistence on going through this whole debacle again in six months isn't an attempt to solve the problem; it's an attempt to make sure the problem continues so they can continue to threaten their hostage. Obama would be woefully negligent to not veto such a threat.

EDIT: Simulposted with BlackKnight

gonzomax
07-30-2011, 05:08 PM
Lots of politicians have done votes to make points knowing full well the motion was going to pass. Obama was not stopping the business of the nation. The baggers ,right now, are. Obama's vote did not matter. I am sure if you put a little thought behind it, you will be able to see the difference.
Obama's vote did no harm and did not threaten the country. I suppose you can see through the right wing prism in your glasses that that is different now. Real harm may result from this vote.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 05:10 PM
Likewise, bank robbers and SWAT teams are equally responsible for hostage deaths.

That's what we in the business call a "bad analogy". A better analogy would be the SWAT team deliberately shooting the hostages so they could end the hostage situation.

thelabdude
07-30-2011, 06:15 PM
Is Obama trying to crash the national and world economy? Is he deliberately trying to harm the country? Then no.

The plan is to either stop any solution in the senate or veto it. Then when the worst happens, blame the Republicans. It has worked before.

LonesomePolecat
07-30-2011, 06:23 PM
My wife made that observation this morning as we heard the news. They are seriously trying to overthrow the government and much more likely to succeed than the pathetic American Communist Part ever could have imagined. So they should all be rounded up and sent to detention camps? I mean, re-education camps? Should the people the FBI has determined to be the movement's leaders be quietly rounded up and charged with treason? Should those participating in the tea party movement be stripped of their citizenship and ordered to leave the country?

Article III Section III of the Constitution of the United States of America:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

How does the tea party fit that definition? They aren't engaged in armed revolt, and they are not allied with or aiding any military enemy of the United States.

What are you proposing to actually do about their supposed treason? Or does calling them traitors simply making it easier to hate them?

LonesomePolecat
07-30-2011, 06:24 PM
Likewise, bank robbers and SWAT teams are equally responsible for hostage deaths. Except Obama and the Democrats are comparable to the bank robbers, not the SWAT teams.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 06:25 PM
TrEAson... It's secret code!!

Ace309
07-30-2011, 06:30 PM
A system they are trying to subvert and break.

... by being legally elected to office?

I'm a lefty. I've voted in the past two primaries for Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, respectively. I think the Tea Partiers are wrong and Rand Paul's mother dresses him funny. But they're merely wrong, not treasonous.

robert_columbia
07-30-2011, 06:30 PM
"Treason" has a specific definition and Tea Partiers do not meet it.

That said I think what they are on about is criminal. If not in a strictly legal sense certainly in a moral sense.

Right. Treason, in the United States, has a very specific legal meaning.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


What the Tea Party is doing, regardless of how bad it is, isn't treason. The founders of our country were afraid of Treason prosecutions and the abusive British courts who construed treason every which way.

aruvqan
07-30-2011, 06:33 PM
The plan is to either stop any solution in the senate or veto it. Then when the worst happens, blame the Republicans. It has worked before.
Why not... the republicans are currently blaming the democrats ... and then many of them are sounding like freaking kindergardeners with the Obamma-this and Obamma-that and Obummer and other pretty damned juvenile name bashing.

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 06:40 PM
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit. So, if one is trying to crash the world economy, then the other is, too.Here we go again; the standard right wing attempt to pretend there's no difference between the two sides. It's easier than trying to defend something as worthless as the Republicans I suppose.

The plan is to either stop any solution in the senate or veto it. Then when the worst happens, blame the Republicans. It has worked before.The Republicans have no interest in a solution. They want as big a disaster as possible, they've stated in the past that making Obama a one term President is their top goal. And they don't care if they create a second Great Depression in the process.

What the Tea Party is doing, regardless of how bad it is, isn't treason. The founders of our country were afraid of Treason prosecutions and the abusive British courts who construed treason every which way.And in the process the FF wrote a definition that has gaping loopholes. That's why defenders of the Right keep bringing that definition up; it's such a narrow definition they can use it to handwave away just about anything. It's just another way they avoid having to actually defend their actions.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 06:41 PM
The plan is to either stop any solution in the senate or veto it. Then when the worst happens, blame the Republicans. It has worked before.

If there is a plan that gets thru both Houses by Monday, Obama is not going to veto it.

Ludovic
07-30-2011, 06:41 PM
What the Tea Party is doing, regardless of how bad it is, isn't treason. The founders of our country were afraid of Treason prosecutions and the abusive British courts who construed treason every which way.I see no reason why we shouldn't call them treasonous. They understand the word differently than the sane, so according to their definition, they are treasonous.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 06:44 PM
Here we go again; the standard right wing attempt to pretend there's no difference between the two sides. It's easier than trying to defend something as worthless as the Republicans I suppose.

In my hypothetical, there is no difference. Both result in "default" for purely political purposes. Too freakin't bad if Obama doesn't want to have another debate on this topic before the next election. And too freakin' bad if the Tea Partiers can't get their constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Neither of those things is worth risking economic calamity.

I see no reason why we shouldn't call them treasonous. They understand the word differently than the sane, so according to their definition, they are treasonous.
No reason, that is, if you don't mind sounding as stupid as they do.

Richard Parker
07-30-2011, 07:03 PM
John Mace, a hypothetical, if you don't mind.

You are President of the United States. Tomorrow, 40 Senators of the opposing party tell you that they will block the funding necessary to protect the nation's nuclear weapons unless you both convince your party to pass, and you sign, a bill that puts the effective tax rate at 80% on those making below $35,000 in order to pay for a subsidy for the building of polo grounds.

Is that just politics as usual, or something more pernicious? Does it matter if they sincerely believe that it is good policy to tax the poor to pay for polo? Who properly bears the responsibility if the Senators end up filibustering the weapons funding bill?

Just want to see if we're all on the same basic page.

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 07:05 PM
In my hypothetical, there is no difference. We aren't talking about a "hypothetical". We are talking about the real world, where one side is utterly inflexible, amoral and irrational and the other side isn't. They aren't the same.

marshmallow
07-30-2011, 07:27 PM
If people vote anti-tea party in 2012 they will vote pro-tea party (or something like it) in 2014 and the beat will go on.

Hey, you just discovered the trick to the 2-party system. Good cop/bad cop.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 07:43 PM
John Mace, a hypothetical, if you don't mind.

You are President of the United States. Tomorrow, 40 Senators of the opposing party tell you that they will block the funding necessary to protect the nation's nuclear weapons unless you both convince your party to pass, and you sign, a bill that puts the effective tax rate at 80% on those making below $35,000 in order to pay for a subsidy for the building of polo grounds.

Is that just politics as usual, or something more pernicious? Does it matter if they sincerely believe that it is good policy to tax the poor to pay for polo? Who properly bears the responsibility if the Senators end up filibustering the weapons funding bill?

Just want to see if we're all on the same basic page.
I don't see how that is analogous to the debt limit situation. The Republicans want a two step process so they can do some political grandstanding before the next election. While that may be shameless, it's hardly comparable to enacting a punishing tax rate on poor people to subsidize the recreation of the rich.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 07:44 PM
We aren't talking about a "hypothetical".

Yes, we are. It's a standard debate procedure. If you don't like them, or find them difficult to comprehend, then perhaps you should spend more time in the non-debating forums.

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 07:48 PM
Every time I think I've seen it all I read something like this. Treason? Are you mad?

John Mace
07-30-2011, 07:51 PM
Every time I think I've seen it all I read something like this. Treason? Are you mad?

It appears the OP simply wanted to rant since he hasn't returned to defend his thesis.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 07:53 PM
That's what we in the business call a "bad analogy". A better analogy would be the SWAT team deliberately shooting the hostages so they could end the hostage situation.

No, the first analogy was better, although not perfect.

The bill Obama is - we assume, for the sake of argument - vetoing is analogous to the "ransom". When the bill arrives at his desk he has two options - to sign it or to veto it. Those are the only two options available to him. There's no hostage situation where the SWAT team gets to choose between handing over the ransom or shooting the hostage. There's no analogy there.

But here's a better analogy:

The situation at hand is in fact more similar to a ticking bomb scenario. The timer was set by the Republican party - not by the Teaparty congressmen - but the republican leadership. They choose to - for the first time in the nations history - use the debt ceiling and the threat of default as leverage.

Here's where the analogy gets a tad bit clumsy in order to stay accurate: The timer mechanism is constructed to work in such a way that when a certain amount of money is wired to a certain account, the bomb is defused. The president is faced with the choice of forking over the ransom or see the bomb go off.

And the ransom as per today is that Congress has to pass a new amendment to the US constitution or the debt limit will not be raised. That was a demand from 24 representatives (out of 435!) in the House who the republican leadership chose to accomodate rather than deal with house democrats instead.

That's insane. That's completely unacceptable and frankly takes a big huge dump on how representative democracy is supposed to work. If you don't instinctively feel that that is wrong, I can only ask you to consider the magnitude of what's really happening one more time.

Frank
07-30-2011, 07:53 PM
I'll try to keep this post within the bounds of GD.

Calling people who oppose one politically "traitors" is a action of both ignorance and maliciousness. I don't care if it comes from the right or the left; it's wrong.

Aaron Burr was a traitor, Ezra Pound was a traitor, Aldrich Ames was a traitor.

Those who fight for what they believe is best for the country are not traitors. They may be wrong, misguided, and stupid, but they are not traitors.

It's despicable to call one's political opponents traitors simply because they disagree on what is best for the country. People who do so should be ashamed of themselves.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 08:04 PM
No, the first analogy was better, although not perfect.

The bill Obama is - we assume, for the sake of argument - vetoing is analogous to the "ransom". When the bill arrives at his desk he has two options - to sign it or to veto it. Those are the only two options available to him. There's no hostage situation where the SWAT team gets to choose between handing over the ransom or shooting the hostage. There's no analogy there.
Yes, there is. The SWAT team can just shoot the hostages and end the situation. It's a reckless, stupid, harmful thing to do. Just like Obama vetoing a bill because he doesn't want to debate the topic again in 6 months-- reckless, stupid and harmful.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:06 PM
@Frank

Agree on principle, but speaking for me I just dont give much of a sh-t in this particular situation. The Tea-partiers are way out of line and have been for quite some time. They're about to do serious damage to the economy - the world economy even - or else pervert the political process.

They deserve to be - need to be - named and shamed. I just dont give a rats as if every invective they get thrown their way is perfectly fair or not. I know for sure most of them wouldnt even ask themselves the question if the shoe was on the other foot (as it usually is).

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:08 PM
Yes, there is. The SWAT team can just shoot the hostages and end the situation. It's a reckless, stupid, harmful thing to do. Just like Obama vetoing a bill because he doesn't want to debate the topic again in 6 months-- reckless, stupid and harmful.

No thats just incorrect. Obama's got two options. The SWAT team's got endless options. The SWAT team can opt to do nothing unless the hostage takers are about to pull the trigger. Obama can't, or rather that's the choice you want to call him "shooting the hostages".

There is no analogy. Stop digging.

ETA: Perhaps I was being unclear in my first post. What I meant to say was "There's no hostage situation where the SWAT team only gets to choose between handing over the ransom or shooting the hostage."

tomndebb
07-30-2011, 08:15 PM
I am so tempted to just send this to the BBQ Pit, except that I think Hari Seldon wanted an actual discussion and not a rant.

That said, there is no way that the actions of anyone involved in this debacle is "treasonous." Even those who want to radically change the government are not behaving in a way to physically overthrow it.

(I am also a bit amused, (sadly not surprised, but amused), that several posters have equated the Republicans with the Tea Party. Have none of you noticed the large number of pundits speculating that Boehner is doomed because he cannot control the radical fringe of his own party? There are factions within factions among both of the parties and no one has a hegemony to compel their desires.)

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 08:15 PM
Yes, there is. The SWAT team can just shoot the hostages and end the situation. It's a reckless, stupid, harmful thing to do. Just like Obama vetoing a bill because he doesn't want to debate the topic again in 6 months-- reckless, stupid and harmful.If Obama gives in, the Tea Party will do it again in six months.

Are you under the opinion that we should capitulate to people who hold hostages? Obama signing the bill is paying the ransom. Why on Earth is that a good idea?

I don't think the Tea Party are traitors, well some of them are, but by and large no. They are however delusional, misinformed and angry. And their are creating a situation where they are threatening to destabilize the world economy. The Democrats aren't doing that. Obama isn't doing that. The Tea Party are specifically creating the threat. They are basically acting like Cobra Commander, and the sniveling pieces of shit in the Republican House, not the Tea Partiers, but the other, sane Republicans (to the extent that they exist) are cowards for not standing up to them.

UltraVires
07-30-2011, 08:19 PM
Every time I think I've seen it all I read something like this. Treason? Are you mad?

Come on. You are on the SDMB. Anything short of Communist State Central control of the economy is considered radical right wing. Surely talk of a balanced budget and government control of spending is at minimum treasonous, if not worthy of summary execution without trial.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:23 PM
tomndebb, given the thread title this focus on the fairness of the HS wife alledging "treason" is understandable and low hanging fruit. I would submit though the the rest of his post - the part about subversion of the political process to jackboot consideration of an amendment to the US constitution is a very real IRL concern and of far greater consequence than the "treason" charge.

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 08:24 PM
Those who fight for what they believe is best for the country are not traitors. They may be wrong, misguided, and stupid, but they are not traitors.First, "meaning well" doesn't make you not a traitor. Someone working as a mole in the US government and giving secrets to the USSR because he considers Communism superior would have been both well meaning and a traitor. Second, I see no reason to consider these people well meaning in the slightest. They don't care about anyone but themselves; they are ideologically committed to not caring about anyone besides themselves - caring about others is Evil Socialism. And they've demonstrated quite clearly that they don't care and are not well meaning in any way.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 08:25 PM
Come on. You are on the SDMB. Anything short of Communist State Central control of the economy is considered radical right wing. Surely talk of a balanced budget and government control of spending is at minimum treasonous, if not worthy of summary execution without trial.So you are okay with one tenth of the congress threatening to destroy the US economy unless they get a constitutional amendment (that could never get through under normal means, because it's a stupid idea) through the house and senate in two days?

Is there anything a right-leaning group could do that would be evil enough for you to be upset about? If the Democrats were doing this I'd be shouting at them. Of course, the Democrats don't generally do evil stuff like this.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Come on. You are on the SDMB. Anything short of Communist State Central control of the economy is considered radical right wing. Surely talk of a balanced budget and government control of spending is at minimum treasonous, if not worthy of summary execution without trial.

The amendment would put in place a permanent requirement for supermajorities for all legislation that raises taxes. That's unprecedented in the history of the nation and in fact "radical right wing", as you put it.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 08:29 PM
If Obama gives in, the Tea Party will do it again in six months.
They will try.

Are you under the opinion that we should capitulate to people who hold hostages? Obama signing the bill is paying the ransom. Why on Earth is that a good idea?
It's called divided government. Both parties do it when they can. You are simply objecting to the scale this time. The thing is, it's the GOP (or a subset of them) shooting themselves in the foot yet again. They tried to do this to Clinton, and it backfired.

I don't think the Tea Party are traitors, well some of them are, but by and large no.
Can you name which ones who are traitors, and what acts of treason they have committed?

FixMyIgnorance
07-30-2011, 08:33 PM
The problem here is that the entire situation is artificial. There's no reason for us to go into default. We have a system to deal with the budget. You don't bypass the system by threatening to cause additional, unnecessary damage unless your demands are met. It's extortion, really.

Qin Shi Huangdi
07-30-2011, 08:35 PM
Ah so Jane Fonda going on a propaganda trip to Hanoi wasn't treason but opposition to raising the debt ceiling is/ :rolleyes:How does this "give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States".

John Mace
07-30-2011, 08:35 PM
How dare those treasonous Tea Partiers propose something that 3/4 of the American public wants. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-30/balanced-budget-amendment-may-create-more-problems-than-it-fixes.html)

Not that I care much about such an amendment, since it would be mostly symbolic. But maybe some of these Tea Partiers feel they were elected to do things the voters want.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:35 PM
It's called divided government. Both parties do it when they can. You are simply objecting to the scale this time.

This is highly specious. The debt ceiling has in fact been raised ~80 times (lousy memory). Each time a "clean bill".

Each and every time the party in control of the House could have gone for what congressional republicans went for this time. But not once has anyone opted to do that up until now. Neither democrat nor republican.

This isn't "politics as usual", and it's not run-of-the-mill "divided government".

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 08:36 PM
So you are okay with one tenth of the congress threatening to destroy the US economy unless they get a constitutional amendment (that could never get through under normal means, because it's a stupid idea) through the house and senate in two days?

Is there anything a right-leaning group could do that would be evil enough for you to be upset about? If the Democrats were doing this I'd be shouting at them. Of course, the Democrats don't generally do evil stuff like this.

Really? A balanced budget amendment is stupid and evil?

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment. I guess I'm stupid and evil like that, but if I have to live that way, the government should as well. That would be your golden opportunity to get all those military spending cuts and tax increases you've been looking for, too. But what am I thinking? I guess I'm not, being stupid and all.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:43 PM
How dare those treasonous Tea Partiers propose something that 3/4 of the American public wants. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-30/balanced-budget-amendment-may-create-more-problems-than-it-fixes.html)

Not that I care much about such an amendment, since it would be mostly symbolic. But maybe some of these Tea Partiers feel they were elected to do things the voters want.

Do you think that 3/4 of the american public would want this legislation after it was debated in congress and in the media for a month or so, like the normal political process would work?

This bill is inscribing in the constitution that supermajorities are needed to raise taxes and that grand total federal spending must be lower than pre-Great Society levels. And then it's all branded with "balanced budget amendment" and sent to Rasmussen for polling.

We dont know sh-t about what "the american public" thinks of this particular legislation because the american public hasnt had time to consider it in the way the Founders intended the legislative process to work. PPACA was debated for a year, still those very same teapartiers claimed with a straight face it was "rammed through congress".

See the problem here? The hypocrisy?

FixMyIgnorance
07-30-2011, 08:45 PM
Of course people are going to like it. It's called a "Balanced budget amendment." That's like naming it "Solve Everything"

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:48 PM
Really? A balanced budget amendment is stupid and evil?

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment. I guess I'm stupid and evil like that, but if I have to live that way, the government should as well. That would be your golden opportunity to get all those military spending cuts and tax increases you've been looking for, too. But what am I thinking? I guess I'm not, being stupid and all.

And the supporters of any Balanced Budget Amendment legislation (even a more reasonable one that doesnt read like Ayn Rands wish list) should try to pass it the usual way, the way the Founders intended it, the way we pass all legislation - by pitching it to the public, by getting enough supporters elected to congress, by getting a supporter elected to the White House.

Is there any reason not to do it that way? Win on the merits rather than by blackmailing the referee as it were.

John Mace
07-30-2011, 08:48 PM
This is highly specious. The debt ceiling has in fact been raised ~80 times (lousy memory). Each time a "clean bill".

Each and every time the party in control of the House could have gone for what congressional republicans went for this time. But not once has anyone opted to do that up until now. Neither democrat nor republican.

This isn't "politics as usual", and it's not run-of-the-mill "divided government".

The tactic is politics as usual even if actual issue and the scale isn't.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 08:52 PM
They will try.


It's called divided government. Both parties do it when they can. You are simply objecting to the scale this time. The thing is, it's the GOP (or a subset of them) shooting themselves in the foot yet again. They tried to do this to Clinton, and it backfired.


Can you name which ones who are traitors, and what acts of treason they have committed?Sharon Angle said we should have armed insurrection if they didn't win at the ballot box. She's certainly all too cowardly to actually do anything about it. I go to the Freeper site constantly and there are people who are specifically hoping that the government will collapse so that presumably in the Mad Max scenario that followed the aged, obese Freepers would go Galt and bootstrap the nation back to the country the founders wanted.

Now those aren't exactly treasonous, mostly because those people are all talk. However the people who are working specifically to ensure that a debt ceiling upraise isn't and never is enacted (rather than the dickweeds that are using it as a threat) are a lot closer.

Mostly I was thinking of the specific secession organizations that are around. Those guys are working to split the union, wouldn't that count?

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 08:56 PM
The tactic is politics as usual even if actual issue and the scale isn't.

That's just sophistry. Sorry, man, but what else can I say.

Do you concede that if shifting majorities (perfect bipartisan consensus) has opted not to do something for about a century and then someone suddenly does it - then that qualifies as "unprecedented"?

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 08:57 PM
And the supporters of any Balanced Budget Amendment legislation (even a more reasonable one that doesnt read like Ayn Rands wish list) should try to pass it the usual way, the way the Founders intended it, the way we pass all legislation - by pitching it to the public, by getting enough supporters elected to congress, by getting a supporter elected to the White House.

Is there any reason not to do it that way? Win on the merits rather than by blackmailing the referee as it were.

No, there's not. But I want you to ponder this for a minute:

If a "Balanced Budget Amendment" passes through both houses of Congress, even for the sole purpose of getting this fixed, it then has to be ratified by the legislatures of a minimum of 38 states. Do you really think that a piece of garbage will be able to get that kind of support? Really?

As the obvious answer to the question is "No", I don't see why placating the Tea Party with an obviously flawed, hastily-written, slapdash bill is anything to worry about. Kiss their ass, get it done, and forget about it.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 08:58 PM
Really? A balanced budget amendment is stupid and evil?They way they're going about it is evil, because they are threatening trillions of dollars and perhaps millions of lives so they can get their way. It is stupid though. You see, in the real world, sometimes you need to deficit spend. Not the way Bush did, but in an emergency. Forcing a situation where a handful of idiots (like the Tea Party caucus) can nix any spending is moronic.

We can have balanced budgets without an amendment. But having an amendment means our hands are tied in extraordinary circumstances.

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment. I guess I'm stupid and evil like thatYou strike me more as angry and under misconceptions.

, but if I have to live that way, the government should as well.You aren't a government. By the way, I assume you paid for your house in cash, right? Because if you didn't, you aren't living under a balanced budget.

That would be your golden opportunity to get all those military spending cuts and tax increases you've been looking for, too. But what am I thinking? I guess I'm not, being stupid and all.Like I say, having a misunderstanding doesn't make you stupid.

emcee2k
07-30-2011, 08:58 PM
When did this start exactly? I know the first time I remember seeing it was in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Then it was "You don't think we should go get those terrorists in Iraq? Well you're on their side, then. You're a traitor who hates America".

Then once the invasion started it was "How dare you criticize the president in a time of war. That's treason!".

Then once Obama was in office, even the President himself was committing treason according to the Tea Party (in a time of war, of course). First by being in office it the first place, when clearly he was born somewhere in Africa or Indonesia or something. Then by doing pretty much anything else he tried to do, seeing as how it was all part of his Socialist agenda (and therefor treason).

But that's okay, because now the Tea Party is committing treason. Everybody's committing treason!

Seriously, have we just given up?

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 09:06 PM
No, there's not. But I want you to ponder this for a minute:

If a "Balanced Budget Amendment" passes through both houses of Congress, even for the sole purpose of getting this fixed, it then has to be ratified by the legislatures of a minimum of 38 states. Do you really think that a piece of garbage will be able to get that kind of support? Really?

As the obvious answer to the question is "No", I don't see why placating the Tea Party with an obviously flawed, hastily-written, slapdash bill is anything to worry about. Kiss their ass, get it done, and forget about it.

Can you point to another amendment that was passed in this way? Do you want to see a lot of such amendments passed by the same means of hostage-taking in the years to come?

It's only the first time we allow something to happen that it's "unprecedented". The next time it happens it will indeed be what John Mace suggests it already is - "politics as usual".

That's allowing for perverse incentives to drive what gets to be in that most sacred document of those very same Teapartiers, the Constitution. Sounds like a good idea to you?

John Mace
07-30-2011, 09:13 PM
That's just sophistry. Sorry, man, but what else can I say.No, it's not. What else can I say?

Do you concede that if shifting majorities (perfect bipartisan consensus) has opted not to do something for about a century and then someone suddenly does it - then that qualifies as "unprecedented"?
The TACTIC is politics as usual. TACTIC. So what if no one ever did this exact thing before?

As for the constitutional amendment, it's just a proposal to pass one in the future. They can't pass an amendment on a simple majority vote, and everyone knows it has to go to the states to ratify. It's nothing. It's an empty gesture so the TP candidates can brag about their efforts to get a balanced budget amendment passed.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 09:13 PM
I might add that I think that my previous post could be fairly argued to represent a "conservative" view on how we amend the Constitution.

Also something to ponder, perhaps?

John Mace
07-30-2011, 09:20 PM
Sharon Angle said we should have armed insurrection if they didn't win at the ballot box.
That's not really what she said, but even if she did, that wouldn't be treason. In fact, it is protected speech. If she actually took up arms, then you're in treason territory.

Mostly I was thinking of the specific secession organizations that are around. Those guys are working to split the union, wouldn't that count?
Can you be specific about who those people are, and what specific things they've done that are treasonous? And can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why they haven't been arrested and charged? Treason is a very serious offense, and if Obama is just turning a blind eye towards these actions, I want to know!

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 09:25 PM
No, it's not. What else can I say?
The TACTIC is politics as usual. TACTIC. So what if no one ever did this exact thing before?

Sure but is your aim narrowly for technical accuracy and nothing else? It is of rather small consequence if a tactic has been used before, if what it's applied to and the sought objective are unprecedented.

I can use a knife to chop an onion, and I can use it to chop up grandma. The techique is the same but the latter is hardly "chopping as usual".

As for the constitutional amendment, it's just a proposal to pass one in the future. They can't pass an amendment on a simple majority vote, and everyone knows it has to go to the states to ratify. It's nothing. It's an empty gesture so the TP candidates can brag about their efforts to get a balanced budget amendment passed.

Hey we're trying to pass this thing that I support so why don't you just move out of the way, it'll never happen anyway - trust me. Yeah. No.

If I recall correctly both you and AD USAF are self-identified libertarians (correct me if I'm wrong: long time lurker, unfrequent poster) so I get why you would take a relatively laxer view on the amendment process. What I fail to fathom is how there can be a congressional caucus full of people who day in day out subscribe to an ideology that praises the virtues of slow, careful, deliberate change and praises the wisdom of the Constitution, in how it's set up with separation of powers, checks and balances in order to ensure such slow, careful and deliberate change.

And then go right ahead and say pass this sloppy, unserious amendment - or else we wreck the economy! Don't worry, it will never be ratified anyway.

Does that make sense to you?

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 09:25 PM
Can you point to another amendment that was passed in this way? Do you want to see a lot of such amendments passed by the same means of hostage-taking in the years to come?

It's only the first time we allow something to happen that it's "unprecedented". The next time it happens it will indeed be what John Mace suggests it already is - "politics as usual".

That's allowing for perverse incentives to drive what gets to be in that most sacred document of those very same Teapartiers, the Constitution. Sounds like a good idea to you?

Truthfully? I could care less. If it's a good idea and they can convince 38 state legislatures to pass it, fine by me. If not, then it's DOA and matters not. There's a reason why we've only had 27 Amendments to the Constitution and only 2 since 1971, one of which dated from 1789.

You put too much into the actions of Congress and not enough into "the several states". As far as amendments go, that's a hell of a check against the tomfoolery of US Congressmen. Propose 50 Amendments a year for all I care. When none are adopted and the voters (hopefully) come to their senses and vote them out, everything will be copacetic.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 09:37 PM
Truthfully? I could care less. If it's a good idea and they can convince 38 state legislatures to pass it, fine by me. If not, then it's DOA and matters not. There's a reason why we've only had 27 Amendments to the Constitution and only 2 since 1971, one of which dated from 1789.

You put too much into the actions of Congress and not enough into "the several states". As far as amendments go, that's a hell of a check against the tomfoolery of US Congressmen. Propose 50 Amendments a year for all I care. When none are adopted and the voters (hopefully) come to their senses and vote them out, everything will be copacetic.

Will you have as much faith in that check when the amendment on the table is something you dont like? Socialization of the means of production - maybe you can imagine something more plausible? Remember, it's passed in congress and signed by POTUS and now the states can take their time...

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 09:39 PM
Will you have as much faith in that check when the amendment on the table is something you dont like? Socialization of the means of production - maybe you can imagine something more plausible? Remember, it's passed in congress and signed by POTUS and now the states can take their time...

Yes I will.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 09:44 PM
That's not really what she said, but even if she did, that wouldn't be treason. In fact, it is protected speech. If she actually took up arms, then you're in treason territory.If you re-read my post, you'll find that specifically I said as much.


Can you be specific about who those people are, and what specific things they've done that are treasonous? And can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why they haven't been arrested and charged? Treason is a very serious offense, and if Obama is just turning a blind eye towards these actions, I want to know!I assume because they're not a real threat. The same reason that people who drive 1 mph faster than the speed limit don't get tickets.

There are people currently working to garner support for Texas to remove itself from the union. As I said in my previous post, I assume that's treasonous, isn't it? Isn't supporting an organization that wants to secede from the union aiding an enemy of that union? I'm actually asking, I don't really know if it would count.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 09:45 PM
Yes I will.

Fine. I respect your opinion; we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 09:49 PM
Yes I will.Remember though, a bunch of states got a fresh crop of hard, hard, hard-right ideologues into the state level houses. How many states have instituted abortion legislation, union-busting, or voter-suppressing laws? This is the best time ever for terrible right-wing nonsense to be added to the constitution. I think the vote would be closer than you might suspect.

Airman Doors, USAF
07-30-2011, 09:57 PM
Whatever. This vast-right-wing-conspiracy crap is getting old. Do me a favor and check out which states Barack Obama won in 2008, compare them to the ones that John Kerry won in 2004 and Al Gore won in 2000. If the number is less than 12, get back to me.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 10:00 PM
Whatever. This vast-right-wing-conspiracy crap is getting old. Do me a favor and check out which states Barack Obama won in 2008, compare them to the ones that John Kerry won in 2004 and Al Gore won in 2000. If the number is less than 12, get back to me.It's not a conspiracy. It's a situation where people who believe nonsense have a chance to enact their will.

Dismissing it as a conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR!!!!??1

:D

Little Nemo
07-30-2011, 10:17 PM
Really? A balanced budget amendment is stupid and evil?

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment. I guess I'm stupid and evil like that, but if I have to live that way, the government should as well. That would be your golden opportunity to get all those military spending cuts and tax increases you've been looking for, too. But what am I thinking? I guess I'm not, being stupid and all.I'd probably support a balanced budget amendment (depending on the exact wording).

But you mentioned tax increases. Do you think the conservatives in Congress are going to support any balanced budget amendment that allows for the possibility of balancing the budget via taxation?

John Mace
07-30-2011, 10:18 PM
If you re-read my post, you'll find that specifically I said as much.
OK.I assume because they're not a real threat. The same reason that people who drive 1 mph faster than the speed limit don't get tickets.
They are plotting to split the union, that's just a tiny bit more dangerous than someone going 1 mph over the speed limit, no? Unless they are just talking about it and not actually doing anything.

There are people currently working to garner support for Texas to remove itself from the union. As I said in my previous post, I assume that's treasonous, isn't it? Isn't supporting an organization that wants to secede from the union aiding an enemy of that union? I'm actually asking, I don't really know if it would count.
If they actually take up arms in order to do that, maybe. Have shots been fired yet?

So, there's two things I'd like to comment on. Firstly, the debt ceiling is going to be raised. I know that the 24 hr cable news networks want nothing more than have us sitting on the edge of our seats, but the debt ceiling is going to be raised. This is just political theater at its best (or worst).

Secondly, if the Democrats in 2007 had done the same thing in order to get Bush to exit Iraq, many of the treason-mongerers here would be praising them as being the ultimate of patriots.

Lobohan
07-30-2011, 10:23 PM
OK.[quote



They are plotting to split the union, that's just a tiny bit more dangerous than someone going 1 mph over the speed limit, no? Unless they are just talking about it and not actually doing anything.


If they actually take up arms in order to do that, maybe. Have shots been fired yet?No, but wouldn't raising money for an organization with the stated intent of splitting the union be treason? This is the sort of place I'm thinking of: http://www.texasnationalist.com/

So, there's two things I'd like to comment on. Firstly, the debt ceiling is going to be raised. I know that the 24 hr cable news networks want nothing more than have us sitting on the edge of our seats, but the debt ceiling is going to be raised. This is just political theater at its best (or worst).

Secondly, if the Democrats in 2007 had done the same thing in order to get Bush to exit Iraq, many of the treason-mongerers here would be praising them as being the ultimate of patriots.I disagree. I would have primary voted and picketed against any congress-person who decided that he would threaten the world economy for a political gain.

I think you'd find most Democrats would agree. Democrats are limp-wrist idealists, remember?

Little Nemo
07-30-2011, 10:33 PM
Secondly, if the Democrats in 2007 had done the same thing in order to get Bush to exit Iraq, many of the treason-mongerers here would be praising them as being the ultimate of patriots.But you know what? The Democrats didn't do something like this in 2007. And they didn't do it in 2009 when they were trying to get a public health care bill passed. And they didn't do it in 2005 over judicial appointments.

The Democrats have been willing to act like responsible grown-ups. And so have many Republicans. But the Tea-Party is acting like a bunch of whiny adolescents.

humanafterall
07-30-2011, 10:36 PM
Believe me, I have checked the entrails, I have looked into smoke, and I have even consulted with the Council of Elders,( I am a Level 45 Cleric, so I have the right to consult the Elders)and they, too, have foreseen doom. You have been forewarned. Midnight will mark the Dawn of the First Day. 72 Hours Remain.

Der Trihs
07-30-2011, 10:50 PM
Can you be specific about who those people are, and what specific things they've done that are treasonous? And can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why they haven't been arrested and charged? Because they are right wing. The government has always bent over backwards to ignore the transgressions of right wing groups. While spying on and harassing the members of "dangerous left wing" organizations like the ACLU.

magellan01
07-30-2011, 11:04 PM
@Frank

Agree on principle, but speaking for me I just dont give much of a sh-t in this particular situation. The Tea-partiers are way out of line and have been for quite some time. They're about to do serious damage to the economy - the world economy even - or else pervert the political process.

They deserve to be - need to be - named and shamed. I just dont give a rats as if every invective they get thrown their way is perfectly fair or not. I know for sure most of them wouldnt even ask themselves the question if the shoe was on the other foot (as it usually is).

Oh, so you want to "debate" while suspending the meaning of words and abandoning any principled stance. Okay, at least I understand you better now. Can I play, too? Here goes: Obama is a rapist and a pedophile.

:rolleyes:

Qin Shi Huangdi
07-30-2011, 11:06 PM
Because they are right wing. The government has always bent over backwards to ignore the transgressions of right wing groups. While spying on and harassing the members of "dangerous left wing" organizations like the ACLU.

You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? :rolleyes:

Really Not All That Bright
07-30-2011, 11:20 PM
I don't think one family in a log cabin qualifies as a "group" within the context of DT's comment.

YogSothoth
07-30-2011, 11:23 PM
So they should all be rounded up and sent to detention camps? I mean, re-education camps?

How about murder camps?

An Gadaí
07-30-2011, 11:23 PM
Ah so Jane Fonda going on a propaganda trip to Hanoi wasn't treason but opposition to raising the debt ceiling is/ :rolleyes:How does this "give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States".

Eh? Why did you bring up Jane Fonda?

Little Nemo
07-30-2011, 11:31 PM
I don't think one family in a log cabin qualifies as a "group" within the context of DT's comment.The FBI infiltrated and broke up the Ku Klux Klan. That's a large right-wing extremist group.

SherwoodAnderson
07-30-2011, 11:42 PM
Oh, so you want to "debate" while suspending the meaning of words and abandoning any principled stance. Okay, at least I understand you better now. Can I play, too? Here goes: Obama is a rapist and a pedophile.

:rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point here, buddy. Here it is:


Agree on principle, but speaking for me I just dont give much of a sh-t in this particular situation. The Tea-partiers are way out of line and have been for quite some time. They're about to do serious damage to the economy - the world economy even - or else pervert the political process.

They deserve to be - need to be - named and shamed. I just dont give a rats as if every invective they get thrown their way is perfectly fair or not. I know for sure most of them wouldnt even ask themselves the question if the shoe was on the other foot (as it usually is). (Bolding added)

IOW, how I feel and nothing else. Clear as day. I wasn't trying to prove anything to anyone; I gave the Teapartiers a piece of my mind. It's up to anyone who's even interested enough in my feelings on the subject to consider it, to decide for themselves if they feel the same way or if they don't.

So you trying to tie that in with debating and whatever rules should apply to when debating, is misguided and neither here nor there. But you knew that, didn't you?

(In addition: a friendly word of advise. Your attempt to play "the game" - whatever that is - was at least an order of magnitude more inflammatory than anything I've ever said, in this particular forum at least.)

Evil Captor
07-30-2011, 11:42 PM
duplicate post of stuff already said

marshmallow
07-30-2011, 11:45 PM
Liberals have often observed that behind the right's patriotic front they actually have deep disdain for America's institutions and views on things like equal rights, environmentalism, and so on. So really, they conclude, the right actually hates America.

It's always been pithy, and hits pretty close to home in many cases, but just wait around until "the people" vote against them. Then you'll see what they think of America (which also may be true, I suppose, but if we're gonna have a jingo-off...)

Bryan Ekers
07-30-2011, 11:51 PM
If Americans being dumb is treason, you may as well cancel the whole country.

Evil Captor
07-31-2011, 12:16 AM
Are the Tea Partiers conducting activities that fall within the (as Der Trihs has pointed out) very limited definition of treason? No, after all, if the Bush Administration deliberately blowing the cover of a CIA operative involved in preventing nuclear proliferation was not treason, very little IS treason (the Plame affair). I mean, you want to talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy ... handing over to various foreign governments all her contacts ... oh that was aiding if anything ever was, and yet, it was not treason.

Now is the Tea Party engaging in activities that will weaken and harm the US government's position in the world by making the government look both dangerous and ineffective? Yes, yes it is. So it's not ACTUAL treason, but damn, it sure is ugly. It sure smells like undermining America. Just like the Bush Administration's Plame affair.

Whack-a-Mole
07-31-2011, 01:23 AM
Now is the Tea Party engaging in activities that will weaken and harm the US government's position in the world by making the government look both dangerous and ineffective? Yes, yes it is. So it's not ACTUAL treason, but damn, it sure is ugly. It sure smells like undermining America. Just like the Bush Administration's Plame affair.

I agree.

They do not meet the legal definition of Treason near as I can tell (IANAL).

Are they seeking to undermine the country? Absolutely. They are even brazen about it. They want the Federal government to shut down.

What they cannot succeed in doing legislatively via the democratic process they seek to achieve by forcing an effective collapse.

I do not think it is against the law as written but it should be.

Magiver
07-31-2011, 01:37 AM
If he vetoes that bill, it will have the exact same effect as Congress not raising the debt limit. So, if one is trying to crash the world economy, then the other is, too.


That's a subjective question, depending on what your definition of "harm" is. If you're in the fishing industry then harm would be delaying outside help for a month during an environmental crisis. If you're in the oil business then harm would be holding off drilling with an arbitrary moratorium. If you're unemployed it would be delaying a stimulus package to vote in a health care package and then rushing through a pork filled plan that did nothing but raise the debt.

The Tea Party is not the problem. The problem is a bunch of drunken politicians spending money like there's no tomorrow. There is a tomorrow and the GOP has produced a bill that addresses the short term debt ceiling and the long term debt crisis. If the President wants to veto it that's on him.

Trinopus
07-31-2011, 02:20 AM
An old friend of mine (hmph, ex-friend, really) accused me of treason for publicly opposing the "surge" of troops to Iraq in 2007. He said that opposition to necessary support for combat troops was definitional of treason: it gave aid (?) and comfort to the enemy.

I heard the same a lot during the Viet Nam war. People who sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban symbolic flag-burning often say the same thing: "It gives support to our enemies."

Strategically, there's also a Golden Rule consideration: if the FBI starteed investigating conservative Congressmen today for their political speech....what's to keep some future conservative administration from investigating liberal Congressmen for *theirs?* Scary precedent.

Trinopus

Der Trihs
07-31-2011, 02:33 AM
Strategically, there's also a Golden Rule consideration: if the FBI starteed investigating conservative Congressmen today for their political speech....what's to keep some future conservative administration from investigating liberal Congressmen for *theirs?* Scary precedent.Oh, nonsense, that "golden rule" balance hasn't ever applied to the right. If they can do that to liberal Congressmen, they will, regardless of whether or not the other side ever has.

Carmady
07-31-2011, 04:57 AM
It's a difficult question.

What do you do if your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny? What do you do if you know that your ideals would be seen as foolish or malicious if rationally debated?

Are you then justified in doing anything possible to avoid rationality and debate, including relying on propaganda and hostage-taking?

I would argue that you are not. Even though you are supposed to work for your beliefs, there has to be some type of framework to do it in. What the Tea Party is doing right now is outside of any viable framework.

Only one side is afraid of letting any semblance of rationality back into the political process.

Republicans know that they cannot possibly defend their ludicrously high spending (spending is only a problem when they aren't in charge), combined with their even more ludicrous tax policies which harm the economy and shift the burden onto those who can least afford it.

flickster
07-31-2011, 05:30 AM
Are they seeking to undermine the country? Absolutely. They are even brazen about it. They want the Federal government to shut down.



Of course from their viewpoint, they are trying to prevent the Progressives from killing the country as well

tnetennba
07-31-2011, 05:47 AM
It's not treason, but I do think they want the recession to continue and the economy to tank so they can blame Obama. They've as much as admitted it. There's a reason they were hoping to have the debt debate again in 2012, to keep up the illusion that the mess they created was a shared problem.

They also openly want to turn America into a third world style plutocracy.

I guess as long as you say you're the real Americans and wear Ben Franklin wigs, it's not treason to openly try to destroy the country.

aruvqan
07-31-2011, 08:18 AM
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14083013#post14083013)
Ah so Jane Fonda going on a propaganda trip to Hanoi wasn't treason but opposition to raising the debt ceiling is/ :rolleyes:How does this "give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States".

Eh? Why did you bring up Jane Fonda?
Good question ...

Though personally I do not see a publicity visit as rendering aid or comfort ...

UltraVires
07-31-2011, 09:10 AM
By the way, I assume you paid for your house in cash, right? Because if you didn't, you aren't living under a balanced budget.


Why does this analogy survive? When I borrow to buy a house or a car, there is a definite term after which I will have repaid all interest and principle on the loan I have taken out. If the government borrowed in that way, for a limited long-term positive purpose, with a defined repayment plan, then there would be no need for a BBA.

If I am applying for more credit cards to simply make interest only payments on my mortgage or car, then all of my friends and neighbors would tell me how irresponsible I am being financially.

If I am putting groceries on my credit card (and not paying off in full that month) people would rightfully say that I am being financially irresponsible.

Why is the government not fiscally irresponsible for running perpetual deficits and that we NEED to take on more debt simply to fund our current debt?

Taking out a mortgage to buy a home is not in any way analogous to how the government borrows.

ElvisL1ves
07-31-2011, 09:20 AM
If Americans being dumb is treason, you may as well cancel the whole country.A pretty crude and ignorant statement there. :rolleyes:

The Democrats have been willing to act like responsible grown-ups. And so have many Republicans. But the Tea-Party is acting like a bunch of whiny adolescents.What hasn't happened yet, and which is what needs to, is for the Responsible Adult Caucus that still forms a strong majority to work out a deal themselves, leaving the Whiny Brat Caucus out of it. Nothing is going to pass a Dem-controlled Senate and a Dem President without Dem support being enlisted first. If that tears the GOP apart along the way, or even costs Boehner the nominal GOP leadership, well, that's what choosing a public service career sometimes requires. "Country First", as their last presidential nominee used to claim.

OK, maybe give them a cookie to shut them up. Agree to having a free-standing debate and vote in both houses on a balance budget amendment, by itself. Some good might even come of that.

UltraVires
07-31-2011, 09:55 AM
OK, maybe give them a cookie to shut them up. Agree to having a free-standing debate and vote in both houses on a balance budget amendment, by itself. Some good might even come of that.

I predict that this will likely be the compromise: Reid's plan is modified for more cuts. I believe he current has $2.7 trillion (including the phantom war cuts). I think he ups that to $3.5 trillion and gets a deal that increases the debt ceiling past election day. Further, it is agreed that an up or down vote (no guarantee of passage) is held on the BBA.

It passes the Senate with a few Republicans in support (the ones that aren't standing for reelection in 2012) and passes the House with a weird coalition of Dems and non-TP Republicans.

Boehner loses his speakership.

You heard it here first!

ElvisL1ves
07-31-2011, 10:20 AM
Losing Boehner as Speaker would not be helpful if it means Cantor gets the job instead. He's the biggest single part of the problem right now.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 11:04 AM
Looks like the deal that we'll end up with will involve forming a committee to address the deficit problem in the future. Didn't we just do that last year?

I don't see how this whole fiasco is going to benefit the Republicans politically. I know they think it will (or at least the Tea Partiers do), but the non-TPers are going to have some 'splaining to do before the next election.

Really Not All That Bright
07-31-2011, 12:01 PM
The FBI infiltrated and broke up the Ku Klux Klan. That's a large right-wing extremist group.
No, the FBI infiltrated a series of ongoing criminal conspiracies. That's what they're there for. It was simply happenstance that the various Klan groups were based around a right-wing ideology. Anyway, it wasn't the FBI that "broke up" the Klan. It was the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In any event, the Klan is hardly a right wing analogue of the ACLU, is it?

Merneith
07-31-2011, 12:34 PM
For that matter, it's not like the Klan has ceased to function since it was "broken up".

David Duke (former Klan Wizard, felon, and Republican Louisiana state rep) claims that Tea Partiers are begging him to run, and he's thinking about it, even though his felony conviction makes him ineligible.

(I'm linking to Wiki, because I don't want to link to Duke's site directly, but the direct links are there on wiki, if anyone wants to pursue them.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#Possible_2012_presidential_campaign

ElvisL1ves
07-31-2011, 01:36 PM
For that matter, it's not like the Klan has ceased to function since it was "broken up". They pretty much just hung up the robes and changed their name to Council of Conservative Citizens. Trent Lott (Republican Senate leader until pretty recently) is one of their supporters.

Merneith
07-31-2011, 01:52 PM
Heh. The whole robes-n-wizards thing is so lame, it doesn't surprise me that they'd rather just wear their Brooks Brothers instead.

The wiki article I linked above says that the current Klan functions mostly as small groups, now which makes it harder to infiltrate. It also says that the Klan in general is more or less merging with the Neo-Nazi organizations. Stormfront was started by David Duke's ex wife (and some other guy, whose name escapes me) and Duke posts there often.

As for Lott - he was hounded out of office for telling former segregationist congressman Strom Thurmond that life would have been better if he (Strom) had been president. It's was Strom's 173rd birthday party, iirc, and I always sort of thought that the reaction to the remark was a bit overblown. I didn't regret the results, of course. Still, it doesn't surprise me that Lott's a fan of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Here's a wiki like to the CCC, in case anyone's wondering if they're really anything like the KKK or if Elvis is just joking (spoiler: Elvis is not joking).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens

Really Not All That Bright
07-31-2011, 01:56 PM
Even 50 years ago it was misleading to talk about the Klan. Since the Oberholtzer affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madge_Oberholtzer) the Klan has been a bunch of loosely affiliated but independent groups, rather than one big one. The good thing about today's stealth Klan is that they don't kill lots of black people, and go to prison when they do.

ElvisL1ves
07-31-2011, 02:00 PM
I always sort of thought that the reaction to the remark was a bit overblown.
I thought it was a make-up call. The Beltway Village media had known about Lott for a long time, but had failed to follow through with their professional responsibilities and knew it. Then the Thurmond incident gave them the opening to correct their failure.

The reaction wasn't to the remark itself, but to Lott's (and by extension that of the party which made him one of its leaders) embrace of bigotry, and if seen in that light was both seriously belated and still seriously underblown.

Evil Captor
07-31-2011, 03:51 PM
So, what does the Klan have to do with the Tea Party's attack on the US economy again? Seems like quite the hijack to me.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 03:55 PM
Still waiting for the OP to return and defend his thesis, but I'm not holding my breath.

Little Nemo
07-31-2011, 04:03 PM
So, what does the Klan have to do with the Tea Party's attack on the US economy again? Seems like quite the hijack to me.Der Trihs claimed that the American government only went after left-wing groups and left right-wing groups alone.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 07:41 PM
So, there's two things I'd like to comment on. Firstly, the debt ceiling is going to be raised.

Obama is currently saying there is an agreement in a press conference.

Looks like the deal that we'll end up with will involve forming a committee to address the deficit problem in the future. Didn't we just do that last year?
And there is going to be another committee. Yippee!!!

SherwoodAnderson
07-31-2011, 08:04 PM
And there is going to be another committee. Yippee!!!

Because congressional republicans walked away from negotiations on a Grand Bargain on account of them all having signed pledges never to raise taxes on the rich, lest we forget. The committee form is to accomodate those who've pledged fealty to Grover Norquist - by not increasing revenues upfront.

Der Trihs
07-31-2011, 08:09 PM
Der Trihs claimed that the American government only went after left-wing groups and left right-wing groups alone.No, I said they "bent over backwards to ignore the transgressions of right wing groups". They go after right wing groups when they make too much of a violent spectacle of themselves to ignore. While, again, constantly spying on and harassing "left wing" organizations like the ACLU regardless of how law abiding they are.

crypto
07-31-2011, 08:19 PM
I'll try to keep this post within the bounds of GD.

Calling people who oppose one politically "traitors" is a action of both ignorance and maliciousness. I don't care if it comes from the right or the left; it's wrong.

Aaron Burr was a traitor, Ezra Pound was a traitor, Aldrich Ames was a traitor.

Those who fight for what they believe is best for the country are not traitors. They may be wrong, misguided, and stupid, but they are not traitors.

It's despicable to call one's political opponents traitors simply because they disagree on what is best for the country. People who do so should be ashamed of themselves.

+1

Well said, Frank.

JKellyMap
07-31-2011, 08:38 PM
Because congressional republicans walked away from negotiations on a Grand Bargain on account of them all having signed pledges never to raise taxes on the rich, lest we forget. The committee form is to accomodate those who've pledged fealty to Grover Norquist - by not increasing revenues upfront.

Which is exactly why the whole "pledge" thing is nuts. To be elected to a lawmaking body MEANS that your job is to compromise, every day, all day long. (Any job, really, is about this, in one way or another..but for a legislator, it's basically the whole job description.) If you can't handle that, okay...but for God's sake don't run for public office.

SherwoodAnderson
07-31-2011, 08:52 PM
Which is exactly why the whole "pledge" thing is nuts. To be elected to a lawmaking body MEANS that your job is to compromise, every day, all day long. (Any job, really, is about this, in one way or another..but for a legislator, it's basically the whole job description.) If you can't handle that, okay...but for God's sake don't run for public office.

If you ask me it's only the latest sign that movement conservatism is by now a bankrupt ideology that lacks solutions to real world problems and is solely chugging along on faith, good messaging and powerful institutions.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 09:00 PM
If you ask me it's only the latest sign that movement conservatism is by now a bankrupt ideology that lacks solutions to real world problems and is solely chugging along on faith, good messaging and powerful institutions.

These pledge things are indeed supremely counterproductive. Everything needs to be on the table all the time if you are going to be effective.

It's one thing to hold that low taxes are the key to economic growth, but it's another thing entirely to bind your hands and close your eyes regardless of what might happen in the future.

tomndebb
07-31-2011, 09:05 PM
If you ask me it's only the latest sign that movement conservatism is by now a bankrupt ideology that lacks solutions to real world problems and is solely chugging along on faith, good messaging and powerful institutions.That's fine as a slogan, but you really need to remember that it is simply not true of "conservatism" or even some majority of conservatives.

Boehner's problem was not that he wanted to have the party lead the country to default, but that a minority of his party had sufficient votes to veto any compromise that the majority was willing to make.

Tea Baggers are not really "conservatives" but their own odd bunch of nut cases.

Airman Doors, USAF
07-31-2011, 09:11 PM
Which is exactly why the whole "pledge" thing is nuts. To be elected to a lawmaking body MEANS that your job is to compromise, every day, all day long. (Any job, really, is about this, in one way or another..but for a legislator, it's basically the whole job description.) If you can't handle that, okay...but for God's sake don't run for public office.

There are many different types of representation (http://web.missouri.edu/~webberd/316Rep.html). Your particular theory is but one of them.

SherwoodAnderson
07-31-2011, 09:19 PM
These pledge things are indeed supremely counterproductive. Everything needs to be on the table all the time if you are going to be effective.

It's one thing to hold that low taxes are the key to economic growth, but it's another thing entirely to bind your hands and close your eyes regardless of what might happen in the future.

Yes, pretty much.

(I guess I was also making a slightly more nebulous point that is really mostly my personal opinion/belief and which roughly holds that in 1980 there was a point to the bill of goods that movement conservatism was a vehicle for: there was a need to slimline regulations; perhaps marginal tax rates were to high, etc. But in a situation where the top earners pay ~30% and we've had deregulation upon deregulation for thirty years applying movement conservative policy prescriptions yield dwindling results.

I won't try to prove it though, but just leave it as my imho. It's a hijack anyway :) )

The Other Waldo Pepper
07-31-2011, 09:21 PM
These pledge things are indeed supremely counterproductive. Everything needs to be on the table all the time if you are going to be effective.

If they are effective at getting what they want, then what's the problem?

SherwoodAnderson
07-31-2011, 09:36 PM
That's fine as a slogan, but you really need to remember that it is simply not true of "conservatism" or even some majority of conservatives.

[...]

Tea Baggers are not really "conservatives" but their own odd bunch of nut cases.

I don't think it was a "slogan" at all. It was my opinion, and labeled as such.

Having gotten that out of the way, I have to say that I don't really agree with anything of what you wrote.

Claiming that Teabaggers aren't Conservatives doesn't rise above No True Scotsman, unless you want to argue that Conservatism proper is some kind of Burkean conservatism. But by common understanding, in an american context, "Conservatism" is usually understood as Movement Conservatism, which gets us from Goldwater & Buckley, by the Reagan revolution and to what today makes up the base of the Republican party.

That constituency is for most intents and purposes more or less equal to the Tea Party. Sure, overlap may not be 100%. But I'd feel reasonably comfortable to peg it at 75%, perhaps.

Boehner's problem was not that he wanted to have the party lead the country to default, but that a minority of his party had sufficient votes to veto any compromise that the majority was willing to make.


The republican partys congressional leadership choose this hostage strategy; to use the debt ceiling as leverage to extort policy concessions from congressional democrats and the president. Not the Tea Party.

Tea Party congressmen then held passage of Boehners own plan hostage to extort further concessions, on the eve of default.

That's what's happened up until now, nothing else. What's left to come until the ceiling is raised, remains to be seen.

tnetennba
07-31-2011, 09:58 PM
If they are effective at getting what they want, then what's the problem?

The results.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 10:04 PM
If they are effective at getting what they want, then what's the problem?

The problem is that you don't know what the future will hold, and how you'll need to react. You may get what you want one time, but there is no telling whether you will the next time. They are also so broad as to defy common sense. For example, Republicans are deathly afraid of re-evaluating how income of hedge fund managers are treated.

tomndebb
07-31-2011, 10:12 PM
Claiming that Teabaggers aren't Conservatives doesn't rise above No True Scotsman, unless you want to argue that Conservatism proper is some kind of Burkean conservatism. But by common understanding, in an american context, "Conservatism" is usually understood as Movement Conservatism, which gets us from Goldwater & Buckley, by the Reagan revolution and to what today makes up the base of the Republican party.

That constituency is for most intents and purposes more or less equal to the Tea Party. Sure, overlap may not be 100%. But I'd feel reasonably comfortable to peg it at 75%, perhaps.Let me re-phrase my point. Tea baggers are not congruent with conservatives.
This is true on multiple levels.
In ideology, Tea Baggers want nothing more than lower taxes. End. There is a lot more to conservative fiscal responsibility than Grover Norquist.
In population, I have seen no evidence that the Tea Baggers make up as much as 19% of the population, which is far below the level of self-identified conservatives. Even within the members of Congress (or the House), they make up nothing more than a disruptive minority.

Equating a minority group with a limited set of goals with "conservatism" in order to claim that the movement is either dead or bankrupt is a false equation, regardless what one puts in one's porridge.

John Mace
07-31-2011, 10:53 PM
Let me re-phrase my point. Tea baggers are not congruent with conservatives.
This is true on multiple levels.
In ideology, Tea Baggers want nothing more than lower taxes. End.

Not really. TPer's main goals are deficit reduction and less spending. They aren't in favor of tax increases, but the primary issue is reduction in spending.

I think they fall well within the general category of "conservative".

Whack-a-Mole
07-31-2011, 11:02 PM
In ideology, Tea Baggers want nothing more than lower taxes. End. There is a lot more to conservative fiscal responsibility than Grover Norquist.
In population, I have seen no evidence that the Tea Baggers make up as much as 19% of the population, which is far below the level of self-identified conservatives. Even within the members of Congress (or the House), they make up nothing more than a disruptive minority.


Are you serious? Tea Baggers only want lower taxes? That's it?

Pretty sure you know better and these folks are distinctly "conservative".

And as for percentages..well...they manage to get their way out of all proportion to their numbers. Hell, a respected British magazine published this cartoon (http://www.economist.com/node/21524951?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/kalscartoonjune28th). I do not think the cartoonist was just making it up. These cartoonists lampoon reality.

The Tooth
07-31-2011, 11:26 PM
If the teabaggers are all about lower taxes, what's with all the abortion laws being passed in the US? The teabaggers are the Republican base, with all that entails.

Evil Captor
07-31-2011, 11:36 PM
Der Trihs claimed that the American government only went after left-wing groups and left right-wing groups alone.

Well ... thinking about it ... Cheney got away with flushing Plame's cover, but Bradley Manning is in Leavenworth. I think they are letting him wear clothes now. So I'd say Der Trihs kinda has a point.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 12:32 AM
Let me re-phrase my point. Tea baggers are not congruent with conservatives.
This is true on multiple levels.
In ideology, Tea Baggers want nothing more than lower taxes. End. There is a lot more to conservative fiscal responsibility than Grover Norquist.

This sounds extremely dubious to me. Here is the first paragraph of Wikipedias article on the Tea Party Movement:

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]

You seem to want to save Movement Conservatism from being tainted by the excesses of the Tea Party movement by pretending that Grover Norquists anti-tax pledge is somehow the raison-d'etre of the Teapartiers. But ATR has sponsored the Taxpayer Protection Pledge since 1986 (no Tea Party to blame back then) and 172 House members have signed it. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement, apart from the Tea Party usually supporting the same policies as Movement Conservatism, and therefore usually supporting it.

Crucially, the key ringleader of the Tea Party movement, Erick Eriksson of RedState.com - the guy who organized the opposition to the Boehner plan - self identifies as a Movement Conservative and comes down on the issues in all the usual ways: on social issues (he's a - rabid imho - christian conservative), on NatSec, and on fiscal matters.

I read his blog on a weekly basis, so I have a fair grasp of where he, and his minions are at, politically.

In population, I have seen no evidence that the Tea Baggers make up as much as 19% of the population, which is far below the level of self-identified conservatives.

Well, the polling I've seen is pretty inconclusive insofar as the Tea Party is not a political party proper and you can usually not vote for it. All the Tea Party endorsed politicians in congress come with an (R) to their name, and all of them claims to be conservatives. So you'll see polling where the Tea Party at times have enjoyed 30-40% approval but otoh 10-20% describing themselves as part of the Tea Party movement. Presumably the latter entails going to actual Tea Party meetings which constitutes a level of participation in the political process that goes beyond your average passive supporter.

Perhaps a good measure of core Tea Party support at about the time of the midterms is this USAToday/Gallup poll from 22/11 2010:

In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%.

But still if you allow me, I think I'll backtrack slightly from my most strongly worded claim which was that "[The base of the republican party/Movement conservatism] is for most intents and purposes more or less equal to the Tea Party". On second thought I concede that that was probably a slight over-reach (even if it was qualified with the 75% overlap guestimate).

I'll put it this way instead: the Tea Party movement is for all intents and purposes the offspring of Movement Conservatism; there is substantial overlap in policy and support; and crucially there is no part - that I know - of the Tea Party promoted policy agenda that isn't also promoted by Movement Conservatism.

Even within the members of Congress (or the House), they make up nothing more than a disruptive minority.

They make up most of the seventy new members of the House of Representatives that the republican caucus gained in the 2010 midterms. That's a consequence of incumbency and the fact that new republican candidates for congress branded themselves as "Tea Party" in 2010.

But the only meaningful difference between them and the rest of the republican caucus is branding, fervor, and conception of feasible strategy. They don't differ more on policy and ideology from their caucus than any other republican congressman, picked at random.

Equating a minority group with a limited set of goals with "conservatism" in order to claim that the movement is either dead or bankrupt is a false equation, regardless what one puts in one's porridge.

Well, once again I havent "claimed" that the movement is dead: I've expressed my imho that, in my view, "movement conservatism is by now a bankrupt ideology that lacks solutions to real world problems and is solely chugging along on faith, good messaging and powerful institutions". I don't think that's provable. I think that's something you believe, or don't. And I was careful to label it my opinion both here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14085763&postcount=119) and here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14085835&postcount=123), and further re-iterating it to you here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14085887&postcount=125), for perfect clarity. Getting that wrong two times is starting to bordering on having the appearance of willfulness, and is most definitely irritating. You don't agree, fine. If you consider yourself a conservative - a Movement Conservative even - I don't see why you should want to; and even if you're not there's no imperative for you to share my belief. But trying to pretend that I've made any factual claims that I need to support when I've offered my opinion - take it or leave it - is neither here nor there.

In summary, you're conflating two issues here: To what extent Movement Conservatism overlaps with the Tea Party and whether the Tax Pledge is a sign of "the bankruptcy of movement conservatism".

The former question is arguable and I made a tentative case for substantial overlap. But it's really only tentatively related to the latter question (if for no other reason, because the Tax Pledge doesn't really have very much to do with the Tea Party).

And the later proposition I offered as a imho and I'm not really interested in trying to prove it. Take it or leave it. I say it's hard or impossible to prove; all you can do is make a case based on circumstantial evidence, and I'm not interested in doing that here and now. If you want to disagree - with or without a supporting argument - that's your prerogative.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 12:42 AM
Also, tomndebb, I don't think it's very useful that you consistently fail to make a distinction between "conservatism", "conservative" on the one hand and "movement conservatism" and "movement conservative" on the other. I've consistently talked about the latter, as it is a distinct, fairly well-defined political constituency in a US context, while the former typically isn't and is sure to cause confusion.

E.g. "this is a sign of the bankruptcy of movement conservatism", well that's arguable; "this is a sign of the bankruptcy of conservatism", depending on the meaning of "conservatism", arguably prima facie nonsense.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-01-2011, 07:57 AM
If they are effective at getting what they want, then what's the problem?

The results.

The results they aforementionedly want, and are aforementionedly effective at getting? That's not a problem; that's just elections having consequences.

tnetennba
08-01-2011, 08:37 AM
The results they aforementionedly want, and are aforementionedly effective at getting? That's not a problem; that's just elections having consequences.

They've done what they set out to do -- ensured that the recession will continue, knowing that the electorate will blame Obama.

magellan01
08-01-2011, 08:56 AM
Well ... thinking about it ... Cheney got away with flushing Plame's cover, but Bradley Manning is in Leavenworth. I think they are letting him wear clothes now. So I'd say Der Trihs kinda has a point.

So, even after the investigation you peddle this? The person who shared Plame's status was Richard Armitage. You could look it up. Really. Look it up.

TruCelt
08-01-2011, 09:38 AM
Neanderthal man was shorter than Homo Sapiens, but more powerfully built. They also had a larger brain case, which would tend to indicate higher intelligence. And yet, by all accounts, the Neanderthals survive only as a footnote on the HS DNA chain.

I'm beginning to understand how this might have occurred.

Slithy Tove
08-01-2011, 09:48 AM
They've done what they set out to do -- ensured that the recession will continue, knowing that the electorate will blame Obama.

And now they're going to party like it's 1799

Or 1499, before the House of Fugger was lending governments money so they could explore the Americas and ensure that today Germans wouldn't be sweeping Tukish streets instead of vice versa.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-01-2011, 10:02 AM
Neanderthal man was shorter than Homo Sapiens, but more powerfully built. They also had a larger brain case, which would tend to indicate higher intelligence. And yet, by all accounts, the Neanderthals survive only as a footnote on the HS DNA chain.

I'm beginning to understand how this might have occurred.

::nods sagely:: You're saying that Homo Sapiens could sensibly work together, using teamwork and cooperation to solve problems, and that Democrats are like Neanderthals in being doomed to footnote status.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 10:05 AM
So, even after the investigation you peddle this? The person who shared Plame's status was Richard Armitage. You could look it up. Really. Look it up.

But the investigation concluded that Scooter Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff - leaked Plame's status to Judith Miller and then lied about it to the Grand Jury. So it's not out of the question that he did that at Cheney's discretion, right?

Kearsen
08-01-2011, 10:05 AM
Why not... the republicans are currently blaming the democrats ... and then many of them are sounding like freaking kindergardeners with the Obamma-this and Obamma-that and Obummer and other pretty damned juvenile name bashing.

Haha, as opposed to the Bush this and the Bush that, right?

magellan01
08-01-2011, 10:42 AM
But the investigation concluded that Scooter Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff - leaked Plame's status to Judith Miller and then lied about it to the Grand Jury. So it's not out of the question that he did that at Cheney's discretion, right?

There is no evidence of that. But is it "out of the question", is it impossible? No. But it is also not a statement of fact, correct?

Little Nemo
08-01-2011, 11:34 AM
So, even after the investigation you peddle this? The person who shared Plame's status was Richard Armitage. You could look it up. Really. Look it up.One of the men who leaked the information was Richard Armitage. But Lewis Libby has also admitted he leaked the same information to several other people, including reporters. There have been four reporters who have admitted they were given this classified information.

Many people would see the evidence of these multiple simultaneous leaks of the same classified information and consider the likelihood that this pattern indicates these leaks were planned by a higher authority.

John Mace
08-01-2011, 12:10 PM
One of the men who leaked the information was Richard Armitage. But Lewis Libby has also admitted he leaked the same information to several other people, including reporters. There have been four reporters who have admitted they were given this classified information.

Many people would see the evidence of these multiple simultaneous leaks of the same classified information and consider the likelihood that this pattern indicates these leaks were planned by a higher authority.
As much as I detest this ridiculous hijack (another of DT's conspiracy theories)... And Scooter Libby was prosecuted. Which makes the original comparison of Cheney and Manning rather silly.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 12:37 PM
There is no evidence of that. But is it "out of the question", is it impossible? No. But it is also not a statement of fact, correct?

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that there's a good case against Cheney. I mostly meant to nitpick Libby. There's no proof against Cheney whatsoever, and the rest is up to what you believe. (I believe he was in up to his neck in the "wont someone rid me of this meddlesome diplomat" way, the crooked old bastard)

Chessic Sense
08-01-2011, 12:42 PM
Threads like this make me wonder if liberals understand what the point of a debt ceiling even is. Listening to the people here, you'd think it was something that was just supposed to be magically lifted every time we ran out of money. Oh, and don't even think about attaching strings to that raising...no, no. You have to just simply raise it like it doesn't even matter. Like it's not even there.

Despite Republicans having sent two bills to the Senate to raise the ceiling, Democrats just wouldn't allow it. And somehow, the Dope thinks Republicans are the ones holding the country hostage! And on top of that, tomorrow, they'll still call the Pubs the "party of no". Un-fucking-believable, this place is!

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 12:42 PM
Whatever we do, let's not start with the Manning stuff.

John Mace
08-01-2011, 12:46 PM
Threads like this make me wonder if liberals understand what the point of a debt ceiling even is. Listening to the people here, you'd think it was something that was just supposed to be magically lifted every time we ran out of money. Oh, and don't even think about attaching strings to that raising...no, no. You have to just simply raise it like it doesn't even matter. Like it's not even there.

Do you understand what it is? It needs to be raised to pay existing bills, not something out in the future. Stuff already authorized by Congress. No, it should be "magically" raised, but I don't think most people understand that we're not talking about some hypothetical need way out in the future. It's needed right now.

DianaG
08-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/03/news/economy/debt_ceiling_faqs/index.htm )
It's a magical world!

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 12:58 PM
Threads like this make me wonder if liberals understand what the point of a debt ceiling even is. Listening to the people here, you'd think it was something that was just supposed to be magically lifted every time we ran out of money.

According to Wikipedia, the first debt ceiling law was enacted to enable more flexible borrowing for WWI. AFAIK, the US is the only country that has a debt ceiling. Since 1917, up until now through shifting majorities it's been lifted no strings attached. Even in the years after WWII when the federal debt was about 30% higher (compared to GDP) than it is today.

So yeah, that's pretty much what's supposed to happen - congress votes to lift it when it needs lifting, no strings attached.

Oh, and don't even think about attaching strings to that raising...no, no. You have to just simply raise it like it doesn't even matter. Like it's not even there.

Well you know, congress gets to decide once a year how much money is going to be spent and it gets to decide how much revenue is gonna be brought in. The debt ceiling is superflous which is why it's usually raised as a part of the budget in latter years.

Despite Republicans having sent two bills to the Senate to raise the ceiling, Democrats just wouldn't allow it.

Because they included an amendment that would make it much harder to raise taxes in the future and setting a hard cap on fed spending at 18% (?) of GDP.

And somehow, the Dope thinks Republicans are the ones holding the country hostage! And on top of that, tomorrow, they'll still call the Pubs the "party of no". Un-fucking-believable, this place is!

Well the republican congressional leadership said "give us what we want or we wont raise the debt ceiling, allowing a default to happen". No-one's ever dared do that before. I guess next time around, progressives say: "revoke the 2nd amendment or else we wont raise the debt ceiling". Or something. "Give us an up or down vote on single payer in the Senate", the debt ceiling gets raised if the bill passes congress and is signed by the POTUS. Fair cop?

tullsterx
08-01-2011, 01:03 PM
Is Obama trying to crash the national and world economy? Is he deliberately trying to harm the country? Then no.

You're in California? And you think the Tea Party is trying to ruin the economy?! The Tea Party is actually trying to save the world from California!

The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can't believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn't be balanced.

This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-01-2011, 01:03 PM
No-one's ever dared do that before. I guess next time around, progressives say: "revoke the 2nd amendment or else we wont raise the debt ceiling". Or something. "Give us an up or down vote on single payer in the Senate", the debt ceiling gets raised if the bill passes congress and is signed by the POTUS. Fair cop?

You can't win a game of chicken against folks who are willing to go off the brink.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 01:18 PM
You're in California? And you think the Tea Party is trying to ruin the economy?! The Tea Party is actually trying to save the world from California!

The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can't believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn't be balanced.

This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.

Californias economy was wrecked by exactly such a constitutional amendment, requiring supermajorities for tax-hikes, that the republicans are trying to extort as ransom from their little hostage taking game.

Ask yourself this: higher revenues shrinks or removes the deficit. Why would you want to make it harder to increase revenues in a balanced budget amendment?

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 01:20 PM
You can't win a game of chicken against folks who are willing to go off the brink.

Sure I'm not saying it will happen. But really, as a progressive, what interest do I have in letting on that that's the case?

Little Nemo
08-01-2011, 01:58 PM
You're in California? And you think the Tea Party is trying to ruin the economy?! The Tea Party is actually trying to save the world from California!

The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can't believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn't be balanced.

This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.The deficit is a real problem. But the Tea Party does not have the answer. Their main platform is an absolute refusal to consider any form of tax increase. And there is no way you will ever eliminate the deficit without a tax increase.

It's not an issue of cutting government spending. This is a debt. That means the money has already been spent.

John Mace
08-01-2011, 02:29 PM
Californias economy was wrecked by exactly such a constitutional amendment, requiring supermajorities for tax-hikes, that the republicans are trying to extort as ransom from their little hostage taking game.

That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way. Assuming you meant the budget as opposed to the economy, we had a nice little surplus a few years ago and it got spent without regard to future revenues. That surplus came during a time when a supermajority was needed to raise taxes.

Omg a Black Conservative
08-01-2011, 02:34 PM
Californias economy was wrecked by exactly such a constitutional amendment, requiring supermajorities for tax-hikes, that the republicans are trying to extort as ransom from their little hostage taking game.

That... or a shit ton of spending. And the fact that California is content to run business/companies/corporations out of the state.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 03:39 PM
That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way. Assuming you meant the budget as opposed to the economy, we had a nice little surplus a few years ago and it got spent without regard to future revenues. That surplus came during a time when a supermajority was needed to raise taxes.

Well i'm no expert on California, so I'll concede the point for now and fall back to the position that such an amendment constrains a valid policy tool in a way that is extremely unattractive to progressives. We want the peoples representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election.

John Mace
08-01-2011, 04:24 PM
Well i'm no expert on California, so I'll concede the point for now and fall back to the position that such an amendment constrains a valid policy tool in a way that is extremely unattractive to progressives. We want the peoples representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election.
Sure. And it's extremely attractive to conservatives and libertarians. They don't trust politicians to spend money wisely. They want a speed bump for when taxes can be raised.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 04:52 PM
Sure. And it's extremely attractive to conservatives and libertarians. They don't trust politicians to spend money wisely. They want a speed bump for when taxes can be raised.

Well sure. But getting your preferred policy into the US constitution is ipso facto an extreme solution to an issue that has seen shifting majorities through the years. That's the narrow case for why it's an extreme demand to make when the issue at hand is dealing with the deficit. (That is mainly or at least in half caused by tax-cuts.)

And that's all I have to support, right? That it's an extreme demand to make on an issue where there's vigorous disagreement.

But to the bigger issue of if its wise: Why stop there? Why should you not aim to state in the constitution that federal and state governments are allowed to raise taxes for law enforcement and the federal army and nothing else. Then we've legislated Libertariania in the constitution and left the "power in the hands of the people" to do everything else, out of the hands of politicians (or as they used to be called: the peoples representatives).

Shodan
08-01-2011, 04:59 PM
We want the peoples representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election.Like the Tea Party has done.
Threads like this make me wonder if liberals understand what the point of a debt ceiling even is. Listening to the people here, you'd think it was something that was just supposed to be magically lifted every time we ran out of money. Oh, and don't even think about attaching strings to that raising...no, no. You have to just simply raise it like it doesn't even matter. Like it's not even there.Well, sort of, but there is more to it than that.

The Dems were not capable of dealing with the deficit back when they controlled all of Congress instead of just the Senate. They were hoping to postpone it until Obama's last term. But the Tea Party got the GOP back in control of the House, and now the Dems have a strong interest in trying to make the GOP's attempts to deal with the deficit as unpopular as they can. Hence the insistence on tax increases. Back when they controlled Congress, they could have let the Bush tax cuts expire. But they voted to extend them, hoping to buy votes in the 2010 elections. That didn't work.

But if the GOP is able to put together a plan to deal with the deficit, and it is even mildly acceptable (and successful) the Dems (and possibly even Obama) are doomed in 2012. How do you think the voters are going to react to the scenario where
Dems take over Congress in 2006.
The economy crashes and burns.
Bush, and Republicans and Democrats, pass TARP. Total cost of TARP is around $25 billion (remember, TARP gets repaid; Obama's stimulus doesn't).
Obama takes over the White House, and now the Dems control all three branches. The deficit goes thru the roof.
Dems blame all this on Bush (obviously). "We had no choice, the stimulus package will keep unemployment under 8%, Keynes told us to spend during a recession, etc."
The stimulus bill passes, but unemployment is higher than Obama claimed it would be if no stimulus were passed at all.
Dems claim that nothing much can be done about the deficit. "We can't cut spending, we can't raise taxes, there's nothing that can be done. As a matter of fact, we should have jacked the deficit higher than we did."
Along comes the Tea Party. They say they can deal with the deficit.
They get elected.
No wonder the Dems are putting so much energy into trying to make the GOP break their commitment to not raising taxes. Because they are scared shitless of what to say in 2012. "We claimed it couldn't be done, and our promises about the economy didn't pan out. When we had the chance to implement our ideas about the economy (rescinding the Bush tax cuts) we didn't do it. But it is all the fault of those nasty Tea Partiers for not letting themselves be forced into doing what we didn't have the balls to do. So vote for us again!"

By this time next year, the economy will probably be picking up a bit. If it does, BHO better be as good as Slick Willie was at taking credit for things he fought to prevent. Otherwise, his skinny little butt is toast.

Regards,
Shodan

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 05:02 PM
Like the Tea Party has done.


You'll have to elaborate and tie it in with what's been argued so far for that to make sense.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 05:11 PM
The Dems were not capable of dealing with the deficit back when they controlled all of Congress instead of just the Senate. They were hoping to postpone it until Obama's last term.

This one I actually somewhat agree with. The democrats could have gotten started on deficit reduction and got out ahead of the republicans. In their defence, the pressing problem in jan 2009 was -800k jobs/month and you dont want to either cut spending or raise taxes in that environment. But I still have to concede that they somewhat chickened out on that.

Everything else you wrote is highly specious, though :)

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 05:23 PM
The Dems were not capable of dealing with the deficit back when they controlled all of Congress instead of just the Senate. They were hoping to postpone it until Obama's last term.

This one I actually somewhat agree with. The democrats could have gotten started on deficit reduction and got out ahead of the republicans. In their defence, the pressing problem in jan 2009 was -800k jobs/month and you dont want to either cut spending or raise taxes in that environment. But I still have to concede that they somewhat chickened out on that.

(Wrt to the rest of what you wrote, a huge chunk of the present deficit is:

a) Bush tax cuts
b) Medicare Part D
c) The Wars

I think that view's gone semi mainstream considering that Joe Scarborough floated it the other weak.

Then we got costs on account of the recession, and that one is presently still blamed on Bush by a majority of the electorate, right or wrong.

That's pretty much it. Stimulus spending this year is 150B$ or something like that.

The smart money still says that if the economy is bad then Obama loses. If it's good he'll win.)

Shodan
08-01-2011, 05:24 PM
You'll have to elaborate and tie it in with what's been argued so far for that to make sense.
You said you wanted the people's representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election. Which is what the Tea Party did. They got elected, therefore they are the people's representatives. Most of their success was based on a promise to deal with the deficit, and not just by jacking up the debt ceiling and continuing to spend. And therefore they are going to answer to the voters in the next election. Isn't that how you want it to happen?

And certainly if they propose an amendment to balance the budget, and the voters don't want that, the TP will suffer at the polls.

Regards,
Shodan

ElvisL1ves
08-01-2011, 05:50 PM
They got elected, therefore they are the people's representatives.Only in the minority of jurisdictions where they *did* get elected. Not "THE people". Once they got to Congress, they had an obligation to work with all the other "people's representatives". They have not. As you know.

SherwoodAnderson
08-01-2011, 05:55 PM
You said you wanted the people's representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election. Which is what the Tea Party did. They got elected, therefore they are the people's representatives. Most of their success was based on a promise to deal with the deficit, and not just by jacking up the debt ceiling and continuing to spend. And therefore they are going to answer to the voters in the next election. Isn't that how you want it to happen?

But the Tea Party is generously about 70 guys and gals in the House and 7 guys and gals in the Senate. And the Senate has a democratic majority - that's on account of our most very wise founders who wanted the Senate to temper radical change.

A fair reading of how representative democracy in the US is supposed to work is that if someone wants to pass a Balanced Budget amendment then that's voted on in the house and the senate and every representative votes on it according to what they ran on and their political convictions. They have the responsibility to represent the voters in their district or state.

But if the republican caucus in the House de facto says "you - New York and California - are gonna vote as we - Kansas and Tennessee - want or else we'll wreck the Economy", well then that's a subversion of representative democracy because the representatives are no longer bound by their loyalty to their constituents but under threat from other representatives, and the districts and states they represent.

And certainly if they propose an amendment to balance the budget, and the voters don't want that, the TP will suffer at the polls.

Plausibly, if it becomes law they will. And us progressives arguing that they are behaving in an unreasonable, unprecedented, extremist way is on the hope that they will suffer at the polls even if it doesnt become law.

Der Trihs
08-01-2011, 06:08 PM
You're in California? And you think the Tea Party is trying to ruin the economy?! The Tea Party is actually trying to save the world from California!

The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can't believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn't be balanced.

This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.

Californias economy was wrecked by exactly such a constitutional amendment, requiring supermajorities for tax-hikes, that the republicans are trying to extort as ransom from their little hostage taking game.Exactly. It's the Right who have done such a good job of driving California into the ground, and quite on purpose. They want as high a debt, as crippled a government, and bad an economy as they can create. Because they think those things will give them the leverage to implement their psychopathic vision of a theocratic/hypercapitalist/fascist society.

Airman Doors, USAF
08-01-2011, 07:14 PM
Exactly. It's the Right who have done such a good job of driving California into the ground, and quite on purpose. They want as high a debt, as crippled a government, and bad an economy as they can create. Because they think those things will give them the leverage to implement their psychopathic vision of a theocratic/hypercapitalist/fascist society.

Prop 13, the single biggest obstacle to California's recovery (well, that and the entire direct democracy/proposition system), was passed with 65% in 1978, and given the overall Democratic dominance now, they can repeal it with another Proposition any time they want to. I think we all know how that vote would turn out. But go on, blame the Republicans.

Der Trihs
08-01-2011, 07:18 PM
Prop 13, the single biggest obstacle to California's recovery <snip> Created and passed by the Right. Naturally, it's been a disaster like everything else the right wants.

Airman Doors, USAF
08-01-2011, 07:22 PM
Created and passed by the Right. Naturally, it's been a disaster like everything else the right wants.

You can speak to the rest any time you want to.

Frank
08-01-2011, 08:06 PM
Prop 13, the single biggest obstacle to California's recovery ...
I'd call this the single biggest obstacle: A constitutional provision dating back to 1933 requires a two-thirds vote for general fund appropriations for purposes other than public schools (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 12). Because the Legislature typically passes one main budget bill, the requirement has effectively applied to the whole budget bill.

But, yes, same solution. If Californians want to fix their budget problem, any number of solutions are entirely within their hands.

gonzomax
08-01-2011, 08:10 PM
[QUOTE=Shodan;14089174]You said you wanted the people's representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election. Which is what the Tea Party did. They got elected, therefore they are the people's representatives. Most of their success was based on a promise to deal with the deficit, and not just by jacking up the debt ceiling and continuing to spend. And therefore they are going to answer to the voters in the next election. Isn't that how you want it to happen?

And certainly if they propose an amendment to balance the budget, and the voters don't want that, the TP will suffer at the polls.

Regards,
Shodan[/QUO
Meanwhile the rest of us will suffer. They are a sliver of our society with big money backing who have little popular support. They are a joke that has gone on too far.

Little Nemo
08-01-2011, 08:13 PM
You said you wanted the people's representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election. Which is what the Tea Party did. They got elected, therefore they are the people's representatives. Most of their success was based on a promise to deal with the deficit, and not just by jacking up the debt ceiling and continuing to spend. And therefore they are going to answer to the voters in the next election. Isn't that how you want it to happen?

And certainly if they propose an amendment to balance the budget, and the voters don't want that, the TP will suffer at the polls.

Regards,
ShodanThe Tea Party people are elected representatives. But they are not a majority. Governments that allow minority parties to hold up the entire country unless their demands are met are governments with problems.

What happens if next time, it's a few dozen liberal congressmen are willing to destroy the country unless their demands for universal health care are met? And it will be because if one group succeeds, others will follow.

And the Tea Party can talk about wanting to fix the budget all it wants. But it refuses to face the reality of what that will take. So they keep insisting that everyone else figure out a way to fix the budget using magic beans or something.

Der Trihs
08-01-2011, 08:18 PM
You can speak to the rest any time you want to.What? If you want me to call the Democrats weak and worthless I've been calling them that for years. They just aren't the instigators, in Prop 13 or much of anything else. You could replace them with the same number of corpses and the drop in initiative and energy would be barely noticeable.

wyantry
08-01-2011, 08:33 PM
Has anyone actually taken the time (or expended the effort) to IDENTIFY these 'perpetrators of injustice' everybody is refering to?

Who ARE these alleged 'criminal types' and why are they not identified and morally castigated by the vast majority of Americans who forsee their entire life-effort going down the (proverbial) sewer?

wyantry
08-01-2011, 08:46 PM
"But if the republican caucus in the House de facto says "you - New York and California - are gonna vote as we - Kansas and Tennessee - want or else we'll wreck the Economy", well then that's a SUBVERSION [emphasis added] of representative democracy because the representatives are no longer bound by their loyalty to their constituents but under threat from other representatives, and the districts and states they represent."



So, we have had a surfeit of allegations (pro and con) of treason. And the general consensus appears to be that the actions (or in-actions) of these persons does NOT, in fact, meet the Constitutional definition of 'treason'.

What does the Constitution have to say about "SUBVERSION"? Namely being the subversion of the standard (and traditional) Democratic Methodology of Government?

Omg a Black Conservative
08-01-2011, 08:52 PM
Only in the minority of jurisdictions where they *did* get elected. Not "THE people". Once they got to Congress, they had an obligation to work with all the other "people's representatives". They have not. As you know.

Paraphrasing someone

"I won. Deal with it."

Evil Captor
08-01-2011, 09:21 PM
You could replace them with the same number of corpses and the drop in initiative and energy would be barely noticeable.

Ok. That was great! All too true, with a few exceptions.

Little Nemo
08-01-2011, 10:07 PM
Paraphrasing someone

"I won. Deal with it."But isn't a complete refusal to accept the results of an election the core ideal of the Tea Party?

Evil Captor
08-02-2011, 12:02 AM
But isn't a complete refusal to accept the results of an election the core ideal of the Tea Party?

The core ideal of the Tea Party is whatever the Republican Talking Points says it is!

Little Nemo
08-02-2011, 01:32 AM
The core ideal of the Tea Party is whatever the Republican Talking Points says it is!To a certain extent, but I think one thing we've seen in the last few weeks it that the Republican establishment is trying to ride a tiger. Sure, they loved it when the Tea Party was attacking the Obama administration. But now they're finding it difficult to turn the Tea Party off when it's time to sit down and do business.

Carmady
08-02-2011, 04:07 AM
The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can't believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn't be balanced.

This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.


Yes, because when Republicans were in charge they found enough spending cuts to balance the budget, without getting rid of the military, medicare, or social security. They were even able to lower taxes on the most wealthy they found so many easy cuts. And they ran a surplus, so we paid off the debt.

What's that? They gleefully spent ludicrous amounts of money, lowered taxes on the richest, sent the debt soaring, and ran the country into the ground? When they had control?

Oh.

You're right that it is a case of rational thought vs insanity. You just aren't on the side you think you are.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Republicans act like they can lower taxes on the most wealthy, and magically nobody has to make that up. But they do. They are just shifting the burden onto everyone else, which hurts the economy because most people can't afford that burden. Historically, lowering taxes on the richest while sending the country's infrastructure to hell has never been a good way to get an economy going.

We do need to make some tough cuts. We will take a hit to quality of life. But not everything should be cut. It would be counterproductive to let our infrastructure continue to crumble and gut things like Pell grants.

But first of all, we need to be able to debate these things. If, for some reason, taxes should be at historic lows for the most wealthy, while placing more burden on the middle class is more important than helping the economy, then that argument can be made. It won't be, but it could be.

What we don't need is the Tea Party and their pie-in-the-sky, blind idealism, eliminating debate and sticking to their guns because "God doesn't want the richest Americans to pay taxes."

tnetennba
08-02-2011, 06:30 AM
You have to read the comments on newspaper articles to get past the bullshit and see where the tea party is really at. The pattern is that they hate the "undeserving," and want to punish them. There's not really a sentiment that the great nation will somehow be restored by lower spending (an argument that makes no sense, and defies history). The tea party is made of resentment, and resentment only.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-02-2011, 07:49 AM
You have to read the comments on newspaper articles to get past the bullshit and see where the tea party is really at. The pattern is that they hate the "undeserving," and want to punish them. There's not really a sentiment that the great nation will somehow be restored by lower spending

Isn't it possible to believe that spending less on the "undeserving" will make the country greater?

tnetennba
08-02-2011, 08:53 AM
It becomes a circular argument. Even if there is no measurable index by which the country is greater, it's greater because you have punished the wicked and disciplined the barbarians.

Fear Itself
08-02-2011, 09:58 AM
Isn't it possible to believe that spending less on the "undeserving" will make the country greater?It is possible to believe many unfounded propostions. Mere belief does not justify them.

The Other Waldo Pepper
08-02-2011, 10:04 AM
It is possible to believe many unfounded propostions. Mere belief does not justify them.

Yeah, but tnetennba's point was that they don't even have that mere belief.

gonzomax
08-02-2011, 10:14 AM
The baggers are in love with sophistry. They respond to important discussions with responses they can read off the signs they carry.
We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
We are on the road to socialism.
Small government is good government.
Let the economy crash, nothing will happen.
Baggers bring absolutely nothing to the table but intransigence.

Chessic Sense
08-02-2011, 11:16 AM
According to Wikipedia, the first debt ceiling law was enacted to enable more flexible borrowing for WWI. AFAIK, the US is the only country that has a debt ceiling. Since 1917, up until now through shifting majorities it's been lifted no strings attached. Even in the years after WWII when the federal debt was about 30% higher (compared to GDP) than it is today.

So yeah, that's pretty much what's supposed to happen - congress votes to lift it when it needs lifting, no strings attached.



Well you know, congress gets to decide once a year how much money is going to be spent and it gets to decide how much revenue is gonna be brought in. The debt ceiling is superflous which is why it's usually raised as a part of the budget in latter years.



Because they included an amendment that would make it much harder to raise taxes in the future and setting a hard cap on fed spending at 18% (?) of GDP.

You're merely arguing that there should be no debt ceiling at all, which is a separate issue entirely. The reality is that it does exist and you want to pretend like it doesn't. You think that since past Congresses have raised it with no strings, that it's illogical to now say "enough is enough".

Well the republican congressional leadership said "give us what we want or we wont raise the debt ceiling, allowing a default to happen". No-one's ever dared do that before. I guess next time around, progressives say: "revoke the 2nd amendment or else we wont raise the debt ceiling". Or something. "Give us an up or down vote on single payer in the Senate", the debt ceiling gets raised if the bill passes congress and is signed by the POTUS. Fair cop?

So what? The Democrats are saying "give us what we want, forget about what you want, or we won't raise the debt ceiling." The logic in this thread is just bizarre- the party that actually passed bills trying to raise the ceiling is somehow being called the hostage-taker. How is that conclusion possible unless you assume a priori that the Democratic plan is the good one? You can't. Which means that those in this thread calling the Tea Party treasonous are only doing so because they disagree with the Tea Party's politics. I could use that logic to call Democrats treasonous for absolutely anything they do that I disagree with...but I don't, because unlike the pitchfork-wielders in this thread, I'm not an idiot.

Secondly, your hypothetical doesn't apply. Your demands are unrelated to the deficit and debt, while the Republican demands are directly related to the issue that the debt ceiling is tied to. Now if you wanted to say something like "We won't fund the NIH unless you pass UHC" or "We won't subsidize corn unless you pass farm-runoff treatment laws", then it would make sense.


But again, my main point is that "Democrats not meeting Republican demands is fine, but Republicans not meeting Democrat demands is treason" is high up on the list of "Dumbest Fucking Things Ever Posted on the Dope", yet appallingly common.

Shodan
08-02-2011, 11:36 AM
The logic in this thread is just bizarre- the party that actually passed bills trying to raise the ceiling is somehow being called the hostage-taker. How is that conclusion possible unless you assume a priori that the Democratic plan is the good one? Exactly - Republicans are always wrong, and Democrats are always right.
I don't, because unlike the pitchfork-wielders in this thread, I'm not an idiot.I knew there was a reason you didn't fit in around here.


:)

Regards,
Shodan

Whack-a-Mole
08-02-2011, 11:56 AM
The logic in this thread is just bizarre- the party that actually passed bills trying to raise the ceiling is somehow being called the hostage-taker. How is that conclusion possible unless you assume a priori that the Democratic plan is the good one? You can't.

Talk about dumb logic.

By your logic, if some Mujahedeen capture some American soldiers and put a gun to their head and tell the US to get out of the Middle East completely or they pull the trigger, the US would be equally culpable as the "hostage-taker" here. After all, they have an option to save those soldier's lives. You cannot assume, a priori, that the US position is the correct one right? If the US refused and the soldiers were shot it'd be as much the US fault as the Mujahedeen's fault. :rolleyes:

Obama and Reid wanted a "clean" debt ceiling vote (http://www.businessinsider.com/clean-debt-ceiling-vote-just-fails-2011-5) which republicans turned down. Republicans took the economy hostage and told the Democrats to agree to drastic spending cuts or else the economy gets one in the head.

One one side is holding a threat over the other side they are the hostage takers. Because the other side does not capitulate does not make them equally culpable.

This was not a budget fight. This was a fight over meeting obligations already incurred. Obligations that largely fall on the back of Republicans (http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/08/02/fact-free-fiscal-farce/) far more than Democrats to begin with.

Regardless of how you feel about higher or lower spending the Republicans hijacked the debt ceiling as a means to leverage concessions they could not otherwise get.

Those are the hostage takers.

Lobohan
08-02-2011, 12:08 PM
You're merely arguing that there should be no debt ceiling at all, which is a separate issue entirely. The reality is that it does exist and you want to pretend like it doesn't. You think that since past Congresses have raised it with no strings, that it's illogical to now say "enough is enough".It is evil to say, "I will destroy the world economy unless you do exactly what I say." Which is what the Tea Party idiots were saying. Nothing you do or say can change the fact that they threatened to put millions of people out of work and cause at the least a second recession to get their way. That's not the action a good person would take. Ever.

So what? The Democrats are saying "give us what we want, forget about what you want, or we won't raise the debt ceiling."No, the Republicans already did the evil act of threatening the world economy. But the Dems know that half the Republicans aren't idiot Tea Baggers, so they're asking the sane bit to lower their demands. If the Tea Party got their way they would have demanded default because their dipshit leaders have convinced the rank-and-file that everything will be roses and angel-farts if default happened.

The logic in this thread is just bizarre- the party that actually passed bills trying to raise the ceiling is somehow being called the hostage-taker.You don't understand the issue. The debt ceiling is a procedural thing. It's a bookkeeping task.

You need to take a minute to understand what the Republicans did. They took a bookkeeping task and said, unless you do what we say, we'll destroy the world economy. That's hostage taking. Just because you're on the right, doesn't mean that the right can do no wrong. They happened to do something outright vile and disgusting, and people like you cheering them on is why they get away with it. You should ask more from your elected officials.

Grinning when they do outrageous, evil things makes you part of the problem.

How is that conclusion possible unless you assume a priori that the Democratic plan is the good one? You can't.The Democratic plan was to not destroy the world economy. If you can't understand that a non-destroyed economy is better than a destroyed one, well, that doesn't speak highly for your policy opinions.

Which means that those in this thread calling the Tea Party treasonous are only doing so because they disagree with the Tea Party's politics. I could use that logic to call Democrats treasonous for absolutely anything they do that I disagree with...but I don'tI personally wouldn't call them all treasonous. I would say the people working for secession are at least a little treasonous. The Tea Party are ignorant, uninformed and outright delusional. But I'll grant that most of them aren't treasonous.

, because unlike the pitchfork-wielders in this thread, I'm not an idiot.No, you'll just cheer-on vile and evil acts because your team-spirit is stronger than your disdain of douchebaggery.

[snip]

But again, my main point is that "Democrats not meeting Republican demands is fine, but Republicans not meeting Democrat demands is treason" is high up on the list of "Dumbest Fucking Things Ever Posted on the Dope", yet appallingly common.Not understanding that the Democrats wanted the procedural authority to pay the bills we've already amassed and the Republicans decided to deny that authority, putting the world economy in jeopardy, so they could get partisan political goals enacted, is pretty fucking dumb too.

Marley23
08-02-2011, 03:54 PM
I could use that logic to call Democrats treasonous for absolutely anything they do that I disagree with...but I don't, because unlike the pitchfork-wielders in this thread, I'm not an idiot.

Grinning when they do outrageous, evil things makes you part of the problem.
[...]
No, you'll just cheer-on vile and evil acts because your team-spirit is stronger than your disdain of douchebaggery.
[...]
Not understanding that the Democrats wanted the procedural authority to pay the bills we've already amassed and the Republicans decided to deny that authority, putting the world economy in jeopardy, so they could get partisan political goals enacted, is pretty fucking dumb too.

You're posting in Great Debates, not the Pit, and you're both out of line. You can't call other people idiots in this forum, you can't call them dumb, and you can't call them evil. Don't do it again.

Magiver
08-02-2011, 05:22 PM
The core ideal of the Tea Party is whatever the Republican Talking Points says it is! You have that completely ass backwards. The Republican party refused to address runaway debt and they were bitch slapped in the elections along with Democrats. They then went on to act on their platform of a balanced budget. Imagine that, politicians promising to be responsible with our money and actually doing something about it.

Chessic Sense
08-02-2011, 06:39 PM
You don't understand the issue. The debt ceiling is a procedural thing. It's a bookkeeping task.

You need to take a minute to understand what the Republicans did. They took a bookkeeping task and said, unless you do what we say, we'll destroy the world economy. That's hostage taking. Just because you're on the right, doesn't mean that the right can do no wrong. They happened to do something outright vile and disgusting, and people like you cheering them on is why they get away with it. You should ask more from your elected officials.

No, Democrats just wish it were a procedural thing. It's more than a bookkeeping task. It's meant to be a reminder that "Hey, this is really getting out of hand here. Perhaps we should do something about this." And then when the Republican house passes two bills that 1) avert disaster by raising the debt ceiling and 2) do something to address the problem, Democrats cry that 1 doesn't count because 2 is part of the deal.

That just makes it obvious that Democrats aren't actually concerned with the debt ceiling at all. They don't care if it's raised or not. The only thing they care about is spending the US into bankruptcy.

Fear Itself
08-02-2011, 07:12 PM
The only thing they care about is spending the US into bankruptcy.The only thing Republicans care about is reaping the rewards of the republic without paying any taxes.

ElvisL1ves
08-02-2011, 07:23 PM
Paraphrasing someone

"I won. Deal with it."Everybody else in Congress won, too. And there are a lot more of them than you.

Now think a little harder about what that means.

Carmady
08-02-2011, 07:47 PM
The only thing they care about is spending the US into bankruptcy.


Again... it hasn't been that long since the Republicans were in control, during which time they were delighted to spend the US into oblivion, making sure to shift the burden for their ludicrous spending onto those who could least afford it.

It was entirely unsurprising that their "spend every last penny we can and send the bill to the middle class" plan cratered the economy.

What IS surprising is that, a couple years later, you have completely forgotten the whole thing.

Actually, what seems to have happened is that history has been twisted in your mind, so that Democrats have been in control the entire last decade. They are responsible for all spending initiated during that time.

But ask yourself this:

If Democrats really were in control for the last decade, and Bush never existed, would the spending have been so idiotic? So short-sighted?

Would not, perhaps, more money have been spent on rebuilding our devastated infrastructure, thus reducing unemployment while fixing America on the cheap? Would not more of the spending have been in the area of education, providing a better workforce for the future? Would not there have been some increase in taxes on the most wealthy to offset the gargantuan spending, a tactic history shows to be far superior than cutting taxes on the most wealthy and gutting the middle class during an economic crisis?

I think if you look at just how incredibly foolhardy the unthinkable spending of the Bush years was, it will dawn on you that it could not possibly have been done by Democrats.

Little Nemo
08-02-2011, 08:05 PM
No, Democrats just wish it were a procedural thing. It's more than a bookkeeping task. It's meant to be a reminder that "Hey, this is really getting out of hand here. Perhaps we should do something about this." And then when the Republican house passes two bills that 1) avert disaster by raising the debt ceiling and 2) do something to address the problem, Democrats cry that 1 doesn't count because 2 is part of the deal.

That just makes it obvious that Democrats aren't actually concerned with the debt ceiling at all. They don't care if it's raised or not. The only thing they care about is spending the US into bankruptcy.Historically the Democrats have been the party that lowered the debt and the Republicans have been the party that raised it.

Chessic Sense
08-02-2011, 09:44 PM
Again... it hasn't been that long since the Republicans were in control, during which time they were delighted to spend the US into oblivion, making sure to shift the burden for their ludicrous spending onto those who could least afford it.

It was entirely unsurprising that their "spend every last penny we can and send the bill to the middle class" plan cratered the economy.

What IS surprising is that, a couple years later, you have completely forgotten the whole thing.

You seem to be forgetting that most of the deficit was due to two temporary wars. And you also seem to be forgetting that the Republicans of the current Congress aren't the same as the Republicans of 2000. Finally, you seem to be forgetting that Bush tax cuts were made in order to counter a recession.

Historically the Democrats have been the party that lowered the debt and the Republicans have been the party that raised it.

Then why isn't that trend continuing? Why won't they cut more spending than the Republicans? Why the "no strings attached" attitude with the ceiling?

Fear Itself
08-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Finally, you seem to be forgetting that Bush tax cuts were made in order to counter a recession.Refresh my memory; how'd that work out, employment-wise?

Little Nemo
08-02-2011, 10:13 PM
Finally, you seem to be forgetting that Bush tax cuts were made in order to counter a recession.Yeah and the Reagan tax cut was to halt the spread of AIDS.

Funny how the Republicans have the same solution to every problem. Including the problems caused by tax cuts.

Here's a good Republican idea. How about we go back to the last Republican President who lowered the deficit - Eisenhower - and try his tax plan.

Clothahump
08-02-2011, 10:17 PM
My wife made that observation this morning as we heard the news. They are seriously trying to overthrow the government and much more likely to succeed than the pathetic American Communist Part ever could have imagined.

Someone runs for office on a platform of voting for lower taxes, cutting government spending and a balanced budget. At least 50.1% of the voters agree with him and elect him. He goes to Washington and amazingly enough, he doesn't sell out and actually votes the way he promised to.

Please explain how that is treason or trying to overthrow the government.

tomndebb
08-02-2011, 10:45 PM
Finally, you seem to be forgetting that Bush tax cuts were made in order to counter a recession.Actually, they were not. They were packaged and sold with that explanation, but the actual cuts had little, if any, connection to the recession.

To counter the recession, the country could have used a steep reduction taxes for a short duration. The slight rollback in income tax accompanied by the tiny (although much ballyhooed) "rebates" was the token effort in that direction. The rest of the tax cuts addressed longer-term taxes that had no effect on that recession, although they certainly went a long way toward setting the conditions to create the next one.

Shodan
08-03-2011, 06:35 AM
Refresh my memory; how'd that work out, employment-wise?
Relatively well. The unemployment rate peaked in June 2003 at 6.3%. In March 2007 it bottomed out at 4.4%, about .2% higher than when Bush took office.
Despite growth levels below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Unemployment).

Regards,
Shodan

tnetennba
08-03-2011, 07:06 AM
There was a bubble.

It burst.

Hentor the Barbarian
08-03-2011, 08:27 AM
Finally, you seem to be forgetting that Bush tax cuts were made in order to counter a recession.George Bush proposed the tax cuts in order to get rid of the surplus. He famously justified the cuts by saying "It's your money. You paid for it."

And in that sense, his tax cuts worked like gangbusters. Or surplus-busters.

furt
08-03-2011, 08:37 AM
You seem to be forgetting that most of the deficit was due to two temporary wars.This is simply not true. Discretionary spending rose, entitlement spending rose, and new entitlements were created. The wars contributed significantly, but they are/were a fraction of our current deficit.

Mr. Duality
08-03-2011, 09:52 AM
You seem to be forgetting that most of the deficit was due to two temporary wars.

Calling them "temporary wars" makes them seem so... benign. George Orwell would nod approvingly.

But your notion of "temporary" doesn't conform to mine. How long has the Afghanistan war been going on? Ten years? How would you describe WWII... transitory? Provisional? Short-term?