Thats not a lot for a tea bagger.
No, but they don’t support reducing the deficit by raising taxes. The tea party people want to reduce the size and power of the federal government, because they believe that an expansive, activist federal government is bad policy and even unconstitutional.
So, because of this, they support both keeping the tax cuts and reducing the deficit by large cuts in domestic social welfare spending, because they don’t believe the government should get involved in social welfare.
Irrelevant.
For me, the fact that GOP establishment went after her and she still won the day says a lot - takes a grown person to be able to withstand that and you got to respect that no matter what. Do I think she might be a target of GOP’s pressure tactics? You bet! But still, irrelevant.
Do you have anything substantial in terms of her ideas on how to run the government or you just think cutting taxes and reducing spending is not your cup of tea (no pun intended)?
Raising taxes is the only way the deficit can be handled. There is not enough program cutting and cutbacks to have any impact. The political reality is that most programs will be protected by those administering or receiving them. Eliminating programs like Medicare are unrealistic and a waste of time. It will not happen.
Despite the fact that it’s right there in the Preamble.
Was this an open primary? Were Democrats and Independents allowed to vote? The Democratic candidate was unopposed, so I wonder if there was some crossing of lines in order to put the more beatable candidate on the ballot. That’s something that always gets talked about in my state, which has open primaries.
That’s something they obviously disagree with you about, for obvious reasons.
No, what’s in the Preamble is “General Welfare”, not “social welfare”. The founding fathers weren’t running around proposing federal programs to help the disadvantaged or disenfranchised.
The GOP now claims they will provide financial support
The obvious reasons being ill-nature and stupidity.
Peter Orzag was on Charlie Rose last night explaining it . Cutting spending will not work and can not be done anyway. If we did ,we would fundamentally change the nature of America.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204 here is the interview explaining why you are dead wrong.
If this were true, then I could at least respect that position. But I haven’t seen any Tea Party candidate call for significant cuts to SS or Medicare. Can you find me one that has that in their campaign platform? It’s always nebulous calls for “smaller government” with absolutely zero in the way of what would actually be cut (of course, defense spending is always off-limits).
Even Angle walked back her previous calls for cuts to SS and Medicare once she got the nomination.
The only person in the House to propose anything like that is Paul Ryan, and even his proposals have been completely ignored by his party (and even they leave open the possibility for tax increases, because balancing the budget with cuts alone is political suicide).
Even if we cut out all spending except interest, SS, medicare, and the military we’d still have a deficit. The vast majority someone points to needed cutbacks in the name of budget balancing, it isn’t in one of the above categories (although with regards to the first one, this is a good time as any to be running up a debt considering the interest rates the government needs to pay are so low!)
So unless the teabaggers propose cutting SS, medicare, or military spending, they don’t believe in balancing the budget without raising taxes. If I were a candidate I’d ask them which one they want to cut.
Why are the cute ones always loons?
Irrelevant?
What is relevant to you is that she won? Nevermind the rest?
Let’s see who this woman is and what she believes:
-
She thinks masturbation is wrong because the bible says so and works to teach that message including lobbying government (so yeah I care).
-
She lied about when she graduated (she owed money and only settled the loan 17 years later just prior to a debate with Castle this year)
-
She lied about previously winning two counties in a previous run for senate (she didn’t, not even one, not even close).
-
She is paranoid so lives in a town home half-paid for by her campaign so no one knows where she really lives (everyone knows where Vice President Biden [formerly senator] lives) and has staff check her bushes nightly and believes people are hiding in bushes at campaign stops.
-
She owes money in unpaid taxes from 2005 and the IRS filed a lien against her house.
-
Her mortgage holder got a default judgment against her for over $90,000 she has not paid.
-
She opposes abortion even in the case of rape.
-
She wants to drill more oil and denies global warming.
-
She wants to replace federal health care with the free market.
-
Make English America’s “official” language.
-
Wants a single rate tax system.
On a ton of issues she has no stance I can find.
On the issues of taxes and finance she is pretty much empty on the details. Lowering taxes is great. Any schmo can say as much. How? On who? How will you pay for government? How will you reduce the deficit? How will you stimulate the economy?
I’d say there is abundant reason to be afraid of this woman and her getting elected merely displays the idiocy of voters and nothing else when a character like this gets put up for the senate.
And here I thought that they voted for her because they thought her Republican values more closely matched their own than did the values of her opponent.
Apparently crazytown feels the need to reinvent herself: christine2010.com
-Joe
I couldn’t agree more. We had the White House and both Houses of Congress earlier this decade. They acted like liberal Democrats.
I’m not going to vote just so the Rs can be in power. It means nothing to me. I want some conservatives up there.
So, she believes that masturbation is wrong. If she were talking about outlawing masturbation, I would be concerned.
The men voted for her because they want to sleep with her. The women voted for her because they knew she wouldn’t. Reptilian brain and all that.
It seems in the particular case of O’Donnell (and Angle before her), the mere fact that she wasn’t the establishment candidate was the key. It’s not like she has a long record of staunch conservatism. I’m not sure she’s ever won even state-wide office before.
As far as I can tell she has three positions (besides the masturbation one): Outlaw all abortions, even for rape and incest, Repeal PPACA, and some nebulous claims about reducing the size of the government (which, like all Tea Party candidates, come with no plan to do so).
Staunch conservatives (social ones in particular) didn’t like Castle, so they voted for the relative unknown. Hard to imagine she can win a state-wide vote in Delaware, but voters are pissed right now, and Independents have never been known for their in-depth knowledge of candidate positions and history.
In the end, even if she does somehow get elected, it’s a bit for naught. She won’t be re-elected in 6 years (just way to conservative for that population outside of a wave-type election), and that is the earliest health care reform can realistically be repealed anyways (need a GOP president, or a filibuster-proof GOP Senate).
Or, alternatively, the Tea Party is the inchoate mass of disgruntled, knuckle-walking Trogs that the Republicans exploited and manipulated for years and years. Just one more election, they’d say, and we’ll push through your agenda. For years now, people had been warning that sooner or later, even the dimmest of bulbs begins to burn. It took this most recent disaster at the polls for the Trogs to bolt, and bolt they have.
And now, they own the Republican Party. Conservatives of principle don’t even recognize their party, cannot fathom how the party of Goldwater, Buckley and Rockefeller turned into this seething mass of ignorance. They cannot win without the Tea Party energy, so they have to sell themselves if they are going to retain power. And some of them simply cannot swallow that, they retire, they retreat, they throw up their hands and say “No mas, no mas!”
The telling moment for me was reading that the Tea Party had come out on the side of Verizon and Comcast in the whole “net neutrality” question. Oh, rilly? Tea Partiers are passionate about the whole issue of “net neutrality”, are they? Seems unlikely. Seems more likely that the very same people who successfully manipulated them before are up to their usual tricks, trying to sneak a few items onto the agenda without anybody noticing.
The problem boils down to energy. The Tea Partiers smell blood and victory, and they are excited, everything the see plays into their favorite fantasies: that they represent the “real” majority of Americans, that they can throw off the Republican Party pros and do it on their own. But the vast majority of Americans are pretty much moderate, luke-warm, and not committed to much of anything, politically. If we could force them to go to the polls and choose, the TP wouldn’t have a prayer.
But prying them off of their collective asses to the polls is going to be a huge challenge. They are far more likely to cringe in disgust and refuse to choose. And when they wake up the next morning to an America they don’t recognize, they will blame everybody but themselves.