Pretty sure I have posted this before (bolding mine):
Smashy, actions speak louder than words.
Whilst the TP’ers may want to return to 1776 and by implication slavery, lack of equal rights for women, 3 R’s, no safety nets, defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 women, unfettered robber barons, ad nauseum. The majority of Americans don’t want that.
Also, while it may just be a vocal component of the Tea Party, there are far too many birthers, pray away the gay, defense of marriage, opposition to don’t ask don’t tell, we must destroy education to save it, racists, and a lot more abhorrent views on individual freedoms that make a mockery of the TP “values” and “principles.”
Also, if the TP want a BBA, then follow the process laid out by the founding fathers for modifying the constition instead of trying for an end around subversion. Stikes me as more than a tiny bit hypocritical that the TP follows the founding fathers when it’s convenient and act like a banana republic dictator when it’s not.
What does all of that mean? Seriously. The devil is in the details. Mumbling some nice platitudes about “freedom” is all well and good but what, specifically, is meant by that?
We tried the Articles of Confederation where the states had a lot of power and the federal government almost none. Didn’t work out well.
Ravenman is correct. Conservatives want their version of government and only their version of government. The poll pictured in this article (about half way down) shows republican unwillingness to negotiate. Thing is a democratic government is all about compromise. For all the conservative flag waving about what a proper democracy should be it apparently does not include things like, well, democracy.
I would like to know what the Tea Party deems “unconstitutional” that is currently law. I would like to know why they do not use the built-in mechanism for slapping down things that are unconstitutional by taking it to the Supreme Court (a court that happens to be quite conservative in its makeup so should be sympathetic).
Honestly Tea Party folk are the most un-American of Americans we have out there. They do not believe in democracy. They believe in their notions and everyone else can take a hike. Stuck with the inconvenient democratic process we have in place they seek to hold the country and indeed the world hostage by threatening economic catastrophe.
Just for starters, the key feature of Boehner’s bill is that the ceiling is raised by a tiny enough amount to guarantee that Tea Party gets to put U.S. (and World financial markets) through this circus again in, what?, just two more months. If you think this circus has been good, then, Yes, you might not find the bill insane.
It was also a bill known to have Zero Democrat support, doomed for failure in the Senate, and to be Vetoed by Obama should all Senate Democrats be mysteriously hospitalized for the vote. If such useless grandstanding in the face of a deadline epitomizes American statesmanship and patriotism then, Yes, you might not find the bill insane.
It’s hard to believe, but I guess some Americans really think a sudden collapse of the Federal government would be a good thing, even laying off even Federal workers who process SocSec checks, etc. If you are one of those, jtgain, perhaps I should have chosen a more judicious phrasing. Instead of “insanely right-wing” would you accept “fiscally conservative enough to need its own DSM IV category” ?
What do you care about the ideological purity of the Tea Party? Would you rather they propose more drastic cuts? They are apparently damned either way - if they propose a bill consistent with your definition of what they stand for, you’d ridicule it as heartless; if they propose a compromise, you criticize them for lack of purity.
You speak of the “old white base”. On the contrary, the tax-borrow-and-spend policies of the past fifty years are what is old and obviously unsustainable. These policies may have been right for their time, but times change. I think what we are seeing on the left is a simple fear of change. Hasn’t the President counseled us that change is by definition good and to be welcomed?
Depends on how flexible the other side is, doesn’t it?
I think they want a re-boot of the country.
I think they feel the “starve the beast” model is the best option. Tear it all down to the ground then start paying only those things they think the government should pay for (e.g. the military). Things they cannot get done legislatively, such as killing the EPA or the Department of Education, will die of their own accord.
This, in their view, will set things to the way they should be and we’ll be better off for it.
I just do not think they have a clue of the economic catastrophe and social upheaval and real damage this will cause. Sure they may think there will be some pain to bear but we can bear it for a brighter tomorrow.
Tea Partiers are not really known for thinking more than one step ahead. They want “freedom” (and other nice buzzwords) but never really tell you what that means or how it will work in practice.
Yeah…look at the Poll again.
Dems are 70% in favor of compromise.
Reps are 30% in favor of compromise.
Seems the Dems are largely in favor of compromise to me and Reps are not.
Sure, I have cites for the Tea Party’s well-known positions on major issues. I also have cites that the sky is blue, grass is green, and bears shit in the woods.
“No health care for seniors” – the Paul Ryan budget privatizes Medicare.
“No social safety net” – Depending which Tea Party leader you talk to, they either want to abolish or privatize it, not to mention putting welfare recipients in jail
“No environmental regulations” – Tea Partiers have proposed laws to prohibit enforcement of regulations on mercury, cement plants, mountaintop mining, limits on sewage in drinking water, and a ban on uranium mining next to a national park. Link.
Yes, I may be exaggerating just a little when I say that the Tea Party wants “no” such government services. There does seem to be, for example, a debate within the Tea Party on the future of the EPA – some want to strip the EPA of its powers, and others want to replace the EPA with an agency to promote business interests. That’s quite a wide range of debate, and I suppose used a teensy bit of hyperbole, but I don’t think I was being unfactual.
You might want to get a grip on who, exactly, is demonizing one’s opponents. Every other post you have includes a generous heap of name-calling, but as far right wing as you are, there are quite a few conservatives here that you could learn something from in terms of constructing a fact-based argument without the childishness.
So we should embrace all change, no matter the consequences? Fatuous sophistry, akin to the “Democrats are intolerant of intolerance” trope conservatives like to trot out from time to time.
That’s my point: the Rep approach can work in a democracy if the Dems are willing to bend. Nobody wins a game of chicken if neither side swerves, and it’s of course possible for both sides to swerve – but it’s possible for one side to stay in a straight line if the other side swerves first.
Let me break this down and see if I understand what you’re saying.
Two teenagers are playing “chicken”, heading for the cliff. One has played the Lunatic Card; he’s unafraid and calling the other Coward. Obviously the Coward will call this race off before the cliff’s edge.
Now, if the race does continue to the end and both teenagers die, it’s the Coward’s fault, right? Because the other guy had played the Lunatic Card, so the Coward had a responsibility to play Adult.
Do I understand the viewpoint correctly?
The problem is the republican congresscritters see that 70% of their constituents will punish them if they compromise. So, they don’t compromise…at all. Any hint of giving something to the “enemy” is deemed a bad thing. Bad no matter how much practical sense it will make.
Note the bit I quoted to Mr. Smashy just above. The Dems were offering almost exactly what the republicans own report said should be done. They were off by 2% from the republican proposal. The republicans refused it.
I’m missing the compromise part here.
I don’t care about it. The argument was that the Tea Party is just doing what they believe in. But if that were true, then they would have introduced a bill that actually makes cuts. Instead, they are doing what is politically expedient for them, which happens to fuck the rest of us.
More drastic than nothing? Uh, yeah. I think if they believe in cutting the deficit, they should name the programs they cut, instead of only naming the programs they would not cut (i.e., old people’s entitlements).
The Democra compromise: Raise taxes on the wealthy, agree to superficial “cuts” and refuse to touch entitlement programs (which constitute a heavy portion of the U.S.’ debts).
No that’s the Democrats’ initial proposal. They’ve compromised most of that away. Pay attention.
That was dropped a week ago.
$4 trillion over ten years is “superficial”? Conservatives are unable to say yes, to anything.
No, they don’t.
So, you got nothin’.
Oh, really? Perhaps someone didn’t look at the bill Harry Reid drew up.
Anyway, yes, I said superficial cuts. For example, a large part of those “cuts” ($1.3T) are winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which, you know, WERE SCHEDULED TO BE WOUND DOWN ANYWAY WAY BEFORE ANY TALK ABOUT A BUDGET COMPROMISE! Your budget plans saves money by doing something that was already going to be done regardless of whether or not your budget plan is passed? Really?
But you don’t care about that.
So you must be in favor of the bipartisan Gang of Six proposal, which lowers tax rates but raises revenues, limits the growth of Social Security, freezes defense spending, and saves $4 trillion over 10 years. Plus, it is endorsed by both fiscal liberals and conservatives.
You support that plan, right?