Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

[NowhereInTime]

Your "principles" resonate with the American People with a resounding thud.  You can't win the argument, so you resort to tricks like this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/06/national-republican-congressional-campaign-using-fake-democrat-websites-to-lure-voters/?hpt=hp_t1

Pathetic.

[onan]

Your "principles" resonate with the American People with a resounding thud.  You can't win the argument, so you resort to tricks like this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/06/national-republican-congressional-campaign-using-fake-democrat-websites-to-lure-voters/?hpt=hp_t1

Pathetic.

Fuckin Alinsky.

[PB the Deplorable]

Your "principles" resonate with the American People with a resounding thud.  You can't win the argument, so you resort to tricks like this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/06/national-republican-congressional-campaign-using-fake-democrat-websites-to-lure-voters/?hpt=hp_t1

Pathetic.

Those same fucks - specifically Karl Rove - also set up websites, PACs, etc using terms that resonate with Tea Party types,  specifically to cause similar mischief and confusion.

These inside-the-beltway Republicans (consisting of the RINOs, establishment R's, the R's amongst the globalists & crony capitalists, etc - all mostly the same group, actually) and the organizations they control are no better than the D's

[Foodlion]

It's a shame we could never get a 3rd party.

[FightTheFuture]

That's the handiwork of a group of Republican political consultant hacks. Not necessarily conservatives. But, it is disgusting nonetheless, and there is no excuse for it, at all!

[onan]

It's a shame we could never get a 3rd party.

We can... It just takes more than most are willing to give. At one point I thought the Tea Party had a very good chance. But it seems very few are willing to put the thirty to forty years of work and infrastructure together. And I am not just pointing a finger at the Tea Party, The Green Party, The American Conservative Party, The Socoalist's Workers Party, or the 30 or so others also lack the fortitude. I thought Ross Perot had a chance with the Reform Party. But it always seems that if there isn't a presidential campaign, third parties don't have enough steam to continue. Or they lose their core concepts and start to meander from their origins. But I think a third party would be a rejuvenation to politics in this country.

[Yorkshire pud]

We can... It just takes more than most are willing to give. At one point I thought the Tea Party had a very good chance. But it seems very few are willing to put the thirty to forty years of work and infrastructure together. And I am not just pointing a finger at the Tea Party, The Green Party, The American Conservative Party, The Socoalist's Workers Party, or the 30 or so others also lack the fortitude. I thought Ross Perot had a chance with the Reform Party. But it always seems that if there isn't a presidential campaign, third parties don't have enough steam to continue. Or they lose their core concepts and start to meander from their origins. But I think a third party would be a rejuvenation to politics in this country.

A third party struggles, especially when the other established pair gang up in their own best interests; Right up to the point when each depend on the third to get into office, as happened here in 2009. A little ironic as the third party was originally one of the two main ones post WW1. The 2009 general election was a tight race, and we had our first TV debate, with all three party leaders being asked questions. The polls were suggesting that the Liberal Democrats were taking support from the Labour and Conservative parties. Consequently when the debate was broadcast (live) they had an online graph that showed what those who had logged in thought. It was mocked because Gordon Brown and David  Cameron (Labour and Conservative respectively) were dropping in 'I agree with Nick' (Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats), clearly reading the writing on the wall and knowing (as happened) neither of the big two would have an overall majority, so they were already anticipating a coalition government.

This ended up being not Cleggs finest hour after the honeymoon, because a lot of the policies that they'd (L D's) had promised to those who had voted for them in the constituencies where they'd won, were watered down or thrown out by the Conservative heavy cabinet and back benchers. They'd done a deal with the devil and found they'd been burned, and today their popularity is rock bottom. The Conservatives don't mind of course, because their hard core didn't want the L D's in the first place. As for Labour, well, new leader Ed Milliband wax's and wanes seemingly like the moon. Next General election is next year, so I imagine the pretend marriage will hit a rough divorce sometime soon. The L'D's will not fair well, but that doesn't mean there won't be another coalition, simply because the general disdain for politicians is palpable. Most are seen as lying self serving hypocrites who couldn't care less about the majority of the population.

[NowhereInTime]

We can... It just takes more than most are willing to give. At one point I thought the Tea Party had a very good chance. But it seems very few are willing to put the thirty to forty years of work and infrastructure together. And I am not just pointing a finger at the Tea Party, The Green Party, The American Conservative Party, The Socoalist's Workers Party, or the 30 or so others also lack the fortitude. I thought Ross Perot had a chance with the Reform Party. But it always seems that if there isn't a presidential campaign, third parties don't have enough steam to continue. Or they lose their core concepts and start to meander from their origins. But I think a third party would be a rejuvenation to politics in this country.

I joined Reform in the 90's because I thought Perot, thought clownish, was a genuine patriot who could be swayed by reason and I really never warmed up to the Any-Way-the Wind-Blows Clintons. I was a naive man-child.
Only ever had one area meeting in New Milford and it was mostly crackers coming out of the wood work to gripe about taxes. Then Pat Buchanan and his cohort coopted the "party." 
For me, it was exit stage LEFT.  (For P*B's enetertainment and benefit.)
I am, however, seriously thinking of working petitions here in CT to get Gov. Jesse (James Janos) Ventura on the ballot, just for the sake of choice. (Still a naive man-child?)

[SciFiAuthor]

Pfft, like any of you would vote for a third party. We muse about it, but we always either hit the R or the D. Maybe the young people might go for it, but it's unlikely. Politics is the art of talking points and brainwashing. It is not the art of logic. Since it's not the art of logic, the third parties have no chance. In fact, I think anyone with half a free-thinking brain knows that we are very much in danger of a one party system at this stage. The Democrats are very close. Well, why would anyone support them knowing that they are intentionally moving towards permanent power? Doesn't that preclude voting for them? Yet here we are with a dramatically failing Democratic presidency that's done little else but hand us bad law after bad law, inept action after inept action, and yet it appears most people will still vote for that party. Why? Well, as someone that incessantly baits people to discuss issues logically, I know why. It's because you're all brainwashed by the TV or the Radio into one POV or the other.

Here's how to know you've got a problem:

Ask yourself who you support. Answer that truthfully to yourself, ask yourself why you support them. I guarantee no liberal or conservative will survive with their ideology intact if they are truly honest. If that were the case, most of the country would simply vote for the opposition as a default. That's not happening. Someone grabbed the pendulum, and I'd like anyone here that disagrees with me to defend the concept of permanent power. I dare you, especially the Democrats.

[Juan]

I worked for, voted for and served in the Libertarian Party for a number of years.  I fell out with them when I realized they took stands on secondary issues that could not be won (fully informed jury project, hard drug legalization) rather than take stands on important primary issues - US foreign policy, war, taxation, Social Security, etc.

[Foodlion]

I worked for, voted for and served in the Libertarian Party for a number of years.  I fell out with them when I realized they took stands on secondary issues that could not be won (fully informed jury project, hard drug legalization) rather than take stands on important primary issues - US foreign policy, war, taxation, Social Security, etc.

Hard Drug Legalization = Modern method of natural selection.

I can see myself being in favor of that 

[awake]

Pfft, like any of you would vote for a third party. We muse about it, but we always either hit the R or the D. Maybe the young people might go for it, but it's unlikely. Politics is the art of talking points and brainwashing. It is not the art of logic. Since it's not the art of logic, the third parties have no chance. In fact, I think anyone with half a free-thinking brain knows that we are very much in danger of a one party system at this stage. The Democrats are very close. Well, why would anyone support them knowing that they are intentionally moving towards permanent power? Doesn't that preclude voting for them? Yet here we are with a dramatically failing Democratic presidency that's done little else but hand us bad law after bad law, inept action after inept action, and yet it appears most people will still vote for that party. Why? Well, as someone that incessantly baits people to discuss issues logically, I know why. It's because you're all brainwashed by the TV or the Radio into one POV or the other.

Here's how to know you've got a problem:

Ask yourself who you support. Answer that truthfully to yourself, ask yourself why you support them. I guarantee no liberal or conservative will survive with their ideology intact if they are truly honest. If that were the case, most of the country would simply vote for the opposition as a default. That's not happening. Someone grabbed the pendulum, and I'd like anyone here that disagrees with me to defend the concept of permanent power. I dare you, especially the Democrats.

If it's permanent power you wish to avoid.  Talk to the gerrymandering reps who used the census of 2010 to fix up "no-lose" districts for house seats.  It's not permanent per say BUT it's ten years at least.  The consequence of gerrymandered districts is continually harder right candidates.  Look at the reps being primaried by other reps.  It's a system of increasing extremism for which I see no solution.


As far as why I support the democratic party.  I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-common sense gun control, pro-environmental safeguard (Hi West Virginia- wanna' glass of water), pro-science (the earth isn't 6000 yrs old and all the reps running for gov in TX are creationists),pro-education.  There are two parties available and it's an easy choice. 


I believe that you are intellectually dishonest regarding the president's record.  Either you haven't looked or you've gone to some factitious sites.  Look at the bikini graph on jobs, PRIVATE SECTOR job growth for how many consecutive months (48, the last time I checked), debt falling at the FASTEST rate in 60 YEARS, Saved the industrial base for the country, financial crisis reversed.  Please tell me by what objective measure economists report a failing economy?   


What EXACTLY are you talking about with regard to these, nebulous, "bad laws"?  How EXACTLY has he failed?  Let's see some of this truthfulness of which you write.  The kind of post you made is, to me, the standard fox news line.  I can site, if you wish, my sources (CBO mainly) and I'd love to know yours. 

[NowhereInTime]

Here's how to know you've got a problem:

Ask yourself who you support. Answer that truthfully to yourself, ask yourself why you support them. I guarantee no liberal or conservative will survive with their ideology intact if they are truly honest. If that were the case, most of the country would simply vote for the opposition as a default. That's not happening. Someone grabbed the pendulum, and I'd like anyone here that disagrees with me to defend the concept of permanent power. I dare you, especially the Democrats.

Permanent power?  Really?  With the gerrymandered House, a Senate where states of 750,000 people can vote in 2 Republicans while a state of 27 million can only vote in 2 Democrats?  With a Supreme Court with the likes of Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority?
I defy you to tell me how the Democrats are swinging to "permanent power".
Conservatives have had power since Reagan, even with Bubba's (complicit) Presidency, conservatives have controlled the court and , effectively, Congress for most of the last 30 years.
Oh sure, the Dems had the house for 50, but since 1994 they've had it what, for 2 years?

[PB the Deplorable]

Permanent power?  Really?  With the gerrymandered House, a Senate where states of 750,000 people can vote in 2 Republicans while a state of 27 million can only vote in 2 Democrats?  With a Supreme Court with the likes of Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority?
I defy you to tell me how the Democrats are swinging to "permanent power".
Conservatives have had power since Reagan, even with Bubba's (complicit) Presidency, conservatives have controlled the court and , effectively, Congress for most of the last 30 years.
Oh sure, the Dems had the house for 50, but since 1994 they've had it what, for 2 years?

Having a Senate no longer makes sense, for the reasons you pointed out.  Prior to he 17th Amendment (1913) Senators were appointed by the various state legislatures, and represented the interests of the states.  This was to ensure we didn't get  a powerful nearly unaccountable Federal government that would usurp powers that were not granted to it but were to be retained by the states (the House was to be elected by, and represent, The People).  So look what happened - we have a powerful nearly unaccountable Federal government that usurps powers that belong to the states (for example pot laws).

By the way, the 17th Amendment was championed by Woodrow Wilson and the Libs of the time.  They said having people voting directly for Senators would 'expand' democracy, and that's true, but their real reason was because they wanted the Federal govt to have more power to 'do good'.  Sound familiar?


And by the way, having Alito,  Scalia, and Thomas on the Supreme Court does not give the Conservative the 'majority' - there are 9 justices.

[PB the Deplorable]

If it's permanent power you wish to avoid.  Talk to the gerrymandering reps who used the census of 2010 to fix up "no-lose" districts for house seats.  It's not permanent per say BUT it's ten years at least.  The consequence of gerrymandered districts is continually harder right candidates.  Look at the reps being primaried by other reps.  It's a system of increasing extremism for which I see no solution.


As far as why I support the democratic party.  I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-common sense gun control, pro-environmental safeguard (Hi West Virginia- wanna' glass of water), pro-science (the earth isn't 6000 yrs old and all the reps running for gov in TX are creationists),pro-education.  There are two parties available and it's an easy choice. 


I believe that you are intellectually dishonest regarding the president's record.  Either you haven't looked or you've gone to some factitious sites.  Look at the bikini graph on jobs, PRIVATE SECTOR job growth for how many consecutive months (48, the last time I checked), debt falling at the FASTEST rate in 60 YEARS, Saved the industrial base for the country, financial crisis reversed.  Please tell me by what objective measure economists report a failing economy?   


What EXACTLY are you talking about with regard to these, nebulous, "bad laws"?  How EXACTLY has he failed?  Let's see some of this truthfulness of which you write.  The kind of post you made is, to me, the standard fox news line.  I can site, if you wish, my sources (CBO mainly) and I'd love to know yours.

I would suggest both parties have been gerrymandering districts forever.   The word came from Massachusetts Gov Gerry Elbridge in 1812.

About West Virginia's water pollution incident, how is that the fault of the Republicans - isn't W VA a mostly Democratic State?  Meaning the democratic state government and their regulators failed?

Private sector job growth growing 48+ consecutive months?  Do you have a link showing that?  If it is true, which I doubt, the growth has been anemic considering the employment level when his term began.  Whatever it is, compare that to the new jobs during the Reagan recovery, or any other period of time after a deep recession. 

Debt falling at the fastest rate in 60 years - this is an example of how statistics can be manipulated.  When the deficit is $1.5 Trillion - 3 times the highest ever previously recorded - due to one time bailouts and stimulus, it's much easier to reduce a high percentage of the $1.5 Trillion than to reduce a deficit in what has become the 'normal' range of $200-400 Billion.

And as I said above, Gerrymandering has been around and used by both parties going on 200 years.  The elected officials from Democrat districts have also become more 'extreme', but to the Left.  That's what's going to happen when the parties don't need to appeal to 'moderates' or members of the other party in order to win - the most Conservative candidate or the person furthest Left wins.

[gbneely]

Private sector job growth growing 48+ consecutive months?  Do you have a link showing that?  If it is true, which I doubt, the growth has been anemic considering the employment level when his term began.  Whatever it is, compare that to the new jobs during the Reagan recovery, or any other period of time after a deep recession. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/10/big-drop-in-unemployment-rate-is-not-good-news/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/2/part-timer-nation-77-percent-2013-jobs-were-part-t/

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/

These should give you a good idea about this "boom" economy.

[Gd5150]

Yes because the economy is doing so well. LOL!!! Its funny the media tells us it is because their head is up Obamas a$$. But when you ask people who work in it, EVERYONE says its slow. From the housing market to Walmart. Gee how is that? Hmmmm. Been bad since '06 and hasnt improved at all under Obama. Until govt health insurance scam is canned the US economy will never returns to its prime of the early 2000s and before.

[NowhereInTime]

And by the way, having Alito,  Scalia, and Thomas on the Supreme Court does not give the Conservative the 'majority' - there are 9 justices.

Classic P*B, attempt to break credibility through semantics.  Please re-read the actual sentence regarding justices on the Supreme Court (especially the phrase "in the majority"). Roberts and Kennedy were not mentioned, ergo a cheap semantic point.  Not all of us like to vomit all over our keyboards like you...

[NowhereInTime]

Yes because the economy is doing so well. LOL!!! Its funny the media tells us it is because their head is up Obamas a$$. But when you ask people who work in it, EVERYONE says its slow. From the housing market to Walmart. Gee how is that? Hmmmm. Been bad since '06 and hasnt improved at all under Obama. Until govt health insurance scam is canned the US economy will never returns to its prime of the early 2000s and before.

Yes, LOL!  Hah Hah Ha!

Of course everyone says its slow.  There was never any recovery post.com boom.  The faux recovery after 9/11 was a return to normal economic activity and the housing bubble was all of these "flip this house" morons being given free credit by your laissez faire mortgage writers like Money Store and Country Wide. 
Conservatives always blame the housing collapse on the poor being given free credit (as forced by Bubba Clinton at gunpoint, apparently) and defaulting on their payments even though it was the house flippers caught high and dry by over supply.
The truth was unregulated mortgage writing that was immediately securitized into mortgage backed securities.  Then pooled in to high risk packages by our friends at Goldman, Lehmann, Bear, et al. to wager against with collateralized debt obligations.

While this was going on, George Noory was promoting a false gold rush claiming interest levels would crush our economy (so buy Gold!!) and all of you super-patriots were off-shoring your money.

Also happening, you well-to-do's were taking your ill gotten tax cuts and, instead of creating businesses and jobs, sinking it into the commodities markets to gin up prices on oil, bacon, cocoa, coffee, you name it.  In effect, the rich taxed the poor!!
Oh, those high times of the early aughts!!! LOL!!!

[awake]

I would suggest both parties have been gerrymandering districts forever.   The word came from Massachusetts Gov Gerry Elbridge in 1812.

About West Virginia's water pollution incident, how is that the fault of the Republicans - isn't W VA a mostly Democratic State?  Meaning the democratic state government and their regulators failed?

Private sector job growth growing 48+ consecutive months?  Do you have a link showing that?  If it is true, which I doubt, the growth has been anemic considering the employment level when his term began.  Whatever it is, compare that to the new jobs during the Reagan recovery, or any other period of time after a deep recession. 

Debt falling at the fastest rate in 60 years - this is an example of how statistics can be manipulated.  When the deficit is $1.5 Trillion - 3 times the highest ever previously recorded - due to one time bailouts and stimulus, it's much easier to reduce a high percentage of the $1.5 Trillion than to reduce a deficit in what has become the 'normal' range of $200-400 Billion.

And as I said above, Gerrymandering has been around and used by both parties going on 200 years.  The elected officials from Democrat districts have also become more 'extreme', but to the Left.  That's what's going to happen when the parties don't need to appeal to 'moderates' or members of the other party in order to win - the most Conservative candidate or the person furthest Left wins.

I spent an hour addressing these points and then lost then whole goddamned thing.  I am so pissed right now.


Ok Obama included war funding that bush did not, he was dealing with TARP, the a economic meltdown.  The budget was higher in part due to all of these.


I would suggest that the scope of the gerrymandering of 2010, which is the relevant time period, was new.  I would further posit that the citizens untied ruling allowed money to reach candidates that the rnc did not favor and hurt the rnc's ability to raise money.  This hurt their ability to control the 2010 and subsequent cycles.  Winners owe their allegiance to outside influencers rather than the rnc.  They have less incentive to listen to party leaders.  When the members don't listen to the leadership nothing is done (see the number of bills introduced and the types of bills introduced).


Here are the stats on job growth.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/news/economy/obama-deficit-reduction/


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0916/Obama-Deficits-falling-at-fastest-rate-since-WWII.-Is-that-true


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/25/barack-obama/obama-says-deficit-falling-fastest-rate-60-years/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/02/07/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-113000-jobs-in-january-unemployment-down-to-6-6/


fun with graphs (while public sector/government jobs has shrunk private sector jobs have increased):






The source for the data in both cases is BoLS.


Are enough of them full time jobs, no.  Is it an amazing record in light of the U.S. and global economic situation?  Yes.  Does it help when reps threaten to shut down the government or to not raise the debt ceiling?  No it does not help jobs numbers and the last shutdown cost the economy $18,000,000,000.  Without this $18,000,000,000 hit could we have avoided cutting $5,000,000,000 in aid to our citizens?  Possibly.


Regarding the debt and deficit.  I mentioned some of the factors I feel were root causes.  Including the wars, TARP, recession and continuation of bush tax cuts.  But I believe you are angling toward Obama as a bid spender?  If so here is a Forbes article.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


Here is a graph form that article:





I hope this will spur you on toward looking at my data.  I had a lot more and I still do not know how my original post vanished.  Before it goes poof again, I'm posting.

[RealCool Daddio]

fun with graphs (while public sector/government jobs has shrunk private sector jobs have increased):

Shrinking the public sector payroll, and creating more private sector jobs?  Obama is turning into a pretty crummy Bolshevik, isn't he?

[Yorkshire pud]

Shrinking the public sector payroll, and creating more private sector jobs?  Obama is turning into a pretty crummy Bolshevik, isn't he?

Damn you!! DAMN YOU!!! How dare you bring facts into this. How very dare you. Obama, is a true blue red flag wearing Marxist, Leninist, Alsky, sky, thing, Commie bastard, red blue Marxist bastard...and don't forget it, okay? Oh and he's Kenyan...and Muslim, and and, and... Well just hate him, okay? And another thing, his wife eats apples. She probably smells of elderberries too..

[Ben Shockley]

Don't forget how the righties claim that:
1) no one ever heard of Barack before he ran for Senate in Illinois, BUT
2) they claim to know every "embarrassing" person he ever met in his life.

[awake]

Damn you!! DAMN YOU!!! How dare you bring facts into this. How very dare you. Obama, is a true blue red flag wearing Marxist, Leninist, Alsky, sky, thing, Commie bastard, red blue Marxist bastard...and don't forget it, okay? Oh and he's Kenyan...and Muslim, and and, and... Well just hate him, okay? And another thing, his wife eats apples. She probably smells of elderberries too..

You know, I see some much horseshit thrown around on this site regarding the record this person or that person.  And things are always complicated but the claims of "failing economy"  "failed policies" and the like just fly in the face of objective fact.



I'm not a lot of fun to be around in a bar when politics are brought up.  I keep graphs like this in my phone for blowhards.      It could be a sickness.

[wr250]

I spent an hour addressing these points and then lost then whole goddamned thing.  I am so pissed right now.


Ok Obama included war funding that bush did not, he was dealing with TARP, the a economic meltdown.  The budget was higher in part due to all of these.


I would suggest that the scope of the gerrymandering of 2010, which is the relevant time period, was new.  I would further posit that the citizens untied ruling allowed money to reach candidates that the rnc did not favor and hurt the rnc's ability to raise money.  This hurt their ability to control the 2010 and subsequent cycles.  Winners owe their allegiance to outside influencers rather than the rnc.  They have less incentive to listen to party leaders.  When the members don't listen to the leadership nothing is done (see the number of bills introduced and the types of bills introduced).


Here are the stats on job growth.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/news/economy/obama-deficit-reduction/


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0916/Obama-Deficits-falling-at-fastest-rate-since-WWII.-Is-that-true


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/25/barack-obama/obama-says-deficit-falling-fastest-rate-60-years/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/02/07/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-113000-jobs-in-january-unemployment-down-to-6-6/


fun with graphs (while public sector/government jobs has shrunk private sector jobs have increased):






The source for the data in both cases is BoLS.


Are enough of them full time jobs, no.  Is it an amazing record in light of the U.S. and global economic situation?  Yes.  Does it help when reps threaten to shut down the government or to not raise the debt ceiling?  No it does not help jobs numbers and the last shutdown cost the economy $18,000,000,000.  Without this $18,000,000,000 hit could we have avoided cutting $5,000,000,000 in aid to our citizens?  Possibly.


Regarding the debt and deficit.  I mentioned some of the factors I feel were root causes.  Including the wars, TARP, recession and continuation of bush tax cuts.  But I believe you are angling toward Obama as a bid spender?  If so here is a Forbes article.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/


Here is a graph form that article:





I hope this will spur you on toward looking at my data.  I had a lot more and I still do not know how my original post vanished.  Before it goes poof again, I'm posting.

[sarcasm]
none of this is true.
no where is "19.5" found ...
[/sarcasm]

[awake]

Awww, I miss RcH.  I can remote view him running around those pyramids in south america with his un-calibrated "equipment" getting amazing "results".   God it was fun to listen to him free associate.  Follow-up questions kinda' fucked him up but still, hilarity.

[awake]

Oh and the house voted to cleanly approve raising the debt limit and then got the hell out of D.C. before the storm.  Good on them.  Buuuuut, they didn't do that because they are team players.  They did that because they could not agree amongst themselves, what concessions they were going to demand.  Read the articles regarding the house repubicans meeting.  They are as funny as they are indicative of the state of the RNC at the moment.  House leadership has zero control over this group, this is terrible for our country.  Numerous rightwing pressure groups announced they were scoring this vote and still 28 reps crossed the aisle to pass the bill. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/house-gop-debt-limit-plan-103370.html


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/house-republicans-seek-democratic-help-for-debt-limit.html


Here is the tweet sent out by Cong. Tim Huelskam of Kansas regarding the vote:[/font]


https://twitter.com/CongHuelskamp/status/433301816064098304




Please recall that raising the debt ceiling simply means paying our bills.  This is not new spending, the spending being paid for was voted for and approved long before.  But I think that extorting the full faith and credit of the U.S. over petty politics might be over.  Wouldn't that be nice.

[PB the Deplorable]

Oh and the house voted to cleanly approve raising the debt limit and then got the hell out of D.C. before the storm.  Good on them.  Buuuuut, they didn't do that because they are team players.  They did that because they could not agree amongst themselves, what concessions they were going to demand.  Read the articles regarding the house repubicans meeting.  They are as funny as they are indicative of the state of the RNC at the moment.  House leadership has zero control over this group, this is terrible for our country.  Numerous rightwing pressure groups announced they were scoring this vote and still 28 reps crossed the aisle to pass the bill. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/house-gop-debt-limit-plan-103370.html


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/house-republicans-seek-democratic-help-for-debt-limit.html


Here is the tweet sent out by Cong. Tim Huelskam of Kansas regarding the vote:[/font]


https://twitter.com/CongHuelskamp/status/433301816064098304




Please recall that raising the debt ceiling simply means paying our bills.  This is not new spending, the spending being paid for was voted for and approved long before.  But I think that extorting the full faith and credit of the U.S. over petty politics might be over.  Wouldn't that be nice.

You are right, the House Leadership and many of the rank and file are not on the same page.  The leadership and much of the membership are not Conservative and don't mind big government - they just want to be the ones running it.  The Establishment R's and the Conservatives in the party have been at war for decades.  People like McCain go home and talk the talk, then go back to DC and it's business as usual.  That's why they are starting to get 'primaried'.

It IS a good thing that a Tea Party faction is emerging for all the reasons previously mentioned.  Even if it were due to something other than the Tea Party not buckling under, our system was meant to have debate and disagreement - a lockstep government is not usually in the citizens benefit.

As far as a default or not being able to pay our bills and this being money already spent, etc - not so.  The Federal government collects Billions of dollars each month - more than enough to pay SS, pensions, interest on the debt and most other spending in the budget/continuing resolution.  If a debt ceiling were not passed, there would have to be choices made on future discretionary spending, but in no way would there be a default or non-payment of what we are already obligated to pay, unless the Administration chose that route.


As for your long post with the links - thanks for posting that.  Sorry you lost some of what you typed, I've had that happen to me sometimes with email and what not.  I have not had a chance to read them yet, but will. 

[awake]

As far as a default or not being able to pay our bills and this being money already spent, etc - not so.  The Federal government collects Billions of dollars each month - more than enough to pay SS, pensions, interest on the debt and most other spending in the budget/continuing resolution.  If a debt ceiling were not passed, there would have to be choices made on future discretionary spending, but in no way would there be a default or non-payment of what we are already obligated to pay, unless the Administration chose that route.

Your opinion on this is in the minority of even the house and senate members who consider themselves "tea party" members.  If you wish to go source for source on who states it would or wouldn't result in a default PLEASE just let me know.  I'm happy to point them out to you.  As a matter of fact, the article I linked is from Bloomberg and relates the strong opinions of business leaders as well.  I don't wish to commit an appeal to authority fallacy but their opinions might be relevant. 


Setting aside the matter of the actual default though.  There is also the matter that the only thing which underpins our currency, the world standard, is the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.  Again, setting aside the default point, there is the reaction of world markets.  There was a study done to consider the world ramifications and it wasn't pretty.  I do not think it hyperbole to suggest that if the U.S. was perceived to have defaulted there would be calls to move away from the U.S. Dollar to another currency for world trading. 
So I've laid out a few for-instances there and offered to go source for source with you.  Let me know.

[Yorkshire pud]

  I do not think it hyperbole to suggest that if the U.S. was perceived to have defaulted there would be calls to move away from the U.S. Dollar to another currency for world trading. 

Indeed so; it was discussed at length over here by economists and economic correspondents on the news channels. The Euro was mentioned as replacement. It wasn't just non US economists who outlined such a scenario either. What is often forgotten is that all currencies are inter dependent; the dollar is used because it suits at the moment. Pound Sterling won't be again, although it used to be. (I think it's in third place, simply because the reserves aren't deep enough)