Why do you hate the Tea Party?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

How much should the upper middle & upper wage earners be paying into the system[/quote]

Whatever it takes to convince the rest of the population that we aren’t partisan hacks when we tell them they’re going to have let us put our hands on SS, medicare/caid. Anything else is an argument for not doing anything at all, in reality. Until the interest on the debt and these programs are the only things we can even pay for with the revenue we bring in. The longer this continues the worse the sacrifices–that everyone will eventually have to make–to right the ship, will have to be.

Counting, I think you need to review my posts. I’ve clearly suggested that these folks will HAVE to see some significant changes to when, how much, how often, and for what they receive these benefits. Be it changes in age, income, etc., requirements. How, and how much, of their own contributions are collected. That’s been my central point. Trying to sell this while on the other hand suggesting Trump is really struggling in life, and so needs relief, under his present tax burden. Complete non-starter.

My priority isn’t the Karashian’s burdensome misery in having to cut out one or two tropical island stops while out on one of their jetting-around vacation tours. My priority is actually getting something done with these programs. And that requires selling sacrifice. And that itself requires not looking like a two-faced partisan hack who can ask an elderly person, or an sick and injured average individual, to frantically wonder even more over how they’re still going to manage to get by. All the while trying to convince those same people, and everyone who cares about those people, that Warren Buffet is in dire straits and needs some relief.

82

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

How much should the upper middle & upper wage earners be paying into the system[/quote]

Whatever it takes to convince the rest of the population that we aren’t partisan hacks when we tell them they’re going to have let us put our hands on SS, medicare/caid. Anything else is an argument for not doing anything at all, in reality. [/quote]

Okay, now I get where you’re coming from.

I may actually have a substantive post later but just don’t have it in me to think about policy right now, lol.

83

As for actual amounts? That’s not my field.

Sit down like adults, stop with non-negotiables, bring in the actuaries, accountants, trustees who actually work in this field…

And more importantly. STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU WILL ONLY HAVE TO SELL THIS PLAN, ONCE IT’S FASHIONED, TO A SINGULAR POLITICAL PERSUASION.

84

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Who said I was for the Status Quo currently operating in D.C.?..

[/quote]

You do. Through both implication and what you don’t say.

You’ve been on here for years, Oppy, you have a track record that can be examined.

Now if what you say in the rest of your post is true maybe it’s time you got specific in what you mean by “throwing the bums out.” You’re an articulate, knowledgeable fellow so instead of being just the squaw on the edge of the circle who beats the drum at the Tea Party torture session maybe we’ll someday see you become the warrior who actually takes some scalps every now and then.

Get busy.
[/quote]

So, let’s get this right - in addition to your hobby of using Orwellian powers to make words mean whatever you want them to mean, now you’re telling me that what I’m telling you I think and believe isn’t actually true and that you know better what I actually think and believe from magically-filled “inferences”?

Who knew? All along I’ve accused you of creating straw men on positions I don’t hold, but it turns out I really do hold all these positions I think I don’t and you’re just a gifted psychic. Helpful to know - and let’s all hope you use your newly discovered superpowers for the Forces of Good.

Seriously. Stop talking.
[/quote]

LOL (seriously)

Some day we’re going to arm wrestle in person and end all this internetting drama.

I love you, man. [/quote]

Fair enough, and I admit our tussling got rough of late, and the rhetoric (on my part) was overheated. For that, you have my apologies. Nothing was personal.

But we all know I’d win the arm-wrestling match as well as the duel. :wink:

86

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

And to be sure, I don’t hate the Tea Party. Far from it, I admire the original expression of it. But that movement got co-opted by incompetent far-right wingers that were not necessarily representative of the original movement.[/quote]

And this is where I am. The original expression was great, and I was all onboard with that. However, they are not interested in actually governing, because governing means inevitable compromise in order to further your larger stated goals as well as the good of the nation. That is why I “hate” them, if one could use such a word for it. Even Reagan compromised. Almost all great conservative presidents compromised. And that doesn’t even touch the legislative branch at all.

The other thing is, they suck something AWFUL at playing the long game (because they can’t figure out compromise). Take the list–even if you were to try to achieve the mathematically impossible, you would have to prioritize certain items in practice because you simply will NEVER get your whole damn way, all at once. Not even if you were the party in power with a supermajority, and much less a minority of a party. They seem unable and uninterested in even trying to do anything that resembles it.

88

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

And this is where I am. The original expression was great, and I was all onboard with that. However, they are not interested in actually governing, because governing means inevitable compromise in order to further your larger stated goals as well as the good of the nation. That is why I “hate” them, if one could use such a word for it. Even Reagan compromised. Almost all great conservative presidents compromised. And that doesn’t even touch the legislative branch at all.

The other thing is, they suck something AWFUL at playing the long game (because they can’t figure out compromise). Take the list–even if you were to try to achieve the mathematically impossible, you would have to prioritize certain items in practice because you simply will NEVER get your whole damn way, all at once. Not even if you were the party in power with a supermajority, and much less a minority of a party. They seem unable and uninterested in even trying to do anything that resembles it. [/quote]

Why are the Democrats so good at getting everything they want then? What have they compromised on?

Look at the two year budget. Great compromise right? Democrats get all their entitlement spending and Republicans get all their defense spending (not to mention each sides subsidies and tax breaks.) Compromise that gives Obama a blank check for two years. In this instance and many others, bipartisanship is the problem, not the solution.

So they (the Tea Party)take a hard line approach and draw a line in the sand. No more capitulation. That doesn’t seem like a long term approach, but they keep winning elections for the Republicans. Something must be resonating with voters when it comes to standing your ground on policy.

89

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

And this is where I am. The original expression was great, and I was all onboard with that. However, they are not interested in actually governing, because governing means inevitable compromise in order to further your larger stated goals as well as the good of the nation. That is why I “hate” them, if one could use such a word for it. Even Reagan compromised. Almost all great conservative presidents compromised. And that doesn’t even touch the legislative branch at all.

The other thing is, they suck something AWFUL at playing the long game (because they can’t figure out compromise). Take the list–even if you were to try to achieve the mathematically impossible, you would have to prioritize certain items in practice because you simply will NEVER get your whole damn way, all at once. Not even if you were the party in power with a supermajority, and much less a minority of a party. They seem unable and uninterested in even trying to do anything that resembles it. [/quote]

Why are the Democrats so good at getting everything they want then? What have they compromised on?

Look at the two year budget. Great compromise right? Democrats get all their entitlement spending and Republicans get all their defense spending (not to mention each sides subsidies and tax breaks.) Compromise that gives Obama a blank check for two years. In this instance and many others, bipartisanship is the problem, not the solution.

So they (the Tea Party)take a hard line approach and draw a line in the sand. No more capitulation. That doesn’t seem like a long term approach, but they keep winning elections for the Republicans. Something must be resonating with voters when it comes to standing your ground on policy.
[/quote]

What was the alternative to no budget?

EDIT: I worded this poorly. I meant to ask, what was the alternative to the bi-partisan budget that got passed? Was the alternative of no budget better?

90

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Fair enough, and I admit our tussling got rough of late, and the rhetoric (on my part) was overheated. For that, you have my apologies. Nothing was personal.

But we all know I’d win the arm-wrestling match as well as the duel. :wink:
[/quote]

And I was just about to say something akin to “mom, dad, please stop fighting!”

91

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

And this is where I am. The original expression was great, and I was all onboard with that. However, they are not interested in actually governing, because governing means inevitable compromise in order to further your larger stated goals as well as the good of the nation. That is why I “hate” them, if one could use such a word for it. Even Reagan compromised. Almost all great conservative presidents compromised. And that doesn’t even touch the legislative branch at all.

The other thing is, they suck something AWFUL at playing the long game (because they can’t figure out compromise). Take the list–even if you were to try to achieve the mathematically impossible, you would have to prioritize certain items in practice because you simply will NEVER get your whole damn way, all at once. Not even if you were the party in power with a supermajority, and much less a minority of a party. They seem unable and uninterested in even trying to do anything that resembles it. [/quote]

Why are the Democrats so good at getting everything they want then? What have they compromised on?

Look at the two year budget. Great compromise right? Democrats get all their entitlement spending and Republicans get all their defense spending (not to mention each sides subsidies and tax breaks.) Compromise that gives Obama a blank check for two years. In this instance and many others, bipartisanship is the problem, not the solution.

So they (the Tea Party)take a hard line approach and draw a line in the sand. No more capitulation. That doesn’t seem like a long term approach, but they keep winning elections for the Republicans. Something must be resonating with voters when it comes to standing your ground on policy.
[/quote]

What was the alternative to no budget?

EDIT: I worded this poorly. I meant to ask, what was the alternative to the bi-partisan budget that got passed? Was the alternative of no budget better?
[/quote]

In principle, I agree with miami, both in terms of the bipartisan fuckery on the budget and the reason the Tea Party originally took a hard line. The key, however, is that it really is NOT a long term approach, and that’s part of my beef. It’s true, the budget is a load of shit. And democrats got a blank check essentially.

Unfortunately, a gov’t shutdown is worse for Republicans. They took all the heat in the world the last shutdown, and it’s still fresh in everybody’s memories. The shit budget may have saved a GOP POTUS run, because I think everybody here knows that if the shutdown DOES occur the GOP has just handed their opponents a giant club to beat them with in the media until the election.

It is monetarily awful, but probably a tactical improvement over shutdown. Of course, Boehner didn’t really negotiate, so he massively fucked up because there was almost certainly room to get SOME concessions out before crisis. On the other hand, the mere appearance of approaching shutdown is death to the public image.

Push, will try to get to your reply later. I am loaded down in the lab and for some reason have not been able to log in to the forums on my phone for a couple months now.

92

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Unfortunately, a gov’t shutdown is worse for Republicans. They took all the heat in the world the last shutdown, and it’s still fresh in everybody’s memories. [/quote]

The shutdown was so bad for Republicans that they won over the Senate and grew their majority in the house in 2014.

93

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

What was the alternative to no budget?

EDIT: I worded this poorly. I meant to ask, what was the alternative to the bi-partisan budget that got passed? Was the alternative of no budget better?
[/quote]

Yep. Do exactly what Harry Reid did. Continuing resolutions until you can force the other side to do what you want or threaten shutdown.

94

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Unfortunately, a gov’t shutdown is worse for Republicans. They took all the heat in the world the last shutdown, and it’s still fresh in everybody’s memories. [/quote]

The shutdown was so bad for Republicans that they won over the Senate and grew their majority in the house in 2014. [/quote]

And you may be right about that. I somewhat surmise that things may be different in an election year. But yes, it is possible.

95

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

What was the alternative to no budget?

EDIT: I worded this poorly. I meant to ask, what was the alternative to the bi-partisan budget that got passed? Was the alternative of no budget better?
[/quote]

Yep. Do exactly what Harry Reid did. Continuing resolutions until you can force the other side to do what you want or threaten shutdown.
[/quote]

Terrible idea. For many reasons, but not the least of which is that it would endanger whatever fragile chances the GOP has of winning the White House. Such a move would undermine the Long Game the GOP should be playing. (See Aragorn’s well-stated point on that.)

96

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Unfortunately, a gov’t shutdown is worse for Republicans. They took all the heat in the world the last shutdown, and it’s still fresh in everybody’s memories. [/quote]

The shutdown was so bad for Republicans that they won over the Senate and grew their majority in the house in 2014. [/quote]

And you may be right about that. I somewhat surmise that things may be different in an election year. But yes, it is possible.[/quote]

Yes. Presidential election years favor the Democrats, due to turnout demographics. The GOP has to play error-free football leading up to 2016. And letting your anti-government freak flag fly in the run up isn’t error-free football.