What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Plante26 said:
you refuse to acknowledge that the "tea party" is made up of mainstream Americans
Click to expand...

Probably because I refuse to allow myself to believe that mainstream Americans are that stupid.

I'm not sure if the 20% of the population that makes up the far right is mainstream, but if it is, I weep for the future.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Foxton said:
Tea baggers were talking about the budget for three years? I thought they were just whining about Obama being a Kenyan muslim fascist dictator who was going to take their guns away? Or to keep gov't out of their medicare?

It's absurd to think that the tea party are any kind of voice of reason and good policy. Republicans and those who say they are tea party members are there to be in power. As a certain uninfluencial member of Congress from Kentucky said, their most important goal is tostop Obama from being elected, not make the country better. (Not just a one time event for him) And unfortunately the democrats are just as politically oriented but are incompetent at it.
Click to expand...
Still with the derogatory labels? This is what many people consider the birth of the modern day Tea Party. Santelli never once mentions Obama being a Kenyan muslim fascist dictator who was going to take their guns away. This is from late 2009, the rant mentioned in the Barone peice. What really made the Tea Party movement take off though was the healthcare debate. Congressmen came home in the summer to sell the plan and people objected. They were fed up with all the gov't spending, TARP, stimulous, bailouts,.... That is what the Tea Party is about. Liberals will spin it another way trying to villify and demean, but it continues to grow. This is Nixon's Silent Majority when they stop being silent.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Foxton said:
Right, they formed when a half black man became president.
Click to expand...
Your implication here is about as intellectually vacant as it gets; by this logic, the Tea Party would have formed and gained national prominence even if Obama had been a Republican. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The drivers of the Tea Party's formation were:
- Democrats gained power and control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
- The economy collapsed in 2008-09.
- Government interventionism exploded with TARP and bailouts (AIG, auto industry, banks).
- Debt levels skyrocketed as the feds tried to fix the economy.

I believe if one or two of those things hadn't happened, the Tea Party either would not exist right now or would be a much smaller group even further out on the fringe of American politics, rather than constituting 1/4-1/3 of the GOP in the House.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bakunin said:
Your implication here is about as intellectually vacant as it gets; by this logic, the Tea Party would have formed and gained national prominence even if Obama had been a Republican. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Click to expand...
The implication is that there is a racist undertone, with members still not believing Obama was born in this country, and it was in direct response to Plante saying that you can't criticize these people for not speaking up for the prior eight years of fiscal irresponsibility because the "organization" didn't exist yet. (Ya because they didn't have a person they could really target before then)
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Lowering the level of debate to whether or not a group is overtly or implicitly racist isn't serving any useful purpose whatsoever, unless you are merely trying to score cheap political points in a campaign / scare certain groups of people into turning out at higher rates to vote on behalf of your party / candidate. Since this forum has no bearing whatsoever on that, I suggest keeping this type of idiocy to a minimum. I try to read all points of view on here (even the talking points of MinnFan and the rants of OldPio), but it becomes much more difficult to do that once I have to start sifting through the "they're racist" crap.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bakunin said:
Lowering the level of debate to whether or not a group is overtly or implicitly racist isn't serving any useful purpose whatsoever, unless you are merely trying to score cheap political points in a campaign / scare certain groups of people into turning out at higher rates to vote on behalf of your party / candidate. Since this forum has no bearing whatsoever on that, I suggest keeping this type of idiocy to a minimum. I try to read all points of view on here (even the talking points of MinnFan and the rants of OldPio), but it becomes much more difficult to do that once I have to start sifting through the "they're racist" crap.
Click to expand...
To dismiss it out of hand would "lower" any debate even further.

I still love the clip from the 08 election of the old woman accusing Obama of being an Arab and that she can't trust him. McCain for his credit is able to mostly keep the realization off face that his entire campaign had become about people fearing Obama.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bakunin said:
Lowering the level of debate to whether or not a group is overtly or implicitly racist isn't serving any useful purpose whatsoever, unless you are merely trying to score cheap political points in a campaign / scare certain groups of people into turning out at higher rates to vote on behalf of your party / candidate. Since this forum has no bearing whatsoever on that, I suggest keeping this type of idiocy to a minimum. I try to read all points of view on here (even the talking points of MinnFan and the rants of OldPio), but it becomes much more difficult to do that once I have to start sifting through the "they're racist" crap.
Click to expand...

I think that part of the issue is that the tea party isn't just concerned with financial/economic matters but has also embraced the far right stance on social issues as well. Given that the people who tend to be on the far right of social issues tend to have a very traditional and potentially narrow worldview, it isn't surprising that many of their non-financial and non-economic view have come to define the tea party as much as anything.

I think that the point still stands that if anyone is so up in arms about government spending today, why were they not speaking out about the rapid increase in the national debt under the previous administration, who nearly doubled it in 8 years.

Republican mantra for years is that government intervention is generally bad and when driven by the Democrats it is even worse, and that all in "necessary" intervention under the Bush administration was bad enough, the group that already had the pre-existing distrust for the government was able to coalesce around PACs that had a distinct anti-Democrat (particularly anti-Obama) and pro-Republican message given the "unnecessary" economic intervention by the Obama administration was followed by the health care debate that these groups were completely able to eviscerate the Democrats on going into the 2010 elections and it is why that the Tea Party was the only voting base that was actually motivated during that election.

Basically the Democrats played right into those groups anti-government bias with the whole government healthcare debate. The Dems were going for a homerun after 2008 and fouled the ball off the chin by handing the other side the topic which would mobilize the Republican base most effectively.

I think that we have two myths that need to be dispensed with right now:
1.) The Tea Party is not a main-stream movement, it is a highly motivated far-right fraction of the Republican party.
2.) It is far more concerned with advancing the far-right agenda then any independent financial or economic agenda.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Almington said:
I think that we have two myths that need to be dispensed with right now:
1.) The Tea Party is not a main-stream movement, it is a highly motivated far-right fraction of the Republican party.
2.) It is far more concerned with advancing the far-right agenda then any independent financial or economic agenda.
Click to expand...
Uh...if I read your post correctly, you're incorrect.

1) What percentage of GOP in the tea party? Is that 66% vs. 5%? No not mainstream.

image6396386.gif


2) What candidates do they support over others? If you tell me Ron Paul...I'd say they are concerned with an independent financial, economic agenda. If you tell me Michelle Bachmann...I'd say they're social conservatives who use the fig leaf of small government to push a broader social conservative agenda (as she does).

Sorry but your off by a ways on this.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Wol4ine said:
They were fed up with all the gov't spending, TARP, stimulous, bailouts,.... That is what the Tea Party is about. Liberals will spin it another way trying to villify and demean, but it continues to grow.
Click to expand...
It is fair to note that the tea cups were not rattling as much until November of 2008. The bank bailout didn't seem to bother them as much as the auto bailout. Or at least it didn't produce the rancor that the auto bailout did.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

5mn_Major said:
Uh...if I read your post correctly, you're incorrect.

1) What percentage of GOP in the tea party? Is that 66% vs. 5%? No not mainstream.

image6396386.gif


2) What candidates do they support over others? If you tell me Ron Paul...I'd say they are concerned with an independent financial, economic agenda. If you tell me Michelle Bachmann...I'd say they're social conservatives who use the fig leaf of small government to push a broader social conservative agenda (as she does).

Sorry but your off by a ways on this.
Click to expand...

It was late, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. What I was trying to say is exactly what you said:
1.) The Tea Party is a far right fraction of the Republican Party, not some independent main-stream movement
2.) The Tea Party is as much about advancing the rights social agenda as it is about any new and independent fiscal or economic issue.

I think that the fiscal tea party was strong in 2008, given how Ron Paul did during the presidential election, it wasn't until Obama was elected and the various tea party associated PACs were formed that it grew from just a tiny minority group to a significant fraction of the GOP.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Almington said:
It was late, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. What I was trying to say is exactly what you said:
1.) The Tea Party is a far right fraction of the Republican Party, not some independent main-stream movement
2.) The Tea Party is as much about advancing the rights social agenda as it is about any new and independent fiscal or economic issue.

I think that the fiscal tea party was strong in 2008, given how Ron Paul did during the presidential election, it wasn't until Obama was elected and the various tea party associated PACs were formed that it grew from just a tiny minority group to a significant fraction of the GOP.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, now I'm reading it as you intended. I think the sheer fact that they went from nonexistent to large full blown protests the second a Dem was in office is reason for suspicion alone.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Bakunin said:
Your implication here is about as intellectually vacant as it gets; by this logic, the Tea Party would have formed and gained national prominence even if Obama had been a Republican. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The drivers of the Tea Party's formation were:
- Democrats gained power and control of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
- The economy collapsed in 2008-09.
- Government interventionism exploded with TARP and bailouts (AIG, auto industry, banks).
- Debt levels skyrocketed as the feds tried to fix the economy.

I believe if one or two of those things hadn't happened, the Tea Party either would not exist right now or would be a much smaller group even further out on the fringe of American politics, rather than constituting 1/4-1/3 of the GOP in the House.
Click to expand...

Agree with the part about them being a fringe group had the economy not collapsed and the bailout happened. However, it is way too convenient IMO that these people formed after Bush's term was over. Nobody, not even FDR, has expanded federal govt oversight of the country as much as GWB. He started it with the Patriot Act and the tea party was nowhere to be found. Nor did they miraculously spring up during the financial bailout debate of Sept 2008. A reasonable person has to ask why is that?

Let me give you a scenario to chew on. There's a vocal and significant faction of the Republican party obsessed with a historical narrative of America that never existed. In this fantasyland world, the 50's where the best time ever, save for maybe the Reagan administration where there were no tax increases (false), no military debacles (false-Beirut), a decrease in abortion & teen pregnancy rates (false), and balanced budgets (false). These people were/are horrified that the President is not a grandfatherly looking white male complete with some past military heroics on his resume and and English sounding last name. Why I don't think they're racist is that they disliked Clinton as much as they dislike Obama. However, that doesn't make them any less dangerous/nuts. Having Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, running the government drives an irrational hatred that goes beyond mere politics. It signifies a steady decline in their way of life. A place where religion is practiced in schools, gays are back in the closet, and civil rights have been rolled back a good 50 years. I don't blame McCain for this, but at the end of the campaign last election his rallies were turning into Klan meetings minus the Halloween costumes with all the vitriol being spewed around during them. 15 years on, all the anti-Clinton stuff now seems silly at best and brainless at worst. I'm guessing we'll look back on Birtherism and other anti-Obama nonsense the same way 15 years from now.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
It is fair to note that the tea cups were not rattling as much until November of 2008. The bank bailout didn't seem to bother them as much as the auto bailout. Or at least it didn't produce the rancor that the auto bailout did.
Click to expand...

Of course the bank bailout was ok. Bailouts for the rich are fine. Bailouts for union workers are not fine.
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Gold hits $1,700 /oz. Oil falls to <$85/bbl.
Market on a roller coaster.

Anything unexpected?

If you had to cut $1T from the 2012 budget, what would you cut?
 
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

joecct said:
Nothing to do with the Conngress, but is this a wise use of the public's money?? http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ino-tax-money-may-help-keep-jackets-here.html
Click to expand...

I don't understand this part:
"Because Nationwide Arena was privately funded — a rarity in major-league sports today — the Blue Jackets do not draw revenue from naming rights, parking and luxury boxes at the same rate as other NHL clubs."

Why does the building's funding source affect how much revenue the club gets? Wouldn't they get more of it if they built it themselves? Or did some 3rd party build the arena and the club moved in? In that case, f' em. No one forced them to sign a bad lease, why should the government bail them out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top