posted
Don't underestimate the role Cruz played. You have to look at what he did behind the scenes. He directed a ton of money through Heritage and other groups to Republican districts. He spent six months before this showdown airing ads in those districts convincing people that the Tea Party plan was the only way to go. Then when October rolled around, the entire party faced an angry horde of constituents who'd been fed Cruz's screed for half a year.
He didn't just start spouting crazy one day, he pulled the rug out from under the GOP months ago, but most of them didn't realize at the time it would come back to hurt them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, I'm just saying that what Cruz did works on his party because this is the sort of supremely deluded bullshit that american conservatives have become completely susceptible to. They are isolated in a misinformation bubble they created for themselves.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The GOP spend more money running ads against other Republicans than against the Democrats.
quote: The Republicans didn't just take a political hit, they took a political hit for zero gain. Why would they repeat the strategy again in 3 months when they know exactly what will happen at the end of it?
Because they know nothing Jon Snow.
They key word here that's in question is "know", they don't in fact know. As Sam is suggesting and using Jon's colourful language the GOP now is a permament resident of Bullshit Mountain and are convinced that this strategy didn't work, not because its crazy, deluded and self destructive stupidity. But because they didn't go far enough; or there weren't enough REAL CONSERVATIVES elected to the House, (and hence the incoming primary challenges by the further right) that the media was one sided or biased (hahahaha) against them etc etc etc.
They'll believe what they want to believe, compromise with the Democrats means letting them "win" and so its possible, maybe probable, they will try it again because to not do so means stepping off Bullshit Mountain and getting crushed by the avalanche of refuse that will come down on them.
Because now there's new residents, and they live further up and have a lot of shovels and a clear view.
[I love how I'm referring to Samprimary and Jon Stewart it still comes off as a ASOFAI reference.]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: [qb]B) No amount of reasonable and honest discussion will stop you from whinging about how I represent some "tiny minority zealot-voice" and yet the more you insist upon that point the more insular your position is revealed to be. You need to reassess the current political spectrum in America.
Someone correctly identifying your general ideological position as a fringe doesn't reveal them to be more 'insular'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: [qb]B) No amount of reasonable and honest discussion will stop you from whinging about how I represent some "tiny minority zealot-voice" and yet the more you insist upon that point the more insular your position is revealed to be. You need to reassess the current political spectrum in America.
Someone correctly identifying your general ideological position as a fringe doesn't reveal them to be more 'insular'
Except my general ideological position isn't 'fringe' so he's not correct. For you to believe so you must be intentionally ignoring what I've said on this forum or you live in an ideological and cultural bubble.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: standard and poor estimates that the Party of Fiscal Responsibility has cost us 24 billion dollars with their antics.
We also got a rating downgrade out of the deal and a hit to faith in the american markets, so economic recovery will probably slow some!
good job conservatives!
I can't find a link to the S&P analysis; just articles about it. Generally I'm suspect of these economy-wide 'loss' estimates, because the necessary levels of abstraction often elide important context.
Also, while Fitch pushed short-term debt to the negative watch list (where long-term debt already was), that didn't actually downgrade the credit rating. A determination should be made sometime by the end of the year, and I doubt we'll get downgraded given the deal that was eventually reached, although if there are signs we're going to do it all again next January, that could certainly change.
Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts. Republicans were certainly at fault, but Democrats could have easily softened this blow. They chose not to in order to make an ideological point. Good for them politically, and maybe good for us all long term if it changes the way we treat the budgeting process, but by the short-term metrics you're pointing to that intransigence was unhelpful.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts.
I don't know that this is true. A lot of the economic damage cited is not direct (although there is a great deal of that), but due to losses in global confidence in the U.S. stability and internal consumer confidence. You don't get to throw tantrums like insane, spoiled children and continue to have people treat you like an adult.
A lot of the damage is being attributed to people realizing that there is no way to know when the Tea Party will throw more tantrums and inflict completely unnecessary unknown economic harm to the U.S. That there was even a chance that we would consider not paying our debts, not because we can't be because it's the center of their tantrum, because of these idiots is very bad. If things continue as they have been, it seems likely that they'll eventually go through with it.
The only thing that is saving the U.S. from having these antics prompt changes like the dollar not being the world reserve currency is that there isn't currently another currency that is more reliable.
But there will be. We can't continue enjoying the privileged economic position that we have if the Tea Party continues to be able to pull this sort of nonsense. I think that the Democrats giving in to them again could have accelerated the economic losses.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts. Republicans were certainly at fault, but Democrats could have easily softened this blow.
Please examine this statement. They should have relented to this abuse of the process in order to lessen its effects.
Analogies to battered wives seem superfluous, but maybe I'm wrong- would you like a battered wife analogy?
I'll give you one: eventually, no matter how often the wife apologizes to the man who beats her for making him do it, and promises to concede things that she should not, in a sane relationship, concede, he will eventually kill her. That is the end of the cycle of abuse: you stop it, or you die. It doesn't get better once one side realizes that the abuse gives them power.
And that's all this is: the Tea Party is out to destroy the federal government. I mean this not by the way of hyperbole, but literally: they are on a course that ends with the destruction of the federal government. Because their power, and everything that defines them as an organization (which is not much else btw), is in the promise of destruction. That is the instinct that their philosophy primarily services: the destruction of all obstacles. In a way, it's worse than National Socialism or International Communism, both amorphously unspecific agendas of power; because these agendas were actually constructive. They were trying to construct something horrible, but they were trying to construct *something*. The Tea Party hasn't proven as insidious, but it may yet prove as destructive.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know that this is true. A lot of the economic damage cited is not direct (although there is a great deal of that), but due to losses in global confidence in the U.S. stability and internal consumer confidence. You don't get to throw tantrums like insane, spoiled children and continue to have people treat you like an adult.
A lot of the damage is being attributed to people realizing that there is no way to know when the Tea Party will throw more tantrums and inflict completely unnecessary unknown economic harm to the U.S. That there was even a chance that we would consider not paying our debts, not because we can't be because it's the center of their tantrum, because of these idiots is very bad. If things continue as they have been, it seems likely that they'll eventually go through with it.
The only thing that is saving the U.S. from having these antics prompt changes like the dollar not being the world reserve currency is that there isn't currently another currency that is more reliable.
But there will be. We can't continue enjoying the privileged economic position that we have if the Tea Party continues to be able to pull this sort of nonsense. I think that the Democrats giving in to them again could have accelerated the economic losses.
I was talking specifically about Standard & Poor's $25 billion estimate Sam was referencing. I doubt (but can't verify because I can't find the core analysis) that it took any consideration of the long-term consequences you're pointing to here. And, as I said, it may be (but I don't feel it's a given) that long-term we're better off due to the President's intransigence on the medical device tax. But I'm guessing if he'd acquiesced, S&P's estimate would have been half of what it was, and Fitch wouldn't have put US short-term debt on negative watch. That's all I was saying.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts. Republicans were certainly at fault, but Democrats could have easily softened this blow.
Please examine this statement. They should have relented to this abuse of the process in order to lessen its effects.
Analogies to battered wives seem superfluous, but maybe I'm wrong- would you like a battered wife analogy?
I'll give you one: eventually, no matter how often the wife apologizes to the man who beats her for making him do it, and promises to concede things that she should not, in a sane relationship, concede, he will eventually kill her. That is the end of the cycle of abuse: you stop it, or you die. It doesn't get better once one side realizes that the abuse gives them power.
And that's all this is: the Tea Party is out to destroy the federal government. I mean this not by the way of hyperbole, but literally: they are on a course that ends with the destruction of the federal government. Because their power, and everything that defines them as an organization (which is not much else btw), is in the promise of destruction. That is the instinct that their philosophy primarily services: the destruction of all obstacles. In a way, it's worse than National Socialism or International Communism, both amorphously unspecific agendas of power; because these agendas were actually constructive. They were trying to construct something horrible, but they were trying to construct *something*. The Tea Party hasn't proven as insidious, but it may yet prove as destructive.
See my response to Squick. You can feel that it's in our long-term interest but still recognize that the short-term effects Sam pointed to were exacerbated by the President's stance. Personally, I feel like there's more than enough uncertainty about the future to question whether it truly was in our long-term interests; if you don't, that's cool, your model for how the world works could be much better and clearer than mine. But my response was specifically about the short-term metrics Sam was pointing to and not about those long-term measures.
<edit>Said differently, if the President had primarily cared about S&P's estimate of the cost to the economy or Fitch's placing us on the negative watch list, he could have done something about it a week ago. That he didn't suggests he cared about something else more. His rhetoric suggests he feels similarly to Squick and Orincoro, that a pernicious habit of using debt limits and government shut-downs as moments for coercive bargaining was such a long-term threat it was worth the short-term pain to hold an absolutist stance. Personally, I think there was a healthy dose of legacy-burnishing and political gamesmanship as well, but I don't really doubt the core of why he claims he did it. But the truth is he could have ended the shut down a week ago if he had wanted to, thereby mitigating much of the short term pain, possibly at the expense of increasing the probability of having to endure such painful experiences in the future.</edit>
posted
Short-term pain is worth cutting down on extended long-term pain. If I could take 2 weeks of substantially increased pain, to not have aches and pains for years to come.. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Of course there were other valid arguments made - that as long as you have people willing to tear down the government (Tea Party), it doesn't matter what you try to do to get rid of the pain. They'll just stab you in the face until you can't take the pain any longer.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Short-term pain is worth cutting down on extended long-term pain. If I could take 2 weeks of substantially increased pain, to not have aches and pains for years to come.. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Of course there were other valid arguments made - that as long as you have people willing to tear down the government (Tea Party), it doesn't matter what you try to do to get rid of the pain. They'll just stab you in the face until you can't take the pain any longer.
Short-term pain can be worth it, depending on how likely and how intense long-term pain is. Seeing the future is tough, though, and I'm skeptical that anyone really knows how the President's decision will materially impact budget negotiations beyond 2014.
If you don't think the President's response will have any impact on the Tea Party's behavior (i.e. they're going to keep "stabbing us in the face" no matter what he does) than that only decreases his reasons for choosing to endure short-term pain. Again, that doesn't mean I like, approve of, or support the Tea Party's agenda; it just means that if the President didn't believe he was avoiding any long-term pain, it should have decreased his willingness to allow us to endure the short-term pain Sam pointed to.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: was talking specifically about Standard & Poor's $25 billion estimate Sam was referencing. I doubt (but can't verify because I can't find the core analysis) that it took any consideration of the long-term consequences you're pointing to here.
I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about short term consequences. The loss of confidence in the U.S. that came about because people saw that the Tea Party was behaving irrationally and irresponsibly and that they have a strong influence in American politics. This leads people to believe, besides the direct effect of pissing money away that they had, there are likely to be times in the future when they are again going to throw tantrums and try to take the country hostage, which is going to lose us even more money. There is the impression that the previously unthinkable insanity of America not paying its debts is now a possibility.
That loss in confidence has immediate effects in the short term and these effects are included in the estimates of how much this whole episode cost the country. Giving in to the Tea Party like you suggested would increase the likelihood of more disastrous moves by them in the future, so it would lead to a greater loss in confidence which would in turn cause more short term, as well as long term, financial damage.
---
It seems unlikely that the Tea Party will change, but the fact that they caused massive economic damage throwing a childish tantrum and got nothing for it will hopefully 1) not embolden them into doing more of this in the future and 2) diminish their overall influence in the American political process. Both off which are good for the long term stability of the country.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Except my general ideological position isn't 'fringe' so he's not correct. For you to believe so you must be intentionally ignoring what I've said on this forum or you live in an ideological and cultural bubble.
The problem is actually that we paid attention to what you've said on this forum, and we've noted how conspicuously you've often supported hacky fringe views with weak logic, run from questions and pretended you answered them, been a faithless arguer, etc.
There are parts of your 'general ideological position' that I certainly wish were more fringe, but time will fix that. Oh, and yes, we observed the distinction!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts. Republicans were certainly at fault, but Democrats could have easily softened this blow. They chose not to in order to make an ideological point. Good for them politically, and maybe good for us all long term
You say 'maybe,' I'm stuck on "absolutely without a doubt"
the precedent had to be set in order to keep the tea party from holding the entire country's well-being hostage to force concessions from a fraction of a minority of one house of one branch of the government.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And that's all this is: the Tea Party is out to destroy the federal government. I mean this not by the way of hyperbole, but literally: they are on a course that ends with the destruction of the federal government. Because their power, and everything that defines them as an organization (which is not much else btw), is in the promise of destruction. That is the instinct that their philosophy primarily services: the destruction of all obstacles. In a way, it's worse than National Socialism or International Communism, both amorphously unspecific agendas of power; because these agendas were actually constructive. They were trying to construct something horrible, but they were trying to construct *something*. The Tea Party hasn't proven as insidious, but it may yet prove as destructive.
Whether you mean it as huperbole or not doesn't change that it's hyperbole. They aren't actually trying to destroy the entire federal government.
Regardless, you seem to have internalized a belief structure that really fascinates me. The concept that having the government do something, even if it is something bad, is somehow better than it doing nothing.
Look at your words. You literally just said the tea party is "in some ways worse" than Naziism. Because it trying to destroy a government, and at least the Nazis were trying to build a government. That's amazing, and revolting.
Your thinking seems devoid of any real moral framework. Just a destruction/creation dichotomy which you seem to think has all the inherent morality you need.
You're wrong. Doing something bad is worse than doing nothing. Creating a monstrous government is a terrible action. Much worse than destroying a flawed one.
Edit: It also amazes me that I'm the first one to criticize this.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, people can recognize that sometimes good things come from shitty things. The United States is a "good thing" but it was born from genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing, aggressive expansion and to not pay taxes.
Yes, the tea party is trying to destroy the federal government, in so far as they want it so ineffective and its responsibilities delegated to the states that it cannot interfere with their state level fiefdoms and regressive policies and voter suppression.
quote: Your thinking seems devoid of any real moral framework.
It's a framework of "maybe people should have their resources pooled together so they can more optimally help people who are in terrible circumstances."? The observation of "even X and Y accomplished something" is just that, an observation to contrast just how empty and devoid of merit or credibility Tea Party Libertarian philosophy is.
Though, not sure where Orincoro is saying "Doing something is better than nothing even if its bad", maybe you can get there through inference but I doubt Obamacare is "bad", that might just be the false dichotomy your presenting through your flawed "government is never the answer" world view.
quote: Edit: It also amazes me that I'm the first one to criticize this.
Notice that you're operating under a warped ethical framework?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've ignored what I raised an issue with in favor of trying to argue with topics I have no interest in.
He said that the tea party was, in a way, worse than Naziism, because Naziism was constructive and the tea party is destructive.
Either he is attributing inherent morality to being constructive, regardless of whether what you are doing is good, or he thinks Naziism was kind of good. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt in regards to what I am criticizing him for.
Here's the thing: Even if you assume the federal government is a significant net positive, and the tea party is completely wrong, what he said is still repugnant. They're not worse than Nazis. Saying that they are is stupid and offensive.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: He said that the tea party was, in a way, worse than Naziism, because Naziism was constructive and the tea party is destructive.
Your ignoring the meaning behind his words, also note worthy you focus on national socialism and not Communism to focus on the one with the most knee jerk emotional baggage.
His point is not that they're "constructivism" was in fact good, but that even two relatively evil ideologies managed to have had a overall positivist goal that at least left something behind in evidence of their ideology. That the Tea Party lacks even this basic minimum shows how utterly bankrupt they are.
They are the Ouroboros, a snake that can only consume itself until there is nothing.
Absolutely nothing about how "government doing something bad is better than government doing nothing."
quote: Here's the thing: Even if you assume the federal government is a significant net positive,
This is why arguing with you is like punching a brick wall, except the brick wall would actually bend a little.
Your a priori assumption is that government can only be a net negative, despite all evidence to the contrary. Even worse, you actually ignore the evidence instead arguing purely the ideology of "restraining liberty bad even if it helps people."
quote: and the tea party is completely wrong, what he said is still repugnant. They're not worse than Nazis. Saying that they are is stupid and offensive.
Under the lens he is analyzing them he is absolutely right to conclude this, in the same way I conclude that libertarianism is absolutely without merit because there has yet to be a single nation on the face of the earth or throughout all of history that is libertarian. While Communism is MORE credible because it at least brought two nation's to the status of being Great Powers and there are examples of successful communes.
Under this logical framework, libertarianism is worse Communism because it isn't as practical.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think godwin himself would have voted for a combination tea party third reich communist structure.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The problem is actually that we paid attention to what you've said on this forum, and we've noted how conspicuously you've often supported hacky fringe views with weak logic, run from questions and pretended you answered them, been a faithless arguer, etc.
There are parts of your 'general ideological position' that I certainly wish were more fringe, but time will fix that. Oh, and yes, we observed the distinction!
That's blatantly disingenuous. You don't pay attention, you manipulate and distort. You ask irrelevant and childish questions and are therefore ignored. You enter discussions with less sincerity than anyone else on this forum but expect the total opposite from others. Get off your high horse. You look pathetic.
You obviously have your own definition of 'fringe' as well as wacky metrics to deduce the political standing of people who don't agree with you. Anyone who's not a foaming-at-the-mouth progressive probably seems like the right-wing fringe. I'll welcome you back to reality when you get here.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its kinda self evident that if you actually think the Democrats are at fault for the shutdown, for not 'compromising', self identify with Rand or Ron Paul's libertarianism, or identify with/support the Tea Party, think Obama is actually "left wing", think Fox News is "fair and balanced" news organization, or that government [anything] is a 'bad' idea....
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The problem is actually that we paid attention to what you've said on this forum, and we've noted how conspicuously you've often supported hacky fringe views with weak logic, run from questions and pretended you answered them, been a faithless arguer, etc.
There are parts of your 'general ideological position' that I certainly wish were more fringe, but time will fix that. Oh, and yes, we observed the distinction!
That's blatantly disingenuous. You don't pay attention, you manipulate and distort. You ask irrelevant and childish questions and are therefore ignored. You enter discussions with less sincerity than anyone else on this forum but expect the total opposite from others. Get off your high horse. You look pathetic.
"You ask irrelevant and childish questions and are therefore ignored."
Funny, you didn't seem to be ignoring me in any of the recent exchanges in which you are asked relevant questions and then you pretzel around them and pretend you answered them.
See, this is the problem for when you make stuff up and go on a predictable beef about how it's other people who are acting disingenuous. You're predictable, you have a referenced history, and you project wildly (especially with the "You enter discussions with less sincerity than anyone else on this forum" — hahahahaha)
quote:I'll welcome you back to reality when you get here.
Is this your reality where gays should be kept out of standard public restrooms and segregated to gays-only restrooms? I don't like your reality, capax. It's a twisted little dark place full of phobias and delusions that I have to remember every time you pop up canards about how it's actually other people who are twisting reality, not you.
please keep feuding with me, ya nut! get out all that frustration!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina voted against the debt deal Wednesday night for a great many reasons, and one of those reasons is that he thought that the bipartisan legislation to reopen the government included funding for the Lord’s Resistance Army, a Ugandan militant group led by exiled war criminal Joseph Kony.
This is not true. But that didn’t stop Mulvaney from including it in his statement denouncing the deal!
“Finally, the ‘deal’ is full of pork,” Mulvaney said. “A dam project in Kentucky got extra money; the state of Colorado got money to help with its flooding; and the ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ received special funds. Those may be worth discussing, but that will never happen now, as they were crammed into this ‘deal’ in order to help it pass. So much for the ‘clean’ bill that my Democrat colleagues said they wanted so badly.”
As noted by the Huffington Post, the money in the deal will actually fund the Pentagon’s efforts to support African forces currently conducting a manhunt for Kony.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: See, this is the problem for when you make stuff up and go on a predictable beef about how it's other people who are acting disingenuous. You're predictable, you have a referenced history, and you project wildly
I was hoping you'd use 'predicable' a third time for a total strike out. Hahaha.
You've obviously abandoned the whole 'fringe' argument in favor of a more elaborate circus act. That's fine, bro. It must be hard to stick to one attack when its premise is patently false.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol wtf? Did this guy seriously think that the US government was trying to send money to Kony? How delusional is he?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: was talking specifically about Standard & Poor's $25 billion estimate Sam was referencing. I doubt (but can't verify because I can't find the core analysis) that it took any consideration of the long-term consequences you're pointing to here.
I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about short term consequences. The loss of confidence in the U.S. that came about because people saw that the Tea Party was behaving irrationally and irresponsibly and that they have a strong influence in American politics. This leads people to believe, besides the direct effect of pissing money away that they had, there are likely to be times in the future when they are again going to throw tantrums and try to take the country hostage, which is going to lose us even more money. There is the impression that the previously unthinkable insanity of America not paying its debts is now a possibility.
That loss in confidence has immediate effects in the short term and these effects are included in the estimates of how much this whole episode cost the country. Giving in to the Tea Party like you suggested would increase the likelihood of more disastrous moves by them in the future, so it would lead to a greater loss in confidence which would in turn cause more short term, as well as long term, financial damage.
---
It seems unlikely that the Tea Party will change, but the fact that they caused massive economic damage throwing a childish tantrum and got nothing for it will hopefully 1) not embolden them into doing more of this in the future and 2) diminish their overall influence in the American political process. Both off which are good for the long term stability of the country.
I doubt S&P, or any of the other snap analyses*, included the indirect but short-term costs you're talking about. I can't say for certain, because I can't see the analysis itself, but I would be surprised if they did. And given how amorphous and difficult to precisely quantify that sort of harm is, that's probably for the best.
*Other analyses came in distinctly lower than S&P's, more in the $10-15 billion range. It's statistically depressing that the most extreme number gets the most play, but that's the way of the world I suppose.
------ I don't really understand what you mean. You don't think the Tea Party will change, meaning they're just as likely to use such tactics in the future. But at least they weren't emboldened; so they'll be less likely to try this stuff in the future than they would otherwise have been. I can kind of squint and get meaning from that, but it seems a bit contradictory to me.
(2) I can understand, although I personally think it's somewhat unlikely. I think that the politicians who were really harmed in this ideological battle were the moderates in both parties, not the ideologues. If the President had wanted to decrease the influence of the Tea Party I think (and I think political science literature on dealing with extremists largely backs this up) the best he could have done was work to promote moderates within the GOP as valid partners. So instead of focusing his rhetoric on blasting Ted Cruz, he should have focused on promoting Susan Collins. I believe that any time you engage in partisan absolutism, as the President chose to do here, it tends to strengthen the extreme elements of both parties and weaken the moderate elements. And, again, I'm not saying engaging in partisan absolutism is wrong; there are distinct advantages, and this was a great situation for the President to do it in (especially if you're a Democrat, or believe Obamacare not running a deficit is really important). I'm just saying I think the idea that this episode diminished the Tea Party's overall influence is somewhat uncertain.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if Democrats had swallowed the medical device tax (something lots of them wanted to do, but the President and Harry Reid didn't), this would've been over a week ago, long before most of these negative impacts. Republicans were certainly at fault, but Democrats could have easily softened this blow. They chose not to in order to make an ideological point. Good for them politically, and maybe good for us all long term
You say 'maybe,' I'm stuck on "absolutely without a doubt"
the precedent had to be set in order to keep the tea party from holding the entire country's well-being hostage to force concessions from a fraction of a minority of one house of one branch of the government.
Well, at least you're certain.
Personally, I hope you're right and we're able to get back to the sort of budgetary process we had in the mid-1980s, but I don't feel the same degree of certitude you do; I think it's more than likely that we'll do this all again next year, precedent notwithstanding. Probably not in January, but probably soon after the 2014 election, especially if the results aren't great for the Democrats.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, t dispute Samprimary's certainty don't you need to believe that a hastier negotiation by Democrats wouldn't have validated the shutdown hostage taking by far-right Republicans? That it wouldn't have been used as a tool by the people who effectively sponsored this shutdown and past threatened shutdowns and defaults as a means of obtaining their political objectives?
It seem pretty straightforward to me that it would, since already even with the past dubiously effective rounds of Tea Party prompted brinksmanship they were held as effective tools among those who used them. Given that, doesn't it stand to reason that to negotiate quickly here would (again) be used as a sign that since the Tea Party cannot win at the polls outside their tailor-made districts (not that gerrymandering is their unique province), this is how they should get their fill at the national level?
That reasoning seems pretty fair to me, Senoj, but I'm eager to hear how it doesn't fit together or which party aren't valid of themselves.
----------
(See, capax, this is how conservatives-or even those who espouse a more conservative position and/or one critical of liberals and/or democrats-this is how they are interacted with when they haven't built up your reputation. I mention this because you're continuing in your 'lone wolf of fairness' narrative, and persisting in behaving as though the scorn you receive is blanketed onto all conservatives. I mention this here specifically in this context because the last time, Geraine, another dude 'round here who often takes a more conservative stance, pointed out that your perceived anti-conservative conspiracy was bunk and you didn't seem to notice or care.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, t dispute Samprimary's certainty don't you need to believe that a hastier negotiation by Democrats wouldn't have validated the shutdown hostage taking by far-right Republicans? That it wouldn't have been used as a tool by the people who effectively sponsored this shutdown and past threatened shutdowns and defaults as a means of obtaining their political objectives?
It seem pretty straightforward to me that it would, since already even with the past dubiously effective rounds of Tea Party prompted brinksmanship they were held as effective tools among those who used them. Given that, doesn't it stand to reason that to negotiate quickly here would (again) be used as a sign that since the Tea Party cannot win at the polls outside their tailor-made districts (not that gerrymandering is their unique province), this is how they should get their fill at the national level?
Do you think that if the President had embraced Collins' plan the Tea Party would have claimed victory, especially if it had happened quickly and cleanly? Personally I doubt it. As it is, they can spin this to their donors as having lead a noble fight, one which garnered tons of publicity (albeit negative, but publicity is publicity) for their views. The President had to address their issues! Ted Cruz is Obama's nemesis!
In the other scenario, they would have been largely irrelevant to the process, and their stature among the donor class would have taken a hit.
I'm also aware that the way I originally cast this was about the President; that's partisan and unfair of me. Boehner had at least as much ability to marginalize the extreme elements of his party by denying the 'defund and delay' tactic from the outset in favor of either a clean CR and debt limit increase, or (if there weren't enough moderate Republicans on board with that) something more akin to what Collins' eventually proposed. He chose not to for what I believe to be personal political gain, even though it hurt both his party and the nation as a whole. To me, that's pretty craven.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: See, this is the problem for when you make stuff up and go on a predictable beef about how it's other people who are acting disingenuous. You're predictable, you have a referenced history, and you project wildly
I was hoping you'd use 'predicable' a third time for a total strike out. Hahaha.
See, that's just it. I used "predictable," and then posted links to your history of being predictable, and really substantiate my point about you, and you act like my just using a word (in a sense of accurate description) as a 'strike out' and act like you've got some ground to have an intellectual victory.
You are ably permitted to afford yourself as many of these self-proclaimed victories as you want, but when they don't mesh with reality, its like printing currency that nobody else accepts and calling yourself rich on account of it.
quote:Do you think that if the President had embraced Collins' plan the Tea Party would have claimed victory, especially if it had happened quickly and cleanly? Personally I doubt it. As it is, they can spin this to their donors as having lead a noble fight, one which garnered tons of publicity (albeit negative, but publicity is publicity) for their views. The President had to address their issues! Ted Cruz is Obama's nemesis!
I do in fact, though that's an issue we won't be able to verify so it'll remain open. But I think it's telling that even when they suffered what was unquestionably a major political defeat, and inflicted substantial loss of face to the country as a whole before the world (that's before we get into the uncertain but potentially dire outcome they were risking with forcing a default-again)...even when these things happen they *still* hold it up as a 'noble fight' as you say. They brush off where they lost and focus on their 'nobility'.
In the face of such a vain willingness to deny reality as to behave as though they didn't suffer a pointless, embarrassing loss when they clearly did...yeah, I think if the Democrats had negotiated promptly that would've been held as a validating victory, particularly since wasn't forcing negotiation via brinksmanship the point of the exercise? I fin jt difficult to credit they actually believed they could defund or delay the ACA-regardless of what they said to voters.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can. I could expand on that pretty significantly, but the core of the idea is that the exact same knowledge and unbiased information gaps that in general led to Romney going into election night pretty much expecting to be the next president (when in reality he had not had a chance for weeks) is the same thing that 'informed' these lawmakers about the 'reality' of what the public demanded of them and of the ACA.
It'd go back to the Wonk Gap part of this, but it would be a pretty straightforwardly thought-out and serious position, albeit "biased" in the same sense of nonequivalent proclamation.
I assume the forum is game?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*"I can" in that I personally easily credit the 'suicide caucus' with actually believing they could pull this off. I believe they sincerely, genuinely, expected they could do this.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are three things you need to get elected to Congress.
Money
The ability to show the people who vote for you that you agree with them.
More money.
Those with money would be those most hurt by defaults and government closings and other economic blackmail attempts. The uncertainties that are created by this cycle of crises are hurting the market, business, and investment.
If those with the money (or the Free Speech as the Supreme Court calls it) respond by refusing to donate to the campaigns of radicals from both sides, if they only fund the moderate, predictable government that is good for the markets, we could end this cycle of emergencies.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And that's all this is: the Tea Party is out to destroy the federal government. I mean this not by the way of hyperbole, but literally: they are on a course that ends with the destruction of the federal government. Because their power, and everything that defines them as an organization (which is not much else btw), is in the promise of destruction. That is the instinct that their philosophy primarily services: the destruction of all obstacles. In a way, it's worse than National Socialism or International Communism, both amorphously unspecific agendas of power; because these agendas were actually constructive. They were trying to construct something horrible, but they were trying to construct *something*. The Tea Party hasn't proven as insidious, but it may yet prove as destructive.
Whether you mean it as huperbole or not doesn't change that it's hyperbole. They aren't actually trying to destroy the entire federal government.
No, actually. Me not meaning it as hyperbole means it *isn't* hyperbole. That's the way this works. I tell you how I mean it- you don't tell me.
How I mean it is, in fact, *essential* to understanding what I am telling you: I really believe, hand to my heart, that the Tea Party is on a course to destroy the federal government. Literally.
quote: Regardless, you seem to have internalized a belief structure that really fascinates me. The concept that having the government do something, even if it is something bad, is somehow better than it doing nothing.
No. Improve your reading comprehension. "In a way," means "in a way." it does not mean "definitively," nor "in general" nor "on the whole," nor, "in an objective sense," but rather "in a way." Which necessarily admits that there are other ways (in this case many) in which the others being mentioned are still worse. For one off the top of my head: they were smarter, better organized, and more motivated.
But keep in mind, I'm mainly making the argument that Tea Partiism is dangerous in similar ways to how Naziism is dangerous- not necessarily that they are both dangerous to the same degrees. While they are superficially, practically similar in some ways: lack of overall political direction, a platform that relies almost totally on outsider status to avoid blame for all failed ideologies, populism combined with a cynically corporate elitism at its uppermost levels, etc etc etc, they are different in too many ways to make comparisons much matter- except in that saying "some things" about either may be worse.
quote: Look at your words. You literally just said the tea party is "in some ways worse" than Naziism. Because it trying to destroy a government, and at least the Nazis were trying to build a government. That's amazing, and revolting.
Yes, I literally said that because it's literally true. If your knee-jerk reactionary streak can't allow you to countenance the idea that the Nazis ever did anything positive (they did by the way), then really we have nothing in the world to talk about.
This is not some exercise in semantics for me: The Nazis were one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity, but they also had positive accomplishments. Most evil bastards do.
quote: Your thinking seems devoid of any real moral framework.
That's funny. Your thinking seems devoid of thinking most of the time. For me, on the other hand, a moral framework is the product of carefully considered "thoughts," as we call them. They involve weighing the veracity and importance of different facts and opinions, and synthesizing a viewpoint that one believes encompasses the opposing argument and adequately neutralizes major conflicts. Try it sometime.
quote: Just a destruction/creation dichotomy which you seem to think has all the inherent morality you need.
No. In no way did I imply, nor do I believe, that "destruction vs. Creation," is the ultimate signifier of moral righteousness.
You just heard it from me. Right here. So we don't need to go over it again.
quote: Doing something bad is worse than doing nothing.
That is a very morally and ethically complex statement. One that I am not necessarily prepared to agree with. One that you should not be so prepared to say sans-qualification of any kind.
quote: Creating a monstrous government is a terrible action. Much worse than destroying a flawed one.
Again, you're delving into some very dicey philosophical and moral issues as if the answers to these problems are self-evident. They are not. Nor are they so black and white as you seem to imply.
See, this is where Tea Party philosophy is so inherently dangerous. It is an abrogation of the consequences of an act like this one: it's the idea that destroying a government you don't like is better than reforming it, in order at all costs to avoid allowing oneself to suffer some form of persecution (perceived or otherwise). It abrogates the very notion that destruction of persecution might, in itself, bear the moral fruits of worse persecution, of worse abuses of power, and of more chaos and destruction. It negates the notion that the destructive force is not inherently a creative one: and refuses to even consider the results of destructive action beyond the immediate political goals involved.
This is very remarkable, in that it formed the basis of the policies of non-other than Donald Rumsfeld during the first term of the Bush administration: by stating that the goals of a campaign are the defeat of obstacles lying within the realm of the "unkown unknown," Rumsfeld, and Bush, and really the whole country shrugged off the very *need* for a reason to fight a war. Assuming that a reason would be found later on. The Tea Party's plan of attack is remarkably similar: it assumes that injustice and consequent moral outrage amongst the population is a natural result of *anything* that the democrats do, and that in fighting against *anything* that the democratically elected government does will provide itself with a raison d'être as if by magic.
That's a very dangerous philosophical position to be in. It might even lead a party to oppose its own previous platforms for reform (as has been done in respect to Obamacare).
posted
I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Tea Party wants to destroy the federal government.
Haven't they more or less stated that's exactly what they want to do? It only comes off as a shocking statement if you work with the assumption that people want or need a government, and the Tea Party firmly believes that they DO NOT need a government, so destroying it is an endgame for them.
It's what makes them so dangerous right now. Because of a combination of how our government is structured and how Boehner runs the House, the TP congressman really can destroy the government if Boehner lets them. But I think the biggest danger comes from the fact that we have big problems that require big solutions.
Tugging on boot straps isn't going to fix America.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I don't think destroying a flawed government is preferable to reforming it. I've said as much here many times. I'm strongly opposed to the libertarian "smash the state" ideal. To the extent that this strain is common to the tea party, and it is, I'm also opposed to them.
Incremental reform is the best way to go. I suspect many people here who broadly disagree with me could confirm that I've said made my opinions on this issue clear many times.
I'm not too surprised that you've missed that, though. That's fine. You're not under any particular obligation to pay attention to what I've said in the past. But it might be useful to just respond to what I've said, instead of assuming that because I disagree with you it follows that I agree completely with those you're opposed to.
Most of the rest of what you said is based on that misunderstanding, so it's not very interesting to me.
Except to add that, in the context of your original post, the only thing you (and Blayne after you) posited as evidence that the Nazis are in a way better than the Tea Party is that they were at least trying to build something.
That's what you said. That's what I objected to. In the context of what you said, it asserts some measure of moral superiority to the act of creation over that of destruction, regardless of what the object is. If you didn't mean it that way and are retracting your previous words as sloppily phrased, that's fine by me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Tea Party wants to destroy the federal government.
Haven't they more or less stated that's exactly what they want to do? It only comes off as a shocking statement if you work with the assumption that people want or need a government, and the Tea Party firmly believes that they DO NOT need a government, so destroying it is an endgame for them.
It's what makes them so dangerous right now. Because of a combination of how our government is structured and how Boehner runs the House, the TP congressman really can destroy the government if Boehner lets them. But I think the biggest danger comes from the fact that we have big problems that require big solutions.
Tugging on boot straps isn't going to fix America.
Nah, most of them have explicitly stated that they want to dramatically scale back the federal government. Actual anarchists are vanishingly rare in the tea party.
It's fine if you think that the extent to which they want to scale it back is tantamount to destruction. But then... Say that. It's a blatant falsehood to say they literally want the entire federal government dismantled.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I'd like to add you are one of my favorite voices on this forum specifically because you are an interesting mix of ideas that contains a lot of stuff I want*.
*Totally mean that in a platonic way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Tea Party wants to destroy the federal government.
Haven't they more or less stated that's exactly what they want to do? It only comes off as a shocking statement if you work with the assumption that people want or need a government, and the Tea Party firmly believes that they DO NOT need a government, so destroying it is an endgame for them.
It's what makes them so dangerous right now. Because of a combination of how our government is structured and how Boehner runs the House, the TP congressman really can destroy the government if Boehner lets them. But I think the biggest danger comes from the fact that we have big problems that require big solutions.
Tugging on boot straps isn't going to fix America.
Nah, most of them have explicitly stated that they want to dramatically scale back the federal government. Actual anarchists are vanishingly rare in the tea party.
It's fine if you think that the extent to which they want to scale it back is tantamount to destruction. But then... Say that. It's a blatant falsehood to say they literally want the entire federal government dismantled.
It's the difference between saying someone wants to drink an entire glass of water and someone wants to drink 90% of a glass of water. I'll admit it's incorrect, strictly speaking, but no so much so that it's worth much of a fuss over.
They want to get rid of all entitlements, pare back the military to go into isolation mode, and seem to disapprove of about just about every dollar of discretionary spending. That's pretty much the entire government as we know it.
You're right on specifics, but I'm just not sure it's really worth quibbling over when it comes to general intent.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Tea Party wants to destroy the federal government.
Haven't they more or less stated that's exactly what they want to do? It only comes off as a shocking statement if you work with the assumption that people want or need a government, and the Tea Party firmly believes that they DO NOT need a government, so destroying it is an endgame for them.
It's what makes them so dangerous right now. Because of a combination of how our government is structured and how Boehner runs the House, the TP congressman really can destroy the government if Boehner lets them. But I think the biggest danger comes from the fact that we have big problems that require big solutions.
Tugging on boot straps isn't going to fix America.
Nah, most of them have explicitly stated that they want to dramatically scale back the federal government. Actual anarchists are vanishingly rare in the tea party.
It's fine if you think that the extent to which they want to scale it back is tantamount to destruction. But then... Say that. It's a blatant falsehood to say they literally want the entire federal government dismantled.
They are perfectly happy with statism so long as its the states doing the statism; it isn't anarchism because they think the States should have the federal governments responsibilities, and by destroying the federal government, they intend to strengthen the state level government.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I doubt S&P, or any of the other snap analyses*, included the indirect but short-term costs you're talking about. I can't say for certain, because I can't see the analysis itself, but I would be surprised if they did. And given how amorphous and difficult to precisely quantify that sort of harm is, that's probably for the best.
*Other analyses came in distinctly lower than S&P's, more in the $10-15 billion range. It's statistically depressing that the most extreme number gets the most play, but that's the way of the world I suppose.
I'm not sure how to address this. It seems like you've already accepted that there are significant financial damages (both short and long term) associated with the loss of consumer confidence and international faith in the U.S. economy. If that is so, whether or not these are included in analyses like the S&P one* is pretty much beside the point.
* - They are. Of course they are. It would be insane to intentionally leave out known economic effects.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't really understand what you mean. You don't think the Tea Party will change, meaning they're just as likely to use such tactics in the future. But at least they weren't emboldened; so they'll be less likely to try this stuff in the future than they would otherwise have been. I can kind of squint and get meaning from that, but it seems a bit contradictory to me.
I don't believe the Tea Party will start acting any more responsibly or intelligently. I don't think the core of the party has the capacity to and the people riding herd on them have committed to their approach. But I don't think that failing so spectacularly will cool their ardor for this particular tactic.
Think of like a dim, spoiled child. Things aren't going his way, so he throws a tantrum. If this tantrum works, he's going to do it again. If you don't give in, they're likely going to try some other tactic.
---
I've been seeing something among the more intelligent conservatives I know and/or read. They're aware that the Tea Party is to blame, but really really want to somehow pin something on President Obama. So they'll very quickly say, "Yeah, the Tea party was in the wrong....but let's talk a lot about how President Obama should have compromised anyway." I could be wrong, but it seems like you may be falling into doing this.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: (2) I can understand, although I personally think it's somewhat unlikely. I think that the politicians who were really harmed in this ideological battle were the moderates in both parties, not the ideologues. If the President had wanted to decrease the influence of the Tea Party I think (and I think political science literature on dealing with extremists largely backs this up) the best he could have done was work to promote moderates within the GOP as valid partners. So instead of focusing his rhetoric on blasting Ted Cruz, he should have focused on promoting Susan Collins. I believe that any time you engage in partisan absolutism, as the President chose to do here, it tends to strengthen the extreme elements of both parties and weaken the moderate elements. And, again, I'm not saying engaging in partisan absolutism is wrong; there are distinct advantages, and this was a great situation for the President to do it in (especially if you're a Democrat, or believe Obamacare not running a deficit is really important). I'm just saying I think the idea that this episode diminished the Tea Party's overall influence is somewhat uncertain.
It's too early to see what the long term situation is going to be, but public opinion polling has shown the Tea Party at the highest unfavorable (and the large majority of that is strongly unfavorable) they've ever been. Also, several of the big money people who have been supporting the Tea Party have already publicly cut ties with them. Some of them are calling/laying the framework for campaigns to compete against Tea Party candidates in the coming elections.
If we're lucky, this will be the beginning of the end for the Tea Party. They'll stick around, but hopefully they'll fall to fairly insignificant. Even better would be if a more responsible, reasonable Republican party raises from this, one that relies more on principles instead of personal hatred, lies, and ignorance.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
