The Republican Thread

[Cknolls]

At the same time, things like the Debt Limit and FAA reauthorization are being held hostage in exchange for passage of constitutional amendments, and union organizing regulations. This whole fight has made me physically ill thinking about it. Republicans have literally held the entire economy hostage in this fight, and Democrats have consistently caved to be responsible. The entire difference now is about timing of votes and whether or not constitutional amendments should be attached. It's really really disappointing.

 

 

You can thank the NLRB and NMB for the FAA boondoggle. Really the NMB

Edited July 29, 2011 by Cknolls

[Cknolls]

It works if you make the other side believe that you'll let the whole thing go to s*** on principle, get enormous policy concessions and then "compromise" at the last minute to something ever-so-slightly to the right of what you're demanding. The tea partiers forgot the last part or honestly believe that a default* really won't be a big deal or, as some are arguing, would be good in the long run.

 

*ck, you can spare the "it's not a default!" quibble that we technically may not default on bonds, though there's a huge constitutional issue on the ability to prioritize the payments.

 

 

OH spare your nonsensical bulls***.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate.

 

Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing.

 

This is bulls***. They made concessions regarding an increase in revenues that they didn't want to make. And you can't say this with a straight face when Reid is doing the same thing (which you accurately pointed out a page or two ago) by saying he'd reject the bill before even knowing what will eventually be in it.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

OH spare your nonsensical bulls***.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic here and I don't need to issue warnings.

[StrangeSox]

This is bulls***. They made concessions regarding an increase in revenues that they didn't want to make. And you can't say this with a straight face when Reid is doing the same thing (which you accurately pointed out a page or two ago) by saying he'd reject the bill before even knowing what will eventually be in it.

 

Boehner made concessions. It's pretty apparent now that they would never have been approved by a large chunk of the House GOP since they rejected something with zero revenues.

[Jenksismyhero]

Boehner made concessions. It's pretty apparent now that they would never have been approved by a large chunk of the House GOP since they rejected something with zero revenues.

 

Well I suppose that's true, though do we know whether they wont agree to the plan more because of the timing issues?

[StrangeSox]

Well I suppose that's true, though do we know whether they wont agree to the plan more because of the timing issues?

 

They want larger cuts and a balanced budget amendment first, or in some cases are happy to let a default happen.

 

edit: what are you specifically referring to as the "timing issue"?

Edited July 29, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Well I suppose that's true, though do we know whether they wont agree to the plan more because of the timing issues?

I guarantee you that if Boehner produced a clean short term increase it would pass the Senate. No one would like it but it would get through.

 

The problem is that it has that $2 trillion in non-negotiated instant Medicare and Social Security cuts that it forces. There's no Democrat anywhere who is going to just vote for large cuts to those programs without at least a description of what the cuts are.

[EvilMonkey]

. There's no Democrat anywhere who is going to just vote for large cuts to those programs without at least a description of what the cuts are.

To quote Pelosi, 'You have to pass it to find out what's in it.' If it was good enough for Obamacare.....

[Balta1701]

To quote Pelosi, 'You have to pass it to find out what's in it.' If it was good enough for Obamacare.....

I hope you're smarter than this. 2000 pages of details vs. a nondescript line saying "the President must cut $2 trillion from Medicare and Social Security."

[Jenksismyhero]

They want larger cuts and a balanced budget amendment first, or in some cases are happy to let a default happen.

 

edit: what are you specifically referring to as the "timing issue"?

 

the 6 month versus 2 year plans.

 

And Balta didn't Reid already say he/they wouldn't pass any short term deal (short term being the pre-election cycle plan)

[StrangeSox]

I don't think the tea partiers have any problem at all with making this a political issue again in six months. I certainly haven't heard that objection anywhere. It's mostly been about wanting larger cuts.

 

Reid said he wouldn't pass Boehner's bill. Obama's said he'd veto it. Part of the reason is that it's a short term plan guaranteed to make it an even-more difficult election issue fight in a few months, but there are other as Balta pointed out.

[southsider2k5]

If china has invested that much currency in U.S. debt and starts massively selling it off...the value of the rest of their holdings will drop precipitously, and the value of their own currency will appreciate, killing manufacturing jobs in china. It massively damages China to do that.

 

Hey you finally came around to my thinking on why China can't screw the US!

[Balta1701]

Hey you finally came around to my thinking on why China can't screw the US!

Have I disagreed with this in the past? (Serious question).

[southsider2k5]

Have I disagreed with this in the past? (Serious question).

 

I know I argued with someone pretty good about it. I just figured it was you because it pretty much always is.

[southsider2k5]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/new-york...aff-on-twitter/

 

New York Times reporter prompts White House media staff on Twitter

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/new-york.../#ixzz1TXc8WuaR

 

 

Minutes after President Obama urged Americans this morning to tweet their support for a Democratic debt-ceiling bill, a New York Times reporter prompted the White House to organize the effort with a special Twitter hashtag.

 

Hashtags use the “#” symbol to mark keywords or topics on Twitter. They often help drive messages by linking similar messages together in a common theme.

 

At 10:55 a.m. the Times’s Jennifer Preston suggested that administration officials might create a hashtag, so tweeting Democrats could jointly target Republicans who are now trying to pass their own debt ceiling plan.

 

Preston tweeted to a White House rep, saying “@macon44 Hi there. I heard the President ask the people to tweet re: debt ceiling. Are you guys using specific hashtag?”

 

A minute later, she tweeted a followup to White House staffer Jesse Lee, saying, “Hi Jesse, what’s the hashtag that you guys are urging people to use in their tweets to Congress re: debtceiling.” Lee is the White House’s s director of progressive media & online response. (RELATED: New WH talking point: Boehner is the Grinch, and he’ll steal your Christmas)

 

Eight minutes later, at 11:04, the White House’s press shop announced a new hashtag for Democrats to use when targeting GOP members of Congress: “@NYT_JenPreston People responding to POTUS shld use #compromise. As he said, it is ‘time for #compromise on behalf of the American people.’”

 

At 11:31, The Washington Post reported out the new hashtag, and at 12.32, staffers at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget re-tweeted the same message. “RT @postpolitics: The @whitehouse new media team has said people responding to the President on Twitter should use #compromise.”

 

Preston, whose own tweet ID is @NYT_JenPreston, covers social media in politics and government. Reached by TheDC for comment, she insisted that she wasn’t trying to aid the White House in any way.

 

“I use Twitter all the time as a reporting tool,” Preston said. “I’m a social media reporter. A lot of reporters use email. I use Twitter. I heard that the president of the United States had urged people to tweet — I didn’t watch the address — But I wanted to set up an alert on Tweetdeck so I could track things.”

 

“I wasn’t doing it to help the White House,” she added. “I was doing it to help myself.”

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/new-york.../#ixzz1TXc3B6oz

[EvilMonkey]

Some Dems apparently annoyed that Wall Street not panicking, making it easier for them to try and force Republicans to their viewpoint. Not enough fear mongering, i guess.

 

Washington Is Annoyed at Wall Street's Failure to Panic

Published: Friday, 29 Jul 2011 | 7:09 PM ET

By: John Carney

Senior Editor, CNBC.com

 

I just got off the phone with a source on Capitol Hill who has spent the past few days trying to convince Republicans to vote for a debt ceiling hike.

 

He told me that the biggest obstacle he faces has been "market complacency."

 

"Frankly, a bit of panic would be very helpful right now," he said.

 

As he explained it, lots of people in Washington, D.C. expected that this would be a week marked by panic in the markets. Stocks would tank. Bonds would get clobbered. The dollar would do something dramatic. And all of this would help convince reluctant lawmakers that they had to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling.

 

"We were following the script from 2008. When the market collapsed after TARP failed, that spooked everyone enough to get them to fall in line. We thought the same thing would happen this week," he said.

 

Instead, the market has just been on a quiet, non-panicked slide.

 

Stocks have sold off by a couple of percentage points, but nothing that indicates a real fear trade in the works.

 

Everyone in D.C. has a theory about this. Some believe the market is sending a message that a deal will get done. Others think the market doesn't understand politics.

 

Think about this. We just got stunningly bad news about economic growth. The first-quarter number was revised into a nullity. But the markets are basically flat today.

 

"Every day we wake up and think that stocks will send a shock up to Capitol Hill. And every day nothing happens," the source said.

 

He's still holding out hope for a panic sell-off at the end of the day.

 

"It's the only thing that's going to bring everyone together on this," he said.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43943482

[kapkomet]

Where do you think all that stimulus money went? And all that money USTREAS has been printing? Why should they worry?

[Balta1701]

Where do you think all that stimulus money went? And all that money USTREAS has been printing? Why should they worry?

Upper class tax cuts and banks.

[kapkomet]

Upper class tax cuts and banks.

 

Right. I love how your definition of deficit spending is based on revenue that could never be there anyway. It's the new, newfangled logic of the left.

 

Oh, and I guess you're rich. Glad to hear it.

 

Hey, here's an idea. Make US government accounting like for-profit accounting. That could be interesting.

[Jenksismyhero]

Apparently Balta has been lobbying in Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free...P#ixzz1TrgxELho

 

Free cell phones are now a civil right

 

 

 

Pennsylvanians on public assistance now have a new 'civil right' -- free cell phones. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay higher cell bills as a result.

 

Recently, a federal government program called the Universal Service Fund came to the Keystone State and some residents are thrilled because it means they can enjoy 250 minutes a month and a handset for free, just because they don't have the money to pay for it. Through Assurance Wireless and SafeLink from Tracfone Wireless these folks get to reach out and touch someone while the cost of their service is paid for by everyone else. You see, the telecommunications companies are funding the Universal Service Fund to the tune of $4 billion a year because the feds said they have to and in order to recoup their money, the companies turn around and hike their fees to paying customers. But those of use paying for the free service for the poor, should be happy about this infuriating situation, says Gary Carter, manager of national partnerships for Assurance, because "the program is about peace of mind." Free cell service means "one less bill that someone has to pay, so they can pay their rent or for day care...it is a right to have peace of mind," Cater explained.

 

Well, the telecommunications companies don't seem to love providing this 'right' to poor folks because they are trying to renegotiate the deal with the FCC. The telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T want more paying customers, but their desire to reform their deal with the feds dovetails nicely with the political ideology of the current FCC chairman Julian Genachowski, who like all Obama administration flunkies sees 'rights' where others see 'priviledges'. Just listen to how the agency put the question of providing broadband and cell service to those in rural and poor communities. "The goal of reform is to provide everyone with affordable voice and broadband," the agency said.

 

Between 14 million and 24 million Americans lack access to broadband, "and immediate prospects for deployment to them are bleak," the FCC said in a report last year. "Many of these Americans are poor or live in rural areas that will remain unserved without reform of the universal service program and other changes," the report said.

 

But who says that cheap or free broadband is anything more than a luxury?

 

Well, another Obama flunkie, Rahm Emanuel, that's who. As we reported in June , the new mayor of Chicago was all excited to proclaim the wonderful news of free internet service to poor kids in Chicago's worst neighborhoods. And how could Mayor Emanuel pay for this new 'civil right'? Well, because the federal government extorted the money from Comcast when it wanted to buy NBC-Universal. Once again FCC chairman Genachowski was all about "helping the kids" by forcing the internet provider to give poor kids free netbooks, laptops, and internet service, indefinitely. And who is going to pay for this gift? Well, of course the rest of us poor saps who actually pay our bills.

[southsider2k5]

Apparently Balta has been lobbying in Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free...P#ixzz1TrgxELho

 

I feel like I am back in the first day of Econ teaching needs and wants.

[Cknolls]

I feel like I am back in the first day of Econ teaching needs and wants.

You mean they are two different things?

[mr_genius]

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free...P#ixzz1TrgxELho

 

the Democrat party is clueless.

Edited August 4, 2011 by mr_genius

[The Sir]

Apparently Balta has been lobbying in Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/free...P#ixzz1TrgxELho

 

What. The. f***.

 

If welfare must exist at all, it should be designed to let people subsist while getting back on their feet. They should have to show consistent proof that they are seeking employment, and they should be free of drugs (and tested for it). There is no living in luxury on welfare, or living anywhere above mere subsistence levels. Not starving to death? Good. That's all you get.

 

Free cellphones is bulls***.