RSS Feed Menu
I’m not the first to make this comment, but the current debt limit debate shows what the Tea Party movement (which I once basically supported) really values: being a jerk. Speaker Boehner has a close-to-perfect voting record on conservative issues, is not terribly warm in person (heck, Newt comes across better) and has proposed a good, tough spending cut plan. But he has also demonstrated a modicum of willingness to work with the president and appears to want to bring the debt ceiling crisis to a close.
Eric Cantor—who may well become speaker before the end of the year—does not disagree with Boehner on any major issue including the debt plan but, unlike Boehner, Cantor is basically a jerk who is willing to work against his own Speaker, the President, the financial interests that have traditionally supported his party and, indeed, just about everyone else so long as it keeps him in the media. I’m disgusted.
Eli, thanks for writing this and for sharing your disgust. It is time for more people to speak out.
Eric Cantor is a snivelling worm who cares only about media exposure, as you say, and power. I remember watching him in 2008 trying to defend Sarah Palin’s woeful performance in media interviews and it was so obvious that he couldn’t stand her, but he defended her anyway because he felt like there was something he could get out of it.
Boehner is just the latest in the new phony “tea party” attempt to marginalize anyone who actually wants to act like a rational, reasonable conservative. They are destroying their party, and if they aren’t stopped, will destroy the country as well.
Cantor is really a piece of work, but he’s also that rare breed – a Jewish guy who isn’t very bright. That sits well with the GOP caucus.
Not very bright? He’s one of the most powerful people in the country. I wish I were that stupid.
It doesn’t take brains to run in a safe district populated by knuckle draggers. All ya gotta do is look at his eyes – he’s got that Santorum/Bachmann/Pence thing going.
It’s a GOP franchise. Whenever he opens his mouth he leaves himself open for instant ridicule.
It takes brains to get to the top of a political party… especially a Jew in a party filled with Christianists.
@Tommyudo
Cantor is actually pretty damn smart, as has been noted by colleagues from both parties. Your inability to recognize this is further proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Many sociopaths are very smart. Cantor has an agenda for himself–if the political field were leaning left, he’d be a left-of-center conservative. For the moment, he’s milking the tea party. He wants what he wants when he wants it, and if he cuts Boehner’s throat in the process-or the country’s-that’s an acceptable price.
Oh, I think he’s plenty smart. He’s a shameless weasel, so he’s perfectly willing to say truly idiotic things that resonate with the base. He undoubtedly figures most of the smarter members of the GOP (a subset that tends toward self-interested amorality) will recognize what he’s doing. He couldn’t care less about what anyone else thinks.
Look at all the civil liberals that Frum attracts to his civil website…like moths to a flame.
I am certainly one of the more liberal occasional posters, but a great many of the posters I’ve seen you attempting to inflame are merely disenchanted conservatives wondering how their peers could have so lost their way. It’s hardly to their discredit that they are still capable of expressing their beliefs coherently, without resort to contumely. After all, insults are useful for venting spleen, but have zero persuasive power. Rational adults save them for those annoyances for whom they have no respect. I could go to RedState if I wished to get into that game.
I must congratulated you, Matt, for the unashamed manner in which you parade your ignorance and vacuity. Though facts are not part of woof and warp of your arguments, you still manage to amuse with your intellectual ineptitude.
Well, I’m doing ok for a stupid person, earned a mechanical engineering degree from Clemson University. I know it’s not a law degree from a pretigious college in the Northeast but i manage to get work, which is more than a lot of people can claim right now in Obamasession.
Look for another big swing in the house next year. Most of them will be voted out.
That’s my prediction as well. The Dems have about 15 months to bash the GOP as being the party that wants America to fail, and is trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. No amount of crocodile tears about saddling our children with debt will do any good. Playing Russian roulette with Granny’s health will be a loser come election day.
The GOP has the majority of jerks in this country, debauched fratboys and high fivin sports bar habitues They are our own native breed – Jerkus Americanus – and the women who love them. Basically the Tea Party is filled with gullible jerks , with a mean and resentful streak a mile wide.
I have been concerned about the deficit for the entire 30 years I have been old enough to vote.
I knew the Tea Party was full of crap the moment I saw people a couple of decades into Medicare benefits holding up signs protesting against a “government takeover of health care”. It was obvious from the beginning that these were people out of touch with reality. And then there were the “death panels” and shouting down Congressmen trying to hold town hall meetings.
Call them jerks if you like. I think of them as idiots, but yanno 6 of one….
Don’t touch my Medicare! LOL
A party of jerks are ones who voted massive welfare spendathons in since 1964, and the only thing to show for it are massive numbers of fatherless welfare garbage, illegals, and their anchor babies sucking us dry.
Questions?
Yes.
Does God know he has such a bigoted bastard for a follower? If so, your continued existence is proof that God is dead and Christianity is bankrupt.
Damn, meddinus; that’s frightening. Not because I don’t believe in God, but because I’m nodding my head in agreement . . . too scary by far . . .
So please explain to me, in an election (2010) where roughly 86.7 million votes were cast with 44.6 million cast by Republicans that the Tea Party zealots (60 in the House caucus lead by Bachmann), who garnished all of 8.28 million votes, can claim to speak for America and the Republican Party. Now I’m no math genius but it seems that this over-rated caucus represents app. 18.5% of the Republican vote and 9.5% of the total vote.
I don’t get it.. do you?
Rounded Figures taken from” Statistics of the Congressional Election” – http://clerk.house.gov
“So please explain to me … [how] … Tea Party zealots, who garnished all of 8.28 million votes, can claim to speak for America and the Republican Party.”
Because the rest of America has let them do it.
I’ll disagree with the ‘rest of America has let them do it’. What this does show is however is that 150 Republicans in the House would rather placate to the 70 Republican Crazies over trying to compromise with the 170 Democrats on the other side of the isle.
If Boehner didn’t have Cantor screwing him then he’d probably of worked on a reasonable compromise (although a little too conservative for my liking) and garnered 50-70 Democratic votes in the house for a bill that had enough juice in the Senate to actually pass.
Basically the Republican House reminds me of a coalition government that is 2/3rds one party and 1/3rd of an extreme party who signed on to give the first party power and now the larger party is unable to govern in any reasonable way. We’ve basically become a defacto parliamentary government in the House of Representatives with non of the benefits.
well spoken… and addressing all the media coverage on the Tea Party rally yesterday held in DC…. geez, I had more people show up for my yard sale last week!
Because they’re the Rich White minority, and according to Smeggy, nobody else’s votes count.
When you’re elected head of a group, it is probably not a good idea to:
1) orchestrate a group commitment to a formal proposal to resolve a conflict
2) repudiate their proposal
3) hand them their new position and order them to “get your ass in line” behind it.
How should he have handled it, bearing in mind that politicial realities exist (IE there is no Smeggy Fairy to wave his magic “wide stance” wand over a House declaration and make it a Constitutional Amendment)?
There’s nothing so malleable as political reality. Remember 2 weeks ago when the House absolutely positively could not get a “cuts only” bill through the Senate?
If he wanted to dictate the eventual terms it was a mistake to have the House vote at all. If he wanted broad agreement on a new proposal he should have gathered that input instead of handing down THE finished version and ordering them to rally around it.
Thanks for this Eli, you and Frum have been doing great work on this issue.
in 2008 Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats put aside partisanship and came to the rescue of George Bush’s Tarp package. Pelosi was a Speaker of the whole house, Democrats and Republicans. Imagine if Democrats had all voted no and the world plunged into a depression, the Democrats would likely have won more house seats in 2008, but so what?
If Boehner were responsible he, McConnell, Pelosi, and Reid would have long ago worked out a plan that could have passed both houses.
The worst thing about this is I don’t even like Pelosi but compared to Boehner she was fantastic, she came through when the country needed her. Actually, since Boehner has created this mess (unlike Pelosi passing Tarp) that makes Boehner even worse.
The Heartland Institute calling the teabaggers jerks is the pot calling the kettle black.
EL and the HI take marching orders from their corporate donors, would be my guess. The Tea Partiers have never changed their position from day one … now they are making it clear to the GOP establishment that they aren’t about to change, no matter what…
it’s a crying shame that the GOP/Tea Party is going to destroy our economy while their fan dance goes on, however
“but the current debt limit debate shows what the Tea Party movement (which I once basically supported) really values: being a jerk”
Well that’s a shame. So now you are disgusted and are having buyers remorse?
You know what irks me more than anything? People diving head-long into a new ‘en vogue’ movement without the slightest consideration of what they are doing. You sir, supported the Tea Party movement. You enabled them. You gave credence to their cause and NOW, you are expressing doubt about your decision?
On behalf of all the sane, logical and even-keeled Americans in this nation, may I just humbly say:
“Go F&*k Yourself!”
On an aside, maybe you Ayn Rand dingbats who salivate like Pavlovian dogs everytime her name is mentioned should put down Atlas Shrugged and pick ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley. You might learn the valuable life lesson of what happens when you create a monster. i.e. don’t be surprised when it turns on you.
Diomedes, that is not an appropriate statement (since we can all read through the asterix) to someone who was expressing a reasonable, honest view in a civil way. Passion may lead us to stronger words than wise but we all know certain words are just plain disrespectful, and shouldn’t be used.
“Diomedes, that is not an appropriate statement (since we can all read through the asterix) to someone who was expressing a reasonable, honest view in a civil way”
With all due respect, I am passed the point of trying to act in a civil fashion. And may I also state that one of the largest problems with those of us on the left is the consistent predelection towards always having to be ‘respectful’ of the other side. Where precisely has that gotten us? We are labelled as ‘demonic’, ‘godless’, ‘fascists’ or ‘socialists’. They call us ‘un-American’. We are berated if our religious or political views are outside the ultra-right’s bubble of fantasy. Yet after all that venom, what happens? We chastise OURSELVES for not being ‘reasonable’ or not being ‘civil’.
It’s that type of life philosophy that has helped foster an environment where the likes of the Tea Party crazies are now holding this country hostage. My entire point (including my salty language) was that I am fed up with the right and its inability to see the ramifications of its actions. They have spent decades now leaping before they look and as a result, our legislature is essentially paralyzed.
The ultra right are bullies. Nothing more, nothing less. And you don’t use reason when dealing with a bully. You kick the shit out of them. Dialog and civility just don’t cut it.
When one is in the cage with the lion, eventually, the concept of ‘roaring’ begins to make sense.
I have to agree. The Tea Party was not some “unknown” entity that a reasonable person could have signed onto, in the early days, only to feel that their trust was somehow abused or that they were mislead. If you are or ever were a Tea Party supporter then regardless of whether you have suddenly realized the error of your ways or not, you deserve everything you get and you get 100% of the blame for where we are today.
You’re a political commentator, Eli, you want to tell me that you weren’t sure about the latest discoveries in string theory, I’ll have some sympathy for you, but you’re going to tell me that you didn’t understand what the Tea Party was? Then you’re an idiot. And I mean that with “all” due respect (of which there is exactly none).
The best thing you can do now is to re-evaluate what made it possible for you to be bamboozled by such blatantly obvious nincompoops and consider what else that you’ve come to believe is true may be founded on nothing but wishful thinking.
First of all the person you responded to was not calling any of us traitors, or even continuing support for the Tea Party. You were not talking to Smarg or Matt X. Only they would deserve such language, but by giving it to them you are feeding them. So please don’t.
Second, you are confusing drama for strength. Throwing out lines like a Hollywood movie does mean you are standing your ground. They can call us all the names we want. We need to repeat our views, repeat our logic, again and again and again. PR is about repetition. Just because you don’t see a message working yet doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. One of the truths is that at the precipice of a social tipping point (for lack of a better phrase), looks the same as the day before.
Being respectful does not mean we have to wring your hands and say, oh well, you now let’s all be nice, I’m sure you have point but….
I don’t think anyone on this site would suggest that I back away from a fight. I do not ask you to.
Being respectful permits passionate response. It permits vigorous argument. It permits saying I am angry or livid or furious and why. I do not ask you to yield a point for civility, just use generally agreed civil language. I think this is particular important when talking to strangers (as we all our to each others). One can not bring civility into the world through incivility.
And frankly, unrestrained expression of anger is like an addiction, soon your neurons don’t know how to operate on any other level. The pet and wild trolls who find their way here should be proof enough of that.
Diomedes…I am with you brother, 100%. I no longer tolerate them at all. In no way shape or form. The days of being respectful and tolerant are over for the left. It’s clobbering time.
Have none of you caught the Prime Minister’s visit to Parliament on CSPAN? It is perfectly possible to speak strongly without being uncivil. It is certainly possible to do it without using curse words whose sole point is to agitate, offend and shock. They are fine words for their purpose but a discussion about ideas is not their purpose and our language is particularly Bountiful in words. The ability to express scorn does not require words that cross the line from civility to incivility, that essentially end a conversation. What more can someone say to that but the same response and then we have a digital shouting match. If that is all you want to do, get a twitter account and repeat the phrae endlessly.
I think if someone is expressing an opinion that will bring them along with us we don’t spend all our time yelling at them for an early instinct for a different party. Does that get us an ally or fellow traveler? Not only does it turn the specific person off, it turns any number of lurkers off. So just on a practical level it is ineffective.
But more importantly, the idea that somehow one is weak, one is permitting behavior by extending the basic mores of civil conversation is dangerous.
It has led us to this path that may wreck our country. The Republicans have placed democrats on the other side of civil society, thus they don’t have behave democratically. Democracy demands compromise.
But just because we (and the country) are the victims here doesn’t mean we should follow the pattern. In Rwanda, the Hutu(ethnically the same) were for the most part poorer but it took only six months, a new format of talk radio, to take generalized discontent to throwing grandmothers down a well, and taking a hatchet to children.
This is how it starts, abandoning a recognition of our shared humanity, and placing the other in the disgust categories in the brain. Once someone is in the disgust category of our brain , we have fewer inhibitions about how we treat them.
That can go badly. Very badly. If you truly believe in the values of liberalism, I think you can refrain from typing those few keys. After all, you are perfectly free to tell your computer what you are really thinking, at any volume you desire. I certainly have.
You forgot his sneer, destined to be definition number 1) under “sneer”.
Thank you for this article Eli. I have found the entire philosophy of the Tea Party as one which wants to be a jerk without any social or moral consequence. I have no patience for it.
I’m watching CNBC’s Simon Hobbs right now on Hardball excoriating the GOP on every point of their bill, their actions, their politics and policies, and just about everything else. The guy sounds really angry. He’s so correct in his assessment.
I don’t get it. Why do you people have to say that Cantor and the Tea Party are only interested in media attention, and that they want to destroy the country? Why can’t you accept that they just might have a genuine desire to dramatically cut spending in order to save the country? Maybe they’re wrong (I don’t think so), but I certainly believe their desire to improve the country is genuine.
Just like I believe Obama, Reid and Pelosi genuinely want to do the right thing for the country, even though I think their strategy is all wrong.
Because this is about defeating Obama in 2012, not doing what is best for the country. Party first, country second.
+1 Bagok.
And might I add, there is an inherent difference. Reid, Obama and Pelosi are not holding the country hostage to push their agenda through. Like you indicated, they have opposing ideas. But they are willing to compromise towards a common goal. Can you say that Cantor and the Tea Party function the same way?
This is the second time they have acted in this way. Remember the threat of not extending unemployment benefits if the Bush tax cuts aren’t extended?
Correct, defeating Obama is at the top of their agenda. The rest of us are just collateral damage.
The only way out, as I see, it for the Dems to once again control all three branches and this time just ram it down their throats. No more “can we all be friends.” If Obama has an inner FDR he had better bring it out.
What do you mean, “this time”? That’s what you do every time you have all three branches.
For two and a half years we have had a passive Pres. and a Senate minority leader who always threatens vetos.That has stifled a true Dem agenda being passed. Even the healthcare bill was re-heated legislation authored by the GOP in the 90s – pretty weak.
I disagree. Divided government is fine under normal conditions. The problem is that a subset of the citizenry has voted into office fools who don’t understand economics or the sober use of power. If we didn’t have an extremist faction in the House we’d be a lot better off and likely hammering together some real long-term deficit-cutting bills.
FDR didn’t drag the nation, kicking and screaming, into the New Deal. He had a HUGE majority to work with in Congress. Never since has the left been so dominant. For example, look at the the vote on the Social Security Act of 1935:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Democrats: 284 YES, 15 NO, 20 NOT VOTING
Republicans: 81 YES, 15 NO, 4 NOT VOTING, 2 PRESENT
SENATE
Democrats: 60 YES, 1 NO, 8 NOT VOTING
Republicans: 16 YES, 5 NO, 4 NOT VOTING
And that’s not even counting the not insignificant numbers of Farm Labor and Progressive Party Congresspeople.
FDR was a little like the baton tosser at the head of a long parade; he provided timing and drama, but that particular parade would have gone down that particular street with or without him. The Great Depression was the event scheduler. If the Democrats ever have majorities that lopsided again, the only way their agenda would not steamroll the opposition might be if the President at the time actually vetoed their legislation, and possibly not even then.
“Why can’t you accept that they just might have a genuine desire to dramatically cut spending in order to save the country?”
Because their actions speak for themselves. I don’t see how doing real tangible damage to the nation’s image throughout the world is a way to “save the country”. What in god’s name would they be “saving” us from? A crisis they came up with out of thin air while we were already mopping up their mess from the last decade? This issue should never have been tied to the debt ceiling. Doing so has damaged the credit of the nation throughout the civilized world. That has already transpired. Now we’re just haggling over the precise amount of damage these people will do to our image, prestige, and financial power.
I fully support tackling entitlements and the long term deficit in a credible way, but not like this. Wrong timing, counterproductive for the current recession, damaging for the country, and just not sensible to any rational person who’s followed these issues closely. Perhaps some of the Republicans in the House honestly don’t realize how much damage they are doing to the country’s financial leverage around the world. Perhaps some of the Republicans in the House honestly don’t realize that their proposals will put major breaks on the shaky economic recovery and job growth over the next decade. But why should we give them credit for motives alone? If their motives are admirable but their ideas are damaging to the country, shouldn’t they be judged by their results?
Our image is not the problem. Our refusal to stop spending obscene amounts of money, and expecting the rest of the world to pay for it, has caused grumbling in China and Russia since before Obama was elected. Perhaps you didn’t notice their latest complaints when Bernanke testified that a QE3 wasn’t totally beyond consideration? Remember the Chinese delegate in New York telling our press “We hate you guys. We have nowhere else to put our money but we hate you guys”? If it was just one faction giving a false impression of instability, Obama would be in Beijing right now for a summit to help him here in DC.
So you think the Chinese would be fine with the dollar tanking? That one of their biggest trading partners suddenly stops buying their products? You think the Chinese approve of the way Republican’s are handling this totally unnecessary crisis?
They probably disapprove of the consensus being forged between our parties.
Chris:
How do you explain the Ryan Budget then? or the Defense bill that just passed with an instead of over 10% in spending within the last month? The problem isn’t the debt limit, its that Republicans refuse to actually cut spending and would prefer to pass symbolic cutting measures that have no real chance of ever becoming law or doing the job.
I agree that they have chosen a window dressing bill, but a bill to get the job done would have to be forced through the Senate. Which appears to be abandoned.
“Why can’t you accept that they just might have a genuine desire to dramatically cut spending in order to save the country? ”
because when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency … they doubled the national debt, added $26+ trillion in unfunded liabilities to the American taxpayers, conducted two wars that were not counted in the budget and had China and Saudi Arabia help bankroll them, perpetrated the Medicare Part D scam, lent trillions to their Wall Street buddies with TARP and destroyed the economy … that’s why
The problem JimBob is that if they are sincere they are irremediably stupid. One can’t cut spending after the fact. You have to pay your bills or your credit is affected and if your credit is affected, your interest rates go up. Interest rates matter. A lot. Small fluctuations on large amounts of money are themselves large in the difference of money.
Now not everyone understands that, obviously. But if you don’t understand that concept, of compound interest, then you don’t get to have an opinion about what is good or bad economically for our country. You don’t have a good enough grasp of economics to understand the problem, let alone come up with an answer.
Additionally, I don’t think you can say that group which seeks to hijack the democratic process, and risk the ruin of the country, is actually meaning well. They are sure they are right, but that is not the same as meaning well. Meaning well would cause one to try to come to the best solution for all, with as little disruption and negative consequence as possible. But they are more concerned with perfection.
If anything, it seems as if they will be happy the economy will tank because it will reflect badly on Mr. Obama, and he won’t be elected. That sentiment, driving an entire country to the weeds, to score a political victory is just bad temper.
A jackass. Another product of media hype.
According to pundits, you are a jerk if you think the GOP role isn’t to dance for Democrats and Obama.
Nobody has to worship Boehner simply because he’s been conservative in the past. If he can’t handle current criticism, he’s free to step down. This is how politics works.
Hard to imagine any reasonable, rational excuse for attaching a demand for a vote on a constitutional amendment – to a bill to raise the debt ceiling. At the 11th hour no less!
There will be a time – it’s inevitable – when there is a Republican president & Democrats only hold one of the two houses. I suppose the Republicans either don’t care that they risk totally poisoning the well of American solidarity – or – they cynically believe Democrats are too good natured to do what they have done when circumstances are reversed.
I can’t understand how anyone could defend the behavior of the house Republicans. The only thing I can imagine is that some people identify more with “Republicans” then they do with “America” and their desire to inflict humiliation on “the other side” is an overwhelming, personal imperative.
Personally, I don’t like any of the compromises that the POTUS has proposed for two reasons. First, I believe it’s fundamentally immoral (besides being ineffective) to capitulate to hostage takers – especially hostage takers that raise their ransom demand every time one agrees to the amount! Secondly, I don’t think making draconian cuts at this time is an appropriate way to decrease the debt to GDP ratio. I believe massive cuts now – without any corresponding, concrete attempt to grow the economy – is a fool’s gambit.
I know this sounds harsh but I no longer hope for a compromise bill. I’m more in favor of the President invoking the 14th amendment (or simply invoking the higher constitutional claim on a President to protect his country from disaster than to follow a particular law that is causing said disaster).
“I know this sounds harsh but I no longer hope for a compromise bill. I’m more in favor of the President invoking the 14th amendment (or simply invoking the higher constitutional claim on a President to protect his country from disaster than to follow a particular law that is causing said disaster).”
There is no such power in the Presidency. And specifically, debts organized in such a manner are arguably not the valid public debt of the United States. And imagine the effect of a public denunciation of such debts.
Chris:
Most would view debt as costs incurred from valid contracts. I guess you’d like to change the definition to suite your ideological tilt.
“Moody’s also offered a definition of “default” – which could be of some comfort to conservative lawmakers who have said that action on the debt ceiling isn’t strictly necessary by the Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.
“What would Moody’s consider a default? We do not consider delayed payments for obligations other than debt service to be a default.” In other words, President Barack Obama could make good on his warnings that Social Security checks wouldn’t go out, and that wouldn’t constitute a “default.” ”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/26/live-blog-the-u-s-debt-battle/
“There is no such power in the Presidency. And specifically, debts organized in such a manner are arguably not the valid public debt of the United States. And imagine the effect of a public denunciation of such debts.”
Wow, Balsz, I had no idea you were on the Supreme Court. You freaking tool. Shall I destroy your insipid thinking? Why bother, you are too stupid to get it, but for those who are interested here is why this tool is so wrong:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling
Are YOU on the Supreme Court? Why bring that up?
Are those your pants you’re wearing? Cite to a Supreme Court case.
Here’s from your article Frumple:
“All four liberal Justices are committed to a vision of “living constitutionalism” that interprets the historical evidence broadly, and they would be supported in their judgment by the Perry decision. Moreover, at least two of the liberal justices—Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer—have supported broad judicial deference to the president’s ability to control the administrative state through regulations and unilateral action. And none of the liberals on the Court tends to be overly textualist when construing Congress’s power.
…Of these five justices, Thomas is the only one whose judicial philosophy might lead him to side with Congress over Obama. As someone who believes that Congressional power over the purse should be construed strictly, Thomas might conclude that Article I gives Congress, and not the president, the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States”—a power that it has exercised by establishing a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling doesn’t repudiate the debt or question its validity, Thomas might hold; it simply threatens default by prohibiting the president from assuming extra debt beyond what Congress has authorized. According to this argument, Obama’s unilateral decision to take on additional debt to avoid a government default would not represent debt “authorized by law,” as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, and therefore wouldn’t be justified by the Amendment.
…All three have devoted their careers to defending a broad vision of executive power, and they might even embrace the argument that Obama doesn’t need to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment; instead, he can raise the debt ceiling on his own, by invoking what Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule have called“his paramount duty to ward off serious threats to the constitutional and economic system.” In addition, the nationalistic instincts of the three pro-executive justices have led them to be consistently sympathetic to business interests, who in this case might support any presidential action that avoids default.
…Where does that leave the libertarian justice, Anthony Kennedy? He has no hesitation about the idea that courts—by which he means himself—should adjudicate battles between the president and Congress, and although he is all over the map on the issue, he tends to side with Congress rather than the president when forced to choose.
…All this suggests that if the justices are true to their judicial philosophies, either they wouldn’t hear the case of Obama v. Boehner or, if they did, at least seven justices would vote for Obama. If, by contrast, the justices ignore their judicial philosophies and vote on party lines, Obama could lose 5-4.”
Absolutely no citation to a section of the Constitution endorsing the idea of superduper emergency powers. The justices he guesses would support such powers would do so if they want to imagine a President could do that sort of thing and aren’t “overly textualist” or in fact ignore the 14th Amendment altogether. Rosen guesses they might strike it down 5-4 on Party lines—but in fact Thomas’ “overly textualist” reading looking right at Article I might swing a majority.
Here’s the above link to the opinion of Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule – neither of whom are on the Supreme Court:
“Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.
When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession.
A deadlocked Congress has become incapable of acting consistently; it
commits to entitlements it will not reduce, appropriates funds it does not have, borrows money it cannot repay and then imposes a debt ceiling it will not raise. One of those things must give; in reality, that means that the conflicting laws will have to be reconciled by the only actor who combines the power to act with a willingness to shoulder responsibility — the president.”
No cite to anything in the Constitution, or any Court case backing the idea. In fact, regarding Lincoln and habeus corpus, the Supreme Court precedent on file is negative.
The “necessities of state”…did these guys get their law degrees behind the Iron Curtain?
To cap it off, here’s that noted rightwing fanatic Laurence Tribe:
“The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred.
Some have argued that this principle prohibits any government action that “jeopardizes” the validity of the public debt. By increasing the risk of default, they contend, any debt ceiling automatically violates the public debt clause.
This argument goes too far. It would mean that any budget deficit, tax cut or spending increase could be attacked on constitutional grounds, because each of those actions slightly increases the probability of default. Moreover, the argument is self-defeating. If it were correct, the absence of a debt ceiling could likewise be attacked as unconstitutional — after all, the greater the nation’s debt, the greater the difficulty of repaying it, and the higher the probability of default.
Other proponents of a constitutional deus ex machina have offered a more modest interpretation of the public debt clause, under which only actual default (as opposed to any action that merely increases the risk of default) is impermissible. This interpretation makes more sense. But advocates of the constitutional solution err in their next step: arguing that, because default would be unconstitutional, President Obama may violate the statutory debt ceiling to prevent it.
The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.
Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html
Balz…actually, he can do it if that is the last option. He can do what every POTUS in similar situations has done which is protect the country despite the Congress. Then, once the crisis is over, the Congress can vote to impeach him. Try reading the excellent blog Balkinization…http://balkin.blogspot.com/
As Bill Clinton, another former professor of constitutional law, recently declared, if he were president, he would invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.” There’s a good chance they wouldn’t.
Rabiner, Balsz is all assertion, no facts. The guy seems to think that Joe Sixpack is the one funding the debt, he is hopelessly clueless.
Another option, which I find amusing, is that since Treasury can mint coinage in any denomination they want, they can simply mint 2 trillion dollar coins and then deposit them in the treasury and then write checks against them.
There is not a damn thing Republicans could do to stop them either. I am not saying we should, but compared to default I would risk inflation.
GOP+TEA PARTY= KAMIKAZE PARTY NO MATTER IF WERE RIGHT OR WRONG WILL TAKE THE COUNTRY DOWN IF WE DON’T GET OUR WAY.
oh, and who would have standing if Obama invoked the 14th? People who buy treasury bonds would have to show real, not imagined, losses, but if Treasury pays off the debt in full what would their argument be? People who “publicly denounce” those t-bills are under zero obligation to buy them.
And it would take both the House and Senate to work together to get standing, the Senate would never go along with it, therefore I see no mechanism by which a lawsuit challenging Obama can be brought about.
You guess they won’t have standing.
Who’s going to buy a bond that might not be repaid if one party loses the House to another? A President would have to go to court to enforce the payment of that bond.
Interesting that treasuries are not diving as the stock market is. There will be short term hits on T’s but they will eventually be paid, no matter how many knives the Republicans hold to the throat of the country.
Poor baby.
Bet you any money you’ll still pull the lever marked R next November.
The Senate will come around and fix this, the GOP will be in full damage control mode, they will be lucky to find 20% of the country identifying as conservative and even luckier to find 2% identifying as Tea Party sympathetic.
When someone approaches you dressed as Paul Revere and its not a restaurant or Disney Land, that should be a clue you are conversing with a frigging nut.
This is what should happen, but the media persists in describing this as a “both sides” issue. Those of us who have the luxury of time to really follow the debacle know how insanely askew the the discourse has been driven, but most citizens, in between work, doctor visits, and soccer practice, rely on the media to let them know what’s going on. And the media has failed us. We are a fact-free voting population.
Don’t blame the media. The media has reliably brought you all the facts, and anyone who cares is well armed with them. The best thing the media can do is to keep its opinions, as much as it can, to itself. You’re right that the talking heads are wildly disproportionate in how they score this fight, but if Americans weren’t (en masse) so patently incapable of rational thought, it wouldn’t matter how many Rush Lame-bros. told them whatever nonsense they tell them. Americans have no one but themselves to blame for the mess we’re in. Yes, it would be great to hear more journalists honestly say “and the [fill in nonsense plan name here] proposal that the Tea Party has put forth doesn’t actually add up when that nasty ‘math’ stuff is applied to it”, but if the populace knew how to do math, they wouldn’t even need that commentary.
dr,
I wish you were right. But most people are quite stupid when it comes to anything outside of their own sphere of influence. That includes politics. And the MSM have been every much enablers of inaccurate reporting as the think tanks. The latter are paid to put out a slant. The former are not, yet they still do, in the mistaken understanding that they are being “fair” or “impartial”. NOT. So the sheeple read along and they think, “both sides do it” when in fact that is not at all the case. Look at the polls.
“Who’s going to buy a bond that might not be repaid if one party loses the House to another? A President would have to go to court to enforce the payment of that bond.”
This makes no sense at all. Do you really think it is Joe the plumber that is buying a trillion dollars worth of t-bills? The Chinese are and for your information I know a shitload more about the Chinese than you ever will. If you imagine the Chinese or Japanese or other international investors are going to throw the world economy into a tailspin based on your childish notions of who will buy it, you are as dumb as I imagine you to be.
Honest to God, why are you so damn ideological?
Obama still has not even acceded to the War powers act with regard to Libya, and that is small potatoes, and not a damn thing has been done to him. Face it, very few people are as stupid as the rest of your inbred teabaggers. If he invokes the 14th, if it comes to it, Republican teabaggers will have a fit, the rest of the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief, and that would be the end of it.
and this is from slate:
One option is coin seigniorage—aka, the “really-huge-coin workaround.” The United States has a statutory limit on the amount of paper money in circulation, but no such limit on coins. The Treasury secretary has the authority to mint certain coins of any denomination, with no need for the value of the metal to equal the value of the coin. (It gets a bit technical.) But the idea is that Secretary Timothy Geithner could order the Mint to make a, say, $5 trillion coin. It could then use the coin to buy back and extinguish debt from the Fed, pushing the country back under the ceiling. Or it could deposit it, and the Fed could counteract the inflation by selling government debt.
The idea originated in the lefty blogosphere; FireDogLake writer “beowulf” wrote about this “escape hatch” or “subway tunnel” all the way back in January. Most commentators dismissed it as fanciful. But it does seem to be entirely legal, and is getting renewed attention and a wee bit of credibility as the negotiations drag on. Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin floated it as an option in a CNN op-ed this week.”
The best thing about this is it would totally screw over the teabaggers because there is not a damn thing they could do about it. Again, I am not saying I am in favor of it, but traitors to America must not be allowed to ruin our lives because of their own fascistic delusions.
Of course I would just prefer a negotiated settlement along the Reid lines (with McConnell input) but when you have to deal with the Balszs and Jimboobs running that insane asylum called the Republican party, you have to be prepared to get down and dirty and run them over with a freight train.
And like I said weeks ago, he could get any amount of foriegn gifts he wants, or, pass a treaty raising the debt limit with 51 votes in the Senate.
“This makes no sense at all. Do you really think it is Joe the plumber that is buying a trillion dollars worth of t-bills? The Chinese are and for your information I know a shitload more about the Chinese than you ever will. If you imagine the Chinese or Japanese or other international investors are going to throw the world economy into a tailspin based on your childish notions of who will buy it, you are as dumb as I imagine you to be.
Honest to God, why are you so damn ideological?”
Seriously, the Chinese would buy US treasuries even if one American political party repudiated them?
I think we may have the basis for compromise.
Eric Posner’s thoughts on the POTUS raising the debt ceiling unilaterally:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/opinion/22posner.html?_r=1
from the above article:
“The basic problem today is that the president and the House Republicans are locked in a classic bargaining game. The worst outcome for both is default on the debt, but each side holds out for a favorable deal.”
No… that is not the basic problem. The basic problem is that one side is holding out for getting everything it wants. period. That’s not how you “bargain”. That’s how you walk into the Porsche dealership and say “let’s haggle until you let me leave the store with 3 Porsches having paid nothing… oh, and in case you care, I’m wired with explosives”.
Seriously, the Chinese would buy US treasuries even if one American political party repudiated them?
What the hell does this mean? How can they “repudiate” the debt? That is just gibberish. For one thing, Republicans would want to one day win the White House again and will also run deficits, thereby needing to sell debt, what would prevent Democrats from “repudiating” this debt? Anyway, repudiating (whatever the hell that means) will mean nothing until the Court rules on it.
The debt ceiling makes no sense, Congress can not require the President to spend money without providing it either via taxes or borrowing. The budget was enacted, if Congress did not want the the debt to go higher they could have slashed the budget or raised taxes, they did neither, and it is Congess that makes the budget.
These teabaggers are nihilists, I long for the day they are themselves annihilated, and being that most are old, white cranks we shall not have to wait for too long.
If your president is the cause of the exploding deficits and debt, and highly unpopular due to his economic policies, healthcare policy, and his aloof non-caring attitude, why would Republicans seek to compromise with him, unless they are stupid?
Fail. See, cuz ONLY a stupid person would look at the situation and think that Obama was responsible for trillions of debt that he inherited from presidents going back to St Reagan. That stupid person would NATURALLY find himself at home in the modern day Republican party, where facts and history don’t matter.
If they can damage Obama by tanking the economy again, like they did through policy choices in the 2000s, then that’s a small price to pay for having a shot at winning the White House again. And for those who aren’t into the politics, it’s all about ‘who you hate’, and Lord knows there’s no one they hate more than “the Kenyan Marxist”, cuz everytime he opens his uppity mouth, he reminds them that he thinks he’s just a little bit smarter than they are – right, there, Clem?
Obama’s a Marxist, you can whine about it all day but it’s not a cheap shot to point out his political philosophy. He whines about rich people making too much and needing to pay his fair share and redistributing the wealth. That’s Marxism, why deny it? It’s absurd to deny it. I understand why Obama’s going to deny it..he wants to be elected afterall, but why does a liberal on the internet deny it? You have no problem with Marxism.
you can play the race card all you want but that one is all tapped out at this point. He’s finding out that there has to be more to a man than his skin color.
rest assured that this is the first and only comment I’ll ever make on any of your musings.
I promise you that if you read back through the frumforum archives you will discover that you’re are not the first troll to come here and spew gibberish. What I have to prepare you for is that for the most part you will be ignored and sooner or later will get bored and will go back to posting on whatever echo-chamber you come from where accusations of marxism towards our president are taken seriously rather than immediately letting everyone know that you’re an imbecile.
You have announced your presence and you will probably be happy to learn we are (mostly) mildly irritated by your existence and look forward to the day when people who are as simple minded as you are back in the irrelevant fringes from whence you can bother no-one. I will be sure to use your handle as a convenient indicator of what posts not to bother reading.
You may want to consider, however, that almost all the usual posters on this site are fairly right leaning (of course, coming from someone who thinks that Obama is basically a moderate conservative, that means very little to you). However, if you were to stop talking and look around, you will find a great deal of really worth while commentary here that you might actually benefit from. Or you can continue to rant about Obama’s Marxist tendencies.
Welcome aboard!
I will not be reading your response, or anything else you ever post, so, if you decide to waste your time replying, please know that it is largely for your own entertainment.
Frum will ban me tomorrow….trust me. Why do you think the only people here are liberals like you, all 5 of you? He likes to dish it out but he can’t take it.
You’re nothing special Matt. There are several commentators who are much more, shall we say flamboyant, than you who have yet to be banned. I’m sure DF will allow you to keep posting whatever you want. No one is persecuting you here.
“Obama’s a Marxist, you can whine about it all day but it’s not a cheap shot to point out his political philosophy.”
You’re right, its not a cheap shot. It’s just a blatant lie coming from an idiot that has no idea what he’s talking about.
Matt,
Have you ever heard of adblocker? Here is what many of us will enter for your posts:
“frumforum.com##.comment.byuser.comment-author-Matt X”
Soon you will be posting and nobody will even see them.
Do you even know what a “Marxist” is?
Do you think a “Marxist” would have used public funds to help bail out Investment Banks?
Do you people even understand the concept of “Marxism”, “Socialism” and the Free Market?
IF you’re going to continuously use the term ‘Marxism’ please use it correctly. Otherwise you’ll sound foolish as you are now. A Marxist would of nationalized the banks and auto industry rather than bail them out, let them remain private and only obtain non-voting stock in the companies as collateral.
In addition a ‘Marxist’ (really a Socialist but I’ll use your term since you may get more confused) wouldn’t of signed off on a health care bill that wasn’t single payer.
Seriously, how can you logically deny that Obama is a Marxist? Why do liberals act like it’s illegal to say that one of them is fond of their hero Marx? I don’t get it. You don’t see conservatives denying their hero Reagan.
If liberals can’t be intellectually honest about their fondness for Dear Marx, what can they be honest about it? Seriously?
Hey Matt your either just trying to pick a fight or your a complete moron with the brain of a pea and we have some serious issues to waste time on your stupid comments about what you think someone is when you don’t have a clue. No matter what Obama is or is not we have to deal with this nonsense on all sides with this debt issue and there much blame to go around for all directions because if these morons push the country off the cliff where all fxxxxed.
What objective evidence do you have (in terms of enacted policies or proposals) that Obama is a marxist?
Here’s my evidence that he’s not:
1) did not nationalize any of the major banks that were in trouble, instead just let them have unlimited money at zero interest from the Treasury.
2) a healthcare reform that wasn’t single payer, and doesn’t even include a public option, but rather guarantees business to private companies via the mandate.
3) re-privatized GM and Chrysler in short order, and left Ford alone, since they weren’t insolvent.
4) proposed extending most of the Bush tax cuts, and eventually signed off on a deal that extended all of them.
If anything, the problem with these policies is that they support corporate welfare.
Matt: The only current political people I know who are connected with Marxism are the Koch brothers, whose pater started the family fortune by sucking up to Joseph Stalin, who may or may not have been a Marxist, but close enough for your purposes. I agree with an earlier poster. You are, indeed, an imbecile,
When ‘lobbyiest’ invented the tea party…it was to destroy Health Reform. The origional group seem to be old folks who had MediCare anyway….
They put together ‘rallies’…. and they added things to rally against like …Big Government, and the Rising Debt.
The delicate balance of Capitalism, cannot work on just “ideology’ without accepting the government creates a lot of Capitalism by ‘moving money’…
Republican Ideology doesn’t work….Supply Side doesn’t work….
How can you have “free trade”, but less people who have a ‘throw away income?”
How can you complain about YOUR taxes that pay for food stamps, but pay your employee so little, he qualifies for food stamps?
Big government keeps Capitalism going….
This ‘default’ show us, just how the government keeps money moving…
it’s easy to explain to a child how government is good or how government is bad. It’s much less easy to explain nuance and the deviled details.
All ideologies that come complete with easy to understand slogans are by definition naive and fall short of being relevant due to their own lack of awareness of the complexity of multifaceted systems.
Government works well when people have a (generally) common cause and argue about the best path towards that cause. Government works terribly when it’s filled with know-nothing loud mouth zealots.
It’s funny, I thought that we had it pretty bad when our representatives were largely beholden to corporate interests. Now I realize that it’s even worse when they are largely beholden to foolish ideological dogmas, that are based in angry fantasy.
The really ironic thing is that the egalitarianism that liberals are usually staunchly in favor of, is exactly what the root of the current problem is. It turns out if you stoke the moron masses with enough tid-bits of information that makes them think they understand how to solve our collective problems better than the “elites” you get the mob rule that we now have.
I guess I’ll take corporate crony-ism. At least the corporations are headed by “elitists” who understand, if nothing else, we need the moron masses to have SOME money so that they can keep purchasing their wares. If nothing else, they understand Golden Goose economics.
The Tea Party understands only Hollywood style against-all-odds hail marys. Sadly, in the real world, those tend to have really unfortunate outcomes.
Many of us agree with your conclusion that your economic model is not compatible with a political system that allows voters to decline the massive transfers of wealth from one population group to another.
It is that basic denial of individual property rights as a concept, and the abuse of the government into a wealth distribution center, that has people calling this administration “Marxist”.
Then the conservative majority on the Supreme Court must also be marxists, because they don’t seem to put much importance in individual property rights.
The ones who voted for Kelo? They’re dead wrong about community desires trumping individual property rights, yes.
The development that took Mr. and Mrs. Kelo’s home was never built. It’s a dirt lot now.
“The really ironic thing is that the egalitarianism that liberals are usually staunchly in favor of, is exactly what the root of the current problem is.”
” It turns out if you stoke the moron masses with enough tid-bits of information that makes them think they understand how to solve our collective problems better than the “elites” you get the mob rule that we now have.”
Per DRDREDEL
————————
The Mob Rule is the Tea Party
….who have put the ‘screws’ to the Republican party…
The origional Tea Party was invented by the ‘elite’…
No one can deny the CEO at Blue Cross makes 13 million a year, and the “elite” want to keep it that way. And to keep it that way, only a small percent of individuals can buy the product. Elite Mob
You want to think there has been a change from the ‘corporatations running our Federal and State government “elite” Mob’…. to the now ‘save our MediCare Mob”….
I think you have this a little wrong…the Mob is run by money in the 21st century…and the big money being pumped in, is directed by the elite (Koch brothers).
Oh…we found the “The Jerks” who are running the country the Mob….
I’m not entirely clear on if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me (or disagreeing with something you *think I’m saying, but that I’m not). I’m describing the Tea Party as the uninformed, angry mob. Are you saying that there is no difference between them and the baseline corporate bought and paid-for legislature (into which I lump Democrats and Republicans, more or less, equally).
I read this…
“The really ironic thing is that the egalitarianism that liberals are usually staunchly in favor of, is exactly what the root of the current problem is.” Per DRDREDEL
…with the meaning.
The “liberal ideas’ is exactly what the root of the current problem is….
I’m not sure that is how I would have put it.
But, I think we agree…the MOB is the Tea Party…
Dr. Dredel, you miss a key factor in liberal belief—educating those masses so they aren’t morons.
That is why I am so disgusted with MSM. The Economist, NYT and BBC, and their readers, are notoriously ill informed these days. If these so called paragons of journalistic integrity are as inept as this, what do we expect from our local rag sheets? Let alone the electorate, most of whom believe in evolution.
It’s pathetic. I am all too often ashamed to be an American .
“If your president is the cause of the exploding deficits and debt, and highly unpopular due to his economic policies, healthcare policy, and his aloof non-caring attitude…”
Matt, it’s 2011. George W. Bush hasn’t been president for over two years.
oh man, this matt x is such a tool. The sad thing is he can never understand that he is not being provocative he is simply being a fool. Oooh, Matt said Obama am a Marxist, he shore showwed us. As to me, I love the Marx brothers. I could picture Obama doing a damn good impression of Groucho.
Rush is old and in poor health, I doubt he will be alive in 10 years. This is true for a lot of these teabaggers. We only have to outlive the freaks and we will, demographics is on our side.
“Have you ever heard of adblocker? Here is what many of us will enter for your posts:
“frumforum.com##.comment.byuser.comment-author-Matt X”
Soon you will be posting and nobody will even see them.”
and then go back to complaining about the “anti-intellectualism” of the opposition.
So you think Matt X is intellectual? Either your judgement or your logic is flawed. From what I can gather laboring through your posts from time to time, perhaps both?
If he’s wrong about Obama belonging to a group, then there should be a reason it is wrong.
Known as facts.
Chris,
Not being willing to engage someone that says the earth is flat (and throws in epithets about the nature of roundness in the process) isn’t the same as skirting intellectual debate. There’s an old Chinese adage about the bigger fool in the argument being the wise man that argues with the fool. In any event, I have no trouble and will lose no sleep over being labeled an elitist or a snob in my refusal to waste time arguing with idiot know-nothings. I am delighted to discuss things with people with whom I disagree (and delight even more in being proved wrong!), if they actually have something useful to say and bring reason and facts to the party. “Obama is a marxist” is just as stupid as “God created the world in 7 days”. If you don’t have the mental accumen to disabuse yourself of such stupidity without my help, I’ve got better things to do than intervene.
Amen, Dr. Dredel
Well said, doc.
There will not be a default, seniors will get their Social Security payments period! The left will not stop using this scare tactic because they are desperate. If the Tea Party is successful in stopping this run away spending, the progressive statist are domed. That’s why they will fight tooth and nail, to try and stop a Balance Budget Amendment bill. It’s plain and simple, with limitations on spending, so goes the progressive statist voting block. Taking away the fuel that runs their political engine, would severely limit their support and Obama’s reelection. This is “The American Second Revolution” and the only way it can be won is with perseverance. Therefore, do not cut and run after a defeat, but reload for the next battle, then the next and so on. This revolution will take years to win.
A Tea Party Patriot
Who let PayGo – in existence from 1990 to 2002 (Clinton) — die, again? Oh right, it was W. And right after it expired, he enacted the 1.4T tax cuts and the 800B Med Part D, neither of which would have fit into PayGo.
That’s 2.2T, if you add them up.
(By the way, I think it is amusing to think about how liberals will be “domed”)
And don’t forget the even more inventive strategy of designating all costs for Iraq and Afghanistan as “emergency supplemental” (i.e. not part of the budget). I’m pretty sure TARP was categorized as emergency, too.
I am domed. I can’t stand it!
The progressive statist are domed. That sounds ominous. Maybe. If I knew what it meant, maybe it sounds ominous. And who is this Matt x? Does his last name start with a “D?” I’m just asking . . . anybody know?
Here maybe this will help ya.
Progressive….. liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community
Statist…… describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.
Progressive Statist are what they are. They believe in Big Government and support it, so they can feed off it. That isn’t an ominous statement, it’s plain facts!!!
“political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals…They believe in Big Government and support it, so they can feed off it.”
Sounds like the GWB administration.
So the Koch bros and their ilk, the ones who have really benefited from the last 10 years, are Progressive Statists? Whodathunk?
I was talking about “domed.” But thanks anyway.
The Republican Party Is Insane From Top To Bottom | Poison Your Mind // Jul 30, 2011 at 5:42 pm
[...] has floated the theories that, Charlie-Sheen style, they just like “winning,” or that Republicans like being jerks. We need not wade too far into that psychological thicket; we do know that they don’t care [...]
The odd thing is that so publishing companies tout Karl Marx’s book as a “classic”, it’s taught in colleges, yet liberals always deny their Maker when people try to make them own it.
The problem with Obama isn’t that he’s a Marxist, it’s that he is a Marxist and the president. If he was self contained on some liberal college campus where the only damage is to naive hippie kids, that would be fine with me. Nothing more dangerious than a president who doesn’t know, and doesn’t know that he does not know.
What is the evidence (policies that he has proposed or enacted) that Obama is a marxist?
“Karl Marx’s book”
To which one do you refer?
Best not to feed the trolls, eh.
Your obsession with slandering the President says a lot more about you than it does about what it means to be a “marxist” (an economic, literary, psychological Marxist? It doesn’t seem that you understand the distinction) In any case, much like some people obsessively categorized Bush as a racist and a colonialist, calling the President a Marxist speaks volumes about your reactionary cynicism while distorting legitimate criticisms of Obama’s agenda. Without a doubt, this makes you “Boring”.
I know Obama is a Marxist because liberals always squirm when you make this obvious observation. Seriously, it’s a little weird when liberals shout you down when you acknoledge that their liberal president is a Marxist like they are. It would be like me shouting you down for calling me a conservative and observing that I liked Reagan.
Liberals want to be liberals without anybody knowing they are. Some say this means they are insecure about their political views.
“I know Obama is a Marxist because liberals always squirm when you make this obvious observation.”
You are so fucking stupid that it actually hurts to read your posts.
Talkradiosucks.com,
Next time before going postal on me, think of what David Frum, Lord Civility, would do first.
#No Labels #Civility
Matt X, you should really consider posting on the Fixed News forums. You may become more popular than the Beckster, Huckster, and Drugster Limbaugh.
I don’t doubt it.
I usually post under the screenname Rush Limbaugh Sent Me….it guarantees that I will be sparring with an entire forum of liberals within 10 seconds of my first post. I see why El Rushbo loves his job!
“X” may be code for gender reassignment.
Civility
Matt, you’re incorrigible. Unfortunately you’re also just spouting nonsense while acting like a victim. Just noise.
In case anyone missed the adblock command “frumforum.com##.comment.byuser.comment-author-Matt X”
Buh-Bye Matt.
Matt X:
”
I know Obama is a Marxist because liberals always squirm when you make this obvious observation. Seriously, it’s a little weird when liberals shout you down when you acknoledge that their liberal president is a Marxist like they are. It would be like me shouting you down for calling me a conservative and observing that I liked Reagan.
Liberals want to be liberals without anybody knowing they are. Some say this means they are insecure about their political views. ”
Calling someone a Marxist because they’re liberal even if they aren’t a Marxist is akin to me calling you a moron even if you aren’t….nevermind you are pretty stupid.
Calling the kettle pot black accomplishes nothing. Name-calling, baseless allegations and false analogies instead of sticking to facts, logic and reasoning.
The facts are simple:
Our current and past administrations have continued to spend more money than they take in.
Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements; they are programs that American taxpayers have funded through payroll contributions.
Some 47 percent of eligible taxpaying Americans are footing the bill for the country
A Tea Party Patriot
Korn8131:
“Our current and past administrations have continued to spend more money than they take in.
Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements; they are programs that American taxpayers have funded through payroll contributions.
Some 47 percent of eligible taxpaying Americans are footing the bill for the country
A Tea Party Patriot”
The irony of you saying facts are simple is your inability to even say something factual. Every person who works pays payroll taxes. Only 47% of households pay income taxes. See how they’re different? 100% of Americans pay sales tax. 100% of those who drive pay gasoline tax.
Also what does it mean when you say ‘eligible taxpaying Americans’? Are some people ineligible from paying income taxes because they get an exemption or is it because they’re so poor that they don’t meet that threshold? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter which probably means anyone who isn’t paying income taxes sure would love to earn enough income to be ‘eligible’ to pay that tax.
A Reality Based Individual
What’s the difference b/t what a liberal thinks and what a Marxist thinks?
Support wealth distribution? Check
Hate the rich? Check
Do liberals contend that nobody that votes for the Democratic party is a Marxist? Not even one?
A marxist would have already nationalized the Koch Brothers’ company.
Marxism generally involves nationalizing key industries, if not the entire economy.
I haven’t heard anyone talking about nationalizing anything at all in the US in decades (except for things like GM and Lehman that had become insolvent and would/did go out of business absent government intervention).
Those companies could have just filed for bankruptcy,
In GM’s case, Obama fired a private sector CEO and replaced him with a government man. He should have been impeached for that, but alas, he was black and popular at the time, and many Americans think this kind of anti-corporationism is acceptable.
Well now, if the CEO was doing such a great job, why did the company go bankrupt?
I agree though that companies should either make money or go out of business.
At the time, the unemployment rate was 10%. If the government had allowed GM and the car companies to go bankrupt – which would have also then quickly bankrupted many car service companies as well — what would the unemployment rate have been at that point, do you think? (Cue the hand wringing at that point about how Obama isn’t doing anything about jobs).
In a healthy economy, I would be sympathetic to letting the American car industry go under. In an economy at historical lows, I wouldn’t be so quick to do so. It’s a far better bet to try to support the companies with govt money than to pay all that unemployment to a lot of people with no chance of re-entering the work force.
But this is the problem with ideologues of any stripe – tea party or marxist: it’s all principle, and no situation. Funny enough, this is the main criticism tea bags have of Marxism, when they say things like “looks good on paper”.
So if one fascist or anarchist votes Republican, does that make the entire party fascists or anarchists? Although, these days, the party itself has made it hard to tell…
Matt, it sounds like the only thing you know about liberals comes from a right-wing coloring book, badly filled in with crayon. And that is how Rush, etc. like it.
C’mon Ann, if you are going to talk trash you got to do better than the crayon thing.
If Cantor takes the crown later this year, perhaps Boehner will finally grow a spine…and gather in other Republican members of Congress who checked their brains at the tea shop counter (I’m thinking Upton et al here) and form either a new party or formulate the antidote to tea.
Is GE doing well under Obama? Pretty sure they are not, or I wouldn’t need to ask.
Serious question.
Are you schizophrenic?
Good question…We can thank Republican RayGun for letting ‘idiots’ become the Tea Party.
I went to a monthly meeting of the Tea Party at the local Pizza joint, and the logic was nothing more than catch phrases. They were discussing our States Union Employee costs. Throwing our costs, but never mentioned that it had been changed but the people beore the change will still effect costs until they retire and die.
It is a no brainer…you cannot go back and fix contracts…why throw out figures that were under a contract until 2003….
The ability to get the crowd “all worked up,” without stating, it has been constitutional fixed, and we won’t feel the affect of lower costs until all the people under the old contract reitre and die. The new contract started in 2003, so costs won’t show up until 30 years from that date, when they retire…2030..
But boy, was this crowd worked up….”catch phrases’…”spin”….I raised my hand to mention that the contract had been changed in 2003…but I dou’t think anyone in the group of 30 Tea Party members understood the difference. It was all ‘pitch forks’ to the money being spent…righous ingornance.
GE? They’re doing just fine. From Wikipedia (and well sourced):
In 2011, Fortune ranked GE the 6th largest firm in the U.S.,[7] as well as the 14th most profitable.[8] Other rankings for 2011 include #7 company for leaders (Fortune), #5 best global brand (Interbrand), #82 green company (Newsweek), #13 most admired company (Fortune), and #19 most innovative company (Fast Company).[9]
I imagine, however, you REALLY meant to ask about GM, a company on which this administration has actually had a deliberate effect. They did fine last year (as did Chrysler, btw) and managed to dump a ton of liability for health care costs this year (infuriating the unions), but they’re not what I’d consider a very safe bet. At this moment in time, I wouldn’t buy their stock as a private citizen. However, even if the government lost every penny of the $50 billion or so it invested (highly unlikely) I’d consider it a good decision. We didn’t need the chain reaction caused by the collapse of the domestic auto industry on top of everything else we were dealing with. Moreover, at a time when Congress can’t find the intestinal wherewithal to say no to trillion-dollar plus weapons systems like the F35 program, $50 billion is hardly the tipping point.
Room-temperature-IQ cretins like “Matt X”, combined with how easy this featureless boardware makes it for one person to utterly dominate a conversation, are why I started my own forum.
What a joke.
Back on topic: As the Democrats look set to cave yet again, they prove that being a “jerk party” works. So expect to see a lot more of it in the future.
Next up: In Dec 2012 he will cave and permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. Not sure what would be left of the farm at that point, but if there’s anything left I’m sure he’ll offer it up.
Right wing Manchurian Candidate. When short-bus riders like “X” call him a socialist it makes me laugh considering his center right policy.
The Democratic end game is pretty weak. Since Republicans are filibustering and Democratic Senators are breaking ranks, I guess the only way to get a legislative solution is to capitulate.
TEA partiers won’t vote for *any* compromise the President supports. Meaning it will be up to Pelosie to save the legislation, making the Democratic party the sole owners of a bill design to damage the economy.
I’ve heard Reid is a genius politician, I sure don’t see it right now. I’m missing something, right? Please tell me I’m missing something.
Bagok -
Oh you know, as Andrew Sullivan insists, it’s all part of a “long game”. So long, in fact, that only our great-great-great grandchildren will actually be around to see the master plan come to its final fruition.
Or something like that.
Actually, even Sullivan thinks Obama has clusterfucked this. I can probably find the relevant post if you want.
No “meep meep” to be found here.
And Reid has always sucked.
I just read Sullivan’s latest – he definitely does seem to have retreated from the “meep meep” meme. Wile E. won the day here.
I have no idea what Reid brings to the table.
The Tea Party Caucus Senate leader Mike Lee(Utah) is now pushing for BBA.
Fixed News is lying through their teeth and it’s fun to watch them talk about the defeat of Reid’s Bill.
Xunzi: This is from a few days ago if you haven’t seen it yet. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/is-obama-a-bad-negotiator.html
Near as I can tell, what Reid brings to the table is that he’s not Sharron Angle. Why is he the senate majority leader? Because our political leadership is selected by nepotism and cronyism, not merit.
Once again we’ve made government smaller by adding another layer to government.
The lemmings are quite full. 1776 costumed lemmings are quite full.