K Street vs. Tea Party: the GOP’s real civil war?
Interesting piece from Timothy P. Carney / Washington Examiner, Tea party loosens K Street’s stranglehold on the GOP.
…the Tea Party smashed K Street’s monopoly on Republican fundraising. The Club for Growth was founded in the late 1990s, and early last decade, it began targeting liberal Republicans in primaries…
In 2009, Sen. Jim DeMint founded the Senate Conservatives Fund…While GOP leaders backed candidates like Charlie Crist (Fla.) and Trey Grayson (Ky.) in 2010 primaries, the SCF backed Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. K Street and the National Republican Senatorial Committee worked hand-in-hand — but for a change, there was a countervailing force.
Which led to Rubio’s and Paul’s victories:
The Club for Growth was Paul’s biggest source of funds, giving him $105,000…[SCF] kicked in $36,685. These two groups, together with FreedomWorks, also spent big on independent expenditures for Paul.Ted Cruz also came to Washington by defeating K Street. The Club for Growth spent more than $2.5 million helping Cruz in the Texas GOP primary, while the SCF spent about $800,000. K Street was backing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — he got $500,000 from business PACs (33 times Cruz’s take), and GOP lobbyists hosted a fundraiser for him at the Capitol Hill townhouse of Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta.
As Cruz put it, “Everyone who makes their living from continuing the government-spending gravy train is supporting Dewhurst.”
[...]
“I don’t think there’s a way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hardcore House Republicans,” one Wall Street lobbyist told Politico in the first couple days of the shutdown. Referring to an anti-establishment libertarian freshman congressman, the lobbyist said, “I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”
A Republican who doesn’t care about Bank of America checks wasn’t possible before the Tea Party.
“Follow the money.”
All this may tie in with President Obama’s demand that the GOP reject the Tea Party. He said (8:46 in Beck’s clip):
I’m not going to [negotiate] until the more extreme parts of the Republican Party stop forcing John Boehner to issue threats about our economy.
First, remember that Obama is the one issuing threats about our economy. But his comments reflect that the Tea Party, because they want to actually halt the growth of government spending and change the Washington spending game, are an existential threat to Obama’s “Big Government” brand of politics.
And so, Obama wants the GOP to expel them and go back to Washington’s business-as-usual. They’re all in it together. The Democrats are 100% Big Government; the GOP are less so, but nonetheless have an establishment (K Street) which is fairly Big Government and 100% dedicated to playing the Washington game.
Our freedom is at stake. Ted Cruz and the GOP so-called “bomb throwers” protect it.
Hat tip, DrewM at Ace for airing Carney’s article.
94 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Democrats don’t have this problem because they sold out, in toto, a long time ago.
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2013 @ 1:50 pm - October 10, 2013
Hi ILC,
“First, remember that Obama is the one issuing threats about our economy. ”
A question for you: If there are really choices to default, as you have suggested, why do you think GOP leaders have been very reticent to come right out and say: we will let default happen, since the President can cut all these other programs to compensate?
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - October 10, 2013
Government is literally a scam, and an incredibly lucrative one, and the Tea Party threatens it. Regardless of how “unreasonable” the Tea Party appears, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to tolerate being eternally scammed by people like John McCain and Chris Christie whose loyalty is clearly to their pockets and not anything any conservative should support. The only possible reasonable position here is to support blowing up the status quo (and lest this be misinterpreted as support for terrorism by people like mike, I will make clear that that is a metaphor). The divide is not between Republicans and Democrats, but rather between reasonableness/small government and fraud/big government.
Comment by Rattlesnake — October 10, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - October 10, 2013
Because the GOP leaders genuinely do not want a default.
What the GOP leaders fail to recognize (or fail to tell people honestly) is that, short of an immediate turnaround in the budget situation where we go to complete balance right now, a default is inevitable. It’s only a question of when we default (now or later), and in what form we default (honest technical default, vs. dishonest default through dollar de-valuation).
All Washington politicians want you to believe they are still on top of things and can still solve the problem. That includes the GOP. Especially the K Street establishment, of which Boehner is part (as distinct from the Tea Party).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - October 10, 2013
Yup. But the politician’s reward isn’t money immediately. Money goes to the bureaucrat who gets a good salary/benefits for producing nothing in the real economy, or to the voter or business who receives the government spending. For the politicians, the reward is more about having power over others: the joy of exercising it, the prestige, etc. That’s what they’re hooked on.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 2:09 pm - October 10, 2013
Hi ILC,
Thanks for answering the first part of the question. What are your thoughts on the second half?
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - October 10, 2013
What do you mean? What did I not answer?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 2:56 pm - October 10, 2013
Why not be public about suggesting that the debt defunding issue can be avoided entirely as you have suggested by an across the board 23% cut in government funding (including social security and medicare)…
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 3:31 pm - October 10, 2013
You’d have to ask them. My answers are speculative.
Just to speculate: Perhaps they know it’s not in Obama’s character to do it, so why bother asking him? Also, Boehner and Cantor are part of the Washington establishment themselves, the K Street that my post talks about. So, you may disbelieve this, but I expect they are actually trying to NOT rock the boat – or to rock it the least amount necessary to keep the GOP caucus together.
But note, all of that still makes “the default” Obama’s choice. One always has the option of doing the right thing. Obama always has the option of under-spending the budget, and/or (to the extent that there are legal obstacles) working with Congress to reduce it fast.
Obama is so far beyond the reach of truth on budgetary matters that, whether from fear or despair or ruling-class complicity or whatever motive you want to ascribe to the GOP leaders, they dare not suggest he do the right thing. So, I’m suggesting it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 3:46 pm - October 10, 2013
Or, more precisely, why won’t Passing By admit that it agrees with Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid that purchasing liquor and gourmet-food-stocked private jets for multimillionaires and unlimited taxpayer-funded luxury items for Federal bureaucrats absolutely cannot ever under any circumstances be cut?
This is what makes you funny, Passing By. You and your felllow pathetic liberals would have a lot more money to buy the poor food if you weren’t blowing it on booze and chocolate-covered strawberries for yourself. You and your fellow liberals would have far more to improve housing for the poor if you weren’t buying big-screen TVs and new furniture for your own vacation homes.
Why is that, Passing By? Why is it that, whenever the thought of cuts come up, the first thing you liberals put on the chopping block are actual social welfare programs, and NOT your own spending on luxury items?
Why, it’s almost as if you don’t give a damn about the poor.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - October 10, 2013
Here’s another set; there would be a lot more food-stamp budget for kids if lazy hipsters like Passing By weren’t using it to buy organic salmon and liquor.
Why is that, Passing By? Why do Obama supporters like you resolutely refuse to use Federal dollars to help the poor, and instead waste it on purchasing things for yourself? Why do Medicare and Social Security, both of which people pay into their entire lives, have to be cut so that you and your fellow liberals can have gourmet food and gamble at taxpayer expense?
Why do you want to starve the elderly and deprive them of health care rather than take a cut in your own food stamps, Passing By?
Why do you want the elderly to suffer so that you can continue to buy furniture for your house and fly on liquor-stocked private airliners using taxpayer dollars instead of your own, Passing By?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2013 @ 3:53 pm - October 10, 2013
Passing By asks of ILC:
We are enmeshed in a problem of income vs. outgo. Some folks would say that it all about mathematics. Apparently, Passing By is going to ask us to consider a universe of possibilities based strictly on simple math.
I really do not care how Passing Gas chooses to hone on an across the board 23% reduction in spending, but it would have one consequential result. If we were to cut payments on the national debt by 23%, that would constitute a “default” on servicing the debt.
Perhaps Passing By knows this, perhaps not. It really does not matter, because the “solution” proposed in the question asked has not been shown to be among the best five possible solutions for consideration. It is just an opinion from a nobody pulled out of the hat and tossed out for discussion.
Perhaps, Passing By might make a suggestion for greatly reducing the Social Security pay outs as it is by far and away the biggest cost of the government. As a profound and committed socialist, I think a suggestion on radical cost reduction by a true believer, socialist and statist.
Come back, Passing By and tell us how to cut entitlements down to size. But, in doing so, be sure to show compelling evidence that Obamacare is NOT another socialist, statist, entitlement runaway train heading off the fiscal cliff.
Comment by heliotrope — October 10, 2013 @ 3:54 pm - October 10, 2013
Again, it’s a form of hostage-taking. You’re right: The vast fraud, waste, luxuries, duplication, etc. in government spending never come up for serious cutting, only for lip service – if that.
Give left-liberals all the spending they want – or else as many Americans as possible will be put in pain. That is the real message in Obama’s deeds.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 3:56 pm - October 10, 2013
Hi ILC,
I might add that it would make Repubs unelectable, I think. In any case, it looks like the GOP is going to pull back from that brink, given that the Big O isn’t budging. Let us see if it is a CR.
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 4:13 pm - October 10, 2013
Hi NDT,
“You and your felllow pathetic liberals would have a lot more money to buy the poor food if you weren’t blowing it on booze and chocolate-covered strawberries for yourself….”
I personally prefer to have caviar and Cuban cigars whilst viewing my 120inch screen TV, don’t you NDT? And its liqueur filled strawberries and chocolate coverings, NDT. I wouldn’t eat ordinary chocolate covered strawberries; though I hear the gold flecked ones are pretty good. And as for your question, because I beat my partner(s) on Tuesdays…
Would you like some strawberries? They are particularly good right now…
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 4:14 pm - October 10, 2013
Oh, you mean they’re not? I thought the official left-liberal position is always that the GOP is unelectable.
But there is no question that a majority of the American electorate live in a world of illusion, which leaders in both parties have sadly aided and abetted, by pandering when they should have been telling Americans the hard truth.
That would be precisely why Romney lost to Obama, in 2012. Romney came closer to telling the hard truth than Obama did, but Romney didn’t tell it anywhere near enough, which allowed Obama’s pandering to work.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 4:32 pm - October 10, 2013
Oh don’t worry, Passing By; no one really expected you to condemn waste and fraud in government, much less when carried out by Obama supporters.
The entertaining part is that you and your fellow government addicts keep making it clear that you’re not capable of living up to the regulations you demand be imposed on private businesses, nor are you capable of managing even basic financial controls.
Why do you think Obama is such a failure at governing, Passing By? After all, a CEO who oversaw such waste and fraud would be prosecuted. Would you agree that Obama is not competent and should be prosecuted for waste and fraud as would a private-sector CEO?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - October 10, 2013
Unfortunaelty that’s part of the problem…the battle is between rival Bulls from inside-the-Beltway while the legitimate needs of Main Street and Maple Street-USA are trampled underfoot in the excitement. Their voices unheard over all the snorting and bellowing…
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 10, 2013 @ 4:47 pm - October 10, 2013
I believe both John McCain and Mitt Romney were foisted on us by the Establishment Republicans on the basis that they were ‘electable.’
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2013 @ 4:52 pm - October 10, 2013
I love how the deeply interested Progressive, socialist, statist entitlement takers have endless advice on how Republicans can get elected and reelected.
Passing By keeps hoping to find a slight crack in principle here so that it can declare total victory in the hypocrisy olympics.
I see that Passing By has reached the conclusion that: “it looks like the GOP is going to pull back from that brink, given that the Big O isn’t budging….”
From what “brink” is the GOP pulling back? The House can pass partial funding bills ad infinitum. The Senate can refuse to take them up ad infinitum. The “Big O” can continue to blame ad infinitum. It is a three-legged stool. Why must the House be the wobbly leg?
Understandably, Passing By has only one preferred outcome and so only the House is the problem. Passing By has no interest in defunding Obamacare. Even though the war in Vietnam ended precisely because the House defunded it. Strangely, when the Demonizgrats had Congress under Bush and then Obama, they didn’t have the cojones to defund Bush’s “illegal” wars. Strangely, it is necessary to close the national parks under the CR stalemate, but Obamacare is screaming down the tracks at full steam.
Ho Hum.
Passing By is just so much inert gas of unknown, if any, use.
Comment by heliotrope — October 10, 2013 @ 4:55 pm - October 10, 2013
I think we all now realize more easily how some people, voters, simply have opted out in recent elections.
I am not donating money anymore to the Republicans. Both candidates in 2012 spent I think $1B each. Yet Republicans lost. DC and the government in general is full of elitists. The ruling class. The Tea Party is standing atwart of that.
That actually reminds me of something from the old Soviet Union.
While moms and grandmoms were standing in a food line blocks long, shelves virtually empty in the super market. Waiting for the next truck to deliver half rotten cabbage. Along came the 5 black Zee limos speeding along the empty causeway heading to the Kremlin. The stark difference between the ruling class and the people. Not so different now between DC and fly over country here in the USA.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 10, 2013 @ 5:21 pm - October 10, 2013
Heliotrope, if every liberal who had ever said, “John McCain is the kind of Republican I could vote for,” had voted for him in 2008, he would have won in the greatest landslide in American History. But he didn’t, because liberals are a bunch of f–king liars.
Look at Scott Brown; another liberal Republican who supported all the things liberals say Republicans should support. He lost to a woman who f–king lied about being an Indian.
It’s really mistake for Republicans to try to appeal to a bunch of f–king liars, who are never going to f–king vote for them no matter what. They would be much better advised to reconnect to the middle and working classes.
Comment by V the K — October 10, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - October 10, 2013
Oh my goodness, NDT, even when I try to agree with you, you are still unhappy….
And HT,
“Come back, Passing By and tell us how to cut entitlements down to size. But, in doing so, be sure to show compelling evidence that Obamacare is NOT another socialist, statist, entitlement runaway train heading off the fiscal cliff.”
Just remember where I got this from: “The deficit is now about $700 billion per year, or roughly 23% of spending. Obama can avoid default by simply under-spending the budget that much. That percent less on federal salaries, Social Security, Medicare, defense, discretionary items and Obamacare all together.”
Why would I tell you what should be cut and how, when it is your side of the aisle that initially suggested this and says that this would be an acceptable solution, Heliotrope? You may not have noticed, but ILC believes this is doable. I am trying to get clarity about this position. Perhaps you mean entitlements in general, rather than in the context of his conversation about the current morass on funding and debt limits?
Also, when I read: “Strangely, when the Demonizgrats had Congress under Bush and then Obama, they didn’t have the cojones to defund Bush’s “illegal” wars.” Why strangely? Maybe they didn’t feel that it was appropriate to unilaterally threaten the shutdown of the government and the possibility of breaching the debt limit (bringing the world economy to its knees), if their demands were not met? I guess you show us exactly what you think here HT: “cojones”. Yeah–only REAL men have what it takes to do what Repubs are threatening to do right now!!!! Cool and groovy… but, it looks like they are walking away from the debt limit line–at least for the time being…
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 5:41 pm - October 10, 2013
I noticed. Then I reposted your comment. If you were in snide opposition to ILC, why did you refrain from being objective?
If you can show that ILC proposed cutting the payment on the national debt service by 23%, then you will have shown that ILC is an economics illiterate. What a coup for you. Bring it on.
Of course, it is impossible for you to consider cutting entitlements. No statist, socialist, victim cum taker can possibly promote that stance. Your math skills are limited to stamping your feet and insisting that two or more dependent variables can be maximized simultaneously.
Your Slithering By babble on previous “defunding” by Congress is duly noted without the least bit of surprise. You are as unpredictable as someone jumping out of a tenth story window and falling down instead of up.
Comment by heliotrope — October 10, 2013 @ 7:19 pm - October 10, 2013
I have been interested in the first week of rearrangement at Fox News in their prime time line-up and giving Shepard Smith a gimmick rich news studio.
What “bothers” me is how much of a presence Carl Rove has as a Fox News paid contributor. Rove is a professional Republican organizer and fund raiser. He is also a central figure in the Ted Cruz vs. Establishment Republicans internecine war. Rather than play that war out on television by pitting Rove against opposing view points, I would prefer an objective reporting of differences between the Rove and Cruz wings with illuminating comments by the players.
As one who intensely wants the fiscal sanity and constitutionalist crowd to win, I am highly skeptical of how Rove chooses the facts to gird his prognostications. He is a barnacle attached to the hull of the professional politician scow of country club Republicans. He is going nowhere new and will accept any destination so long as it ends at the Republican country club front door.
Comment by heliotrope — October 10, 2013 @ 7:54 pm - October 10, 2013
And here we see another problem: Passing By is such an economic illiterate that it believes defunding and default are the same thing.
It is perfectly possible to defund without defaulting. Indeed, it is basic math; if the government stopped spending so much, its debt would begin to shrink.
The Obama Party could have perfectly easily defunded the war in Iraq without ever once touching the debt ceiling. But Passing By, being a total imbecile, has linked the two in its mind, to the point that any cut in government spending equals defaulting on the national debt.
Of course, this is not surprising. The liar Barack Obama has been screaming the same for weeks. The liar Barack Obama Party has been screaming the same for weeks. The liar media has been screaming the same for weeks. Defund=default, and it is frankly a flat-out LIE.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2013 @ 7:56 pm - October 10, 2013
I think you know this already, but just For The Record…
I proposed cutting it 23% on everything *except* debt service. The true percentage (to allow debt service to remain uncut) would probably have to be a few points higher. There would probably be legal obstacles…that our oh-so civil, constructive Democrats would surely help to solve quickly, right? If Obama told them that America needed it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 7:57 pm - October 10, 2013
BTW: The 25% (or more) widespread cut is going to happen, in real terms. Sooner or later…by one means (honest budget reform) or another (dollar de-valuation, the government checks all having the same dollar amount as before, but now the dollar buys far less, in real terms).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 10, 2013 @ 8:23 pm - October 10, 2013
Hi HT,
“If you can show that ILC proposed cutting the payment on the national debt service by 23%, then you will have shown that ILC is an economics illiterate. What a coup for you. Bring it on.”
No actually, because ILC has been iintellectually honest with me about this. He made it clear that debt servicing wasn’t part of his thinking (something reiterated at #27), and something I accepted as his basic position as a place to start a conversation. It is you, Heliotrope, who jumps to a convenient conclusion (like NDT is ever want to do) so as to bring a cudgel to bear where none is needed. It makes you happy doing that sort of thing, though, so like NDT, continue on your way.
Comment by Passing By — October 10, 2013 @ 11:16 pm - October 10, 2013
Oh, quite the contrary.
Had the cudgel not been used, you would have, as you have done numerous times before, started down your path of malicious lies, hectoring, and obfuscation.
Since you were spanked and humiliated by having your own words and inability to ever criticize any form of government waste thrown at you, all you have left is to whine about how “unfairly” you were treated.
The actual poor from whom you steal your welfare and the people who are taxed to pay for it are the ones being treated unfairly.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 1:00 am - October 11, 2013
“Snakes! Snakes! Snakes on a MF plane!”
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 1:27 am - October 11, 2013
Yes. You are seeing double. NDT already handled this masterfully.
But just for squirts and grins, perhaps Slithering-By can cut through the melodrama and explain the process by which Republicans “unilaterally
threatensucceed (in) the shutdown of the government and” …….wait for it ……
the debt limit is breached and ……
wait for it …….
THE WORLD ECONOMY IS BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES.
[Shock and horror music. Heavy on the kettle drums. Bass fiddles saw away. Baritones wail.]
Please, Sithering-By, make the connection. Your demagogue apprenticeship lapel pin hangs in the balance.
Comment by heliotrope — October 11, 2013 @ 8:08 am - October 11, 2013
At one level, the debt limit debate is about whether Obama gets to borrow and print more fake money to pay the interest on the fake money he’s already borrowed and printed.
Comment by V the K — October 11, 2013 @ 8:19 am - October 11, 2013
Not at all. Not. At. All. Again, there is a history of Democrats forcing government shutdowns to get their way. A history with which you appear to be unfamiliar.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2013 @ 9:29 am - October 11, 2013
Actually, it was Dear Leader Barack Hussein Mugabe’s “unilateral” decision to shut down the Government. Republicans are willing to negotiate. Dear Leader is not.
Comment by V the K — October 11, 2013 @ 10:54 am - October 11, 2013
If the Republican Establishment would rather lose elections then give up their power, they deserve to lose elections AND their power.
Comment by V the K — October 11, 2013 @ 10:56 am - October 11, 2013
“here is a history of Democrats forcing government shutdowns to get their way.”
You are right. I didn’t know that, ILC. So, I went off to do a little research. And I found this. Short-lived shutdowns to be sure, but you are right. Thanks for letting me know. Perhaps Dems had grown up a little since 1981 and become more adult about such tactics, and thought better of it in 2007. One can hope.
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 11:04 am - October 11, 2013
Har-de-har-har-har.
Pelosi: We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Obama: I will not negotiate.
Harry Reid: Why would I save one dying kid with cancer when people at Nellis Air Force Base are out of work?
And 62,837 other such immature, spiteful, mean spirited, deranged statements of f**k you to opponents, common citizens and perceived bug-a-boos made in this administration alone.
Comment by heliotrope — October 11, 2013 @ 11:28 am - October 11, 2013
Obama: Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t mean we’re raising our debt.
Obama: Even though incoming tax revenue is 8-10 times what we need to avoid default, default is on the table, default default default. (GOP: No such talk.)
Obama: You didn’t build that.
That’s how grownups talk? NO.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2013 @ 1:04 pm - October 11, 2013
Oh, the Dems have shut down the government before?
Then they should know, especially Obama, that shutdown does not equal default — and yet they continue to scream that it does.
So you confirm that they are malicious liars.
Why do you think Obama maliciously lies and misleads the American people by claiming that shutdown = default, Passing By?
Do you think it “adult” of Obama to lie like that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 1:08 pm - October 11, 2013
Hi Heliotrope,
Your words are very revealing, Heliotrope, of what is wrong with the current GOP position on the debt ceiling and why it isn’t a winning strategy. It is incoherent.
On the one hand, you want us to believe the Big O is “scared” of what a united GOP with the Tea Party wagging it can do in this “crisis.” It could present the Big O with the real possibility of a Debt default if the Dems don’t give in on “Obamacare”! And Obama is “scared” of this, perhaps, as you say, because people are fed up with “Obamacare” and are willing to let the Repubs do what they need to do to get change. What better than to bring powerful leverage (That’s Armageddon!)to bear that will force the Big O to bend to its will (as representative of the will of the people).
On the other hand, your quote below suggests that you don’t think that the possibility of debt default is a big deal. Melodramatic and comical, would be a way to describe your dismissal of this possibility.
So which is it Heliotrope? Debt default is not that big a deal, and so there isn’t a crisis in reality because nothing (or very little) apparently will happen if we do default. Or, its a credible threat to cause havoc that the government must take seriously? What is it that you know about the debt default situation that the Big O doesn’t that make his prognostications (and those of others’ who echo him including Wall Street types and right wing think tanks) comical and melodramatic if it happens?
The GOP position currently relies on obfuscating what they intend to do if the Big O won’t talk to them and do as they say. Talk tough, then walk away from acknowledging that you would in fact do that action. They want it both ways–present a credible threat (to change the Big O’s mind) whilst saying that it c/would never happen (which would get them blame if it went down that way). That is an incoherent strategy; it’s one reason why they are currently kicking their butts kicked in polls AND why they are looking for an out. And one reason why you are frustrated with the current GOP leadership, Heliotrope.
What I think you want Heliotrope is clarity and focus of GOP purpose. You want GOP (aka Tea Party) politicians who would be willing to pay the price–and default, to show that they mean business, and accept the consequences, come hell or high water.
“But just for squirts and grins, perhaps Slithering-By can cut through the melodrama and explain the process by which Republicans “unilaterally threaten succeed (in) the shutdown of the government and” …….
wait for it ……
the debt limit is breached and ……
wait for it …….
THE WORLD ECONOMY IS BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES.
[Shock and horror music. Heavy on the kettle drums. Bass fiddles saw away. Baritones wail.]
Please, Sithering-By, make the connection. Your demagogue apprenticeship lapel pin hangs in the balance.”
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 2:59 pm - October 11, 2013
Haven’t done the research on McCain’s 08 run, but for Romney, he ended up with the nomination because there were too many Tea Party-ish candidates running in the early primaries. Up to the March primaries, that crop of Tea Party candidates had more votes between them than the more moderate Romney did. By the time the field started to clear, there was no way for anyone but Romney to seal the deal. He had the organization and the money, so, in the end, that’s where Republican voters went.
If there were only one or two Tea Party guys running instead of five, it might have been a different story concerning the nominee.
Comment by Sonicfrog — October 11, 2013 @ 3:02 pm - October 11, 2013
Romney was the least offensive choice in a very weak field of candidates who had spent months and months beating each other up (== handing the Democrats ammunition).
Comment by Ignatius — October 11, 2013 @ 3:40 pm - October 11, 2013
I always thought Romney was a poor choice because his candidacy rather took socialized medicine off the table as a campaign tool.
And in fact, I never did hear a single ad here in Indiana asking us to vote for Obama/the Democrat(s) because they brought us ObamaCare.
Yet now I’m hearing that the election was validation of the voters’ adoration of ObamaCare, a.k.a., elections have consequences. (That the voters elected Republicans to maintain control of the House, however, is NOT proving to be one of those elections that have consequences.)
Comment by Polly — October 11, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - October 11, 2013
Hi Passing By,
Your words are very revealing, Passing By, of what is wrong with the current Obama Party position on the debt ceiling and why it isn’t a winning strategy. It is incoherent.
For starters, Passing By, you shriek and scream that government shutdown and/or defunding equals automatic default. This has been shown to be incorrect, and thus you and Obama are lying when you say otherwise.
You project and scream and finger-point and try to blame Heliotrope because you cannot deal with reality. Your lies are collapsing around you, Passing By, as we saw when ILC humiliated and exposed your malicious lies by pointing out how many times your very own Obama Party had shut down the government when you denied it ever had.
You are showing what the Obama Party strategy is, which is to lie and scream and rant and demonize and bully people into doing as Obama demands.
And people are punching back and exposing it as lies. You are a liar, Passing By, as has been proven repeatedly in this thread, and you will say and do anything to destroy and attack anyone who criticizes the Barack Obama you worship.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 4:57 pm - October 11, 2013
Poor, confused Slithering-By can’t quite grasp the difference between borrowing to pay the bills, cutting spending to balance with income and debt default.
Although it has been explained above and in previous threads, here it goes again:
In 2008, the total national debt was $10 Trillion; $12 Trillion in 2009; $13.5 Trillion in 2010; nearly $15 Trillion in 2011 and $16+ Trillion in 2012.
The Deficit has to be “serviced” so long as it is above ZERO. If the interest on the debt paid to the holders of the debt is not paid in full when due, the country has defaulted on its obligation service the debt. That is “default.” Nothing else applies.
If the government does not pay employees or cuts services or stiffs “entitlements” that is NOT default. It is a damn good sign of portending bankruptcy, but it is not “default” in any formal economic sense.
The “revenue” to the Federal Government in 2013 is calculated to be $2.71 Trillion. The service on the debt for 2013 is a bit less than $240 BILLION. Or, servicing the debt is about 8.5% of revenues. Default is well beyond the horizon of any possible picture of the US financial situation. Furthermore, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution forbids defaulting on the debt.
Entitlements are promissory debt not yet incurred. Slithering-By likes to conflate “default” on servicing the national debt with “cutting” spending anywhere, such as not paying some welfare “entitlement.”
This is how demagogues shift the argument. Redefine the words to fit the narrative.
Sorry, but the needling about my being “confused” or muddled or even, perhaps, a tad senile don’t work in this case.
How could a strict Constitutionalist dream of defying the Constitution? I can’t and I can’t image a situation that would shift my principled stand on Constitutionalism.
Slithering-By is so far off target in understanding the Constitution and conservatism that it can not figure out how a principled person can be so damned principled.
Progressives are moral relativists, practitioners of situation ethics, and statists who believe the ends justify the means. From that perch, principles are shackles for the simple-minded.
I want the Republicans to return to the Constitution and demand that it be followed as the Supreme Law of the Land. The purse strings of the nation are in the hands of the House of Representatives, whether it is controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans. There are balancing processes built into the Constitution so that both houses have checks and balances upon one another.
Running the government on a Continuing Resolution is a process of working around the Constitution and subverting the Constitutional process. True patriots would not engage in such malfeasance.
So, the core difference between Heliotrope and Slithering-By is one of essential morality and honesty. lSithering-By is dedicated to fiddling the system, playing games, half-truths, stretching the rules, and moving the goalposts to avoid the inevitable.
Default now joins the long list of words which demagogues use to fuel their hypocrisy as a necessary escape hatch when they are about to be trapped by logic and truth.
Comment by heliotrope — October 11, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - October 11, 2013
heliotrope – Well done. (An occasional typo or word I’d replace, like line 4 which I think you meant to begin with “The Debt….” but it’s fine.)
Obama is confusing the language of debt vs. deficit vs. paying a bill vs. spending a budget vs. default vs. underspending/cutting a budget -*so* horribly, *so* wrongly-, that no intellectually honest person can escape the conclusion that Obama positively intends deceive and mislead America.
And his minions, of course, either want to help him or, at the very least, they just don’t know any better. And don’t want to know; don’t care to hear explanations.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2013 @ 6:33 pm - October 11, 2013
Does anyone know where one can find federal spend or outlay at a granular level? I mean, more granular than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_by_budget_function
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_by_agency
I have always been curious and hunted for it on and off but could never find it. If an inteligent person had access to it, they could show how to cut spending in an intelligent way while minimizing pain. At the very least, one could aim to cap growth in expense spend (ZOG in business parlance). And you could use some guiding principles to do it right — e.g., “people get back what they fairly put into it — like social security”.
It is the lack of transparency that makes this whole thing such a mess. And the fact that a large number of people are dependent on government for their jobs, and will have to potentially acquire new skills to survive (not unlike how people had to adapt when structural shifts occur in the economy — we are going through one right now with the knowledge economy).
Comment by Jane Austen — October 11, 2013 @ 7:26 pm - October 11, 2013
ILC,
I would welcome your editing of my remarks for accuracy and clarity. My eyes are undergoing “rejuvenation” for a problem related to distortions related to dryness. As a result, I am not very reliable at proof-reading. (For a life long reader and writer, I would rather have bunions.)
Only a few minutes ago I listened to Harry Reid talk about avoiding default, catastrophe and the collapse of the world economy.
Holy cow! Slithering-by channels Harry Reid -or- vice versa. Who knew?
What often makes me feel like I have been mucking a septic tank after going a few rounds with Slithering-By is that it is NOT a low information voter, so when it buys the demagogue garbage wholesale and then tries to peddle it here, I take it as an insult to the general Gay Patriot participants.
Many here have wisely taken the stance that crap doesn’t stink half as bad as it does when you stir it up. I just can’t learn. I know that if you wind these people up and let them fumble around the floor that they will continually walk into walls and fall on their faces. That further annoys me, because it is not very Christian of me to goad a person into showing its weaknesses. But arrogance and pomposity are all I need to let the devil in me take over control.
At least I am aware of my sin. I also know I don’t fight it very hard. Guess I will need a period in the time-out room before my final destination is assigned.
I appreciate the compliment.
Comment by heliotrope — October 11, 2013 @ 7:36 pm - October 11, 2013
JA, this may provide some detail if you ‘drill down’: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2013_0.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2013 @ 8:09 pm - October 11, 2013
“If the interest on the debt paid to the holders of the debt is not paid in full when due, the country has defaulted on its obligation service the debt. That is “default.” Nothing else applies.”
Exactly. That is the issue. That is what the GOP is threatening to do by witholding the government’s ability to borrow money–or should I say–was. It looks like they are going to cave on most everything. You can say–hey they can get the money from elsewhere. Sure–if the other party to this hostage drama is willing to wreck the economy in that way to accmmodate the hostage taker. And it is not. And might I point out, that if Congress intends to cut government spending to take care of this problem, it could do so by the simple expedient of crafting a budget bill that will pass both Houses of Congress and pass the President’s veto. Because, golly gosh–that is in the Constitution!
I would point out AGAIN that Heliotrope holds two contradictory positions concerning his approach to the debt limit crisis, and the possibility of debt default. In response, he waxes indignant, and gives the thread a diatribe about deficit spending, and that is an answer? I am sorry, whether ILC gives him the house-keeping seal of approval or not on his understanding of the difference between debt default and deficit spending, that is weasling out on arguments Heliotrope has previously mounted. To really make this point clear, one cannot reconcile Heliotrope’s earlier flippant “comical and melodramatic” take on the debt crisis with his impassioned defence of the House’s ability to use this very real threat to get what he thinks is a better outcome for the country (no ACA). IT IS THE SAME CONTRADICTION.
And even if Heliotrope wants to take himself to the “time-out room” for being mean (I guess? And his behaviour now is different from any other exchange we have had, how exactly?) I would only point out here that this unwillingness to see the contradictions in what is a pretty standard Repub (Tea Party) position, is one reason why the GOP is losing the public on this issue right now.
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 9:46 pm - October 11, 2013
Exactly wrong.
The government does not have to borrow one red cent to pay 8.5% of its general revenues in order to service the national debt before borrowing additional money to cover the shortfall for all its other obligations, real and imagined.
I take it back. Slithering-By is not bright after all. It is just another crackpot, low information cretan.
What Slithering-By is tacitly putting forth is the following: “Hello, landlord, I can’t pay the rent because I spent all my money on other things which I chose to put ahead of the rent.”
Unfortunately, Slithering-By is so ignorant of Constitutional command, that it can not compute how being mandated to pay the service on the national debt has any bearing on things. It must be a welfare queen free-will sort of thing.
I believe that it is possible to suck on the government teat with such vigor and intensity that its brains are vacuumed out in the process.
In prior times, it was possible for me to flunk this type of recalcitrant idiocy out the door. Now, it is like bronchitis that keeps coming back.
Comment by heliotrope — October 11, 2013 @ 10:53 pm - October 11, 2013
As for this: Me: “”What I think you want Heliotrope is clarity and focus of GOP purpose. You want GOP (aka Tea Party) politicians who would be willing to pay the price–and default, to show that they mean business, and accept the consequences, come hell or high water.”
Heliotrope: “How could a strict Constitutionalist dream of defying the Constitution? I can’t and I can’t image a situation that would shift my principled stand on Constitutionalism.”
What does that claim have to do with what I was saying. Its a weird thing, that Heliotrope is doing here. I argue that Heliotrope would prefer steely-eyed, strong jawed Tea Party politicians to make it clear that the GOP was not joking, and that it would follow through on its threats (unlike the namby pamby GOP members they have in the majority at the moment), and Heliotrope’s reply is to tell us that he is a staunch Constitutionalist. For goodness sakes, how does one claim lead to the other? This looks like a non-sequiter. If we want to have a discussion about whether the House’s action and the Senate’s and President’s replies are constitutional, OK, have that discussion. But this is purposefully(?) leading us away from the claims I have raised.
In any case, Heliotrope has made clear (on more than one occasion by the way) that he thinks that what the GOP is doing is constitutional, and that the onus for breaching (?) the Constitution would lie with the Big O for not acceding to the GOP’s demands. He is entitled to make that argument. So, why he is up in arms about my comment about what I speculate he actually wants in the GOP. Please note–Heliotrope did not actually say it was wrong as speculation, so, it is still on the table. Nice piece of misdirection to avoid answering that question directly, Heliotrope.
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 11:08 pm - October 11, 2013
Heliotrope apparently wants the government to pay for the debt payments using the formula that ILC suggests. OK, as I answered Heliotrope before–if the House wants to cut government spending, it can get off its lazy butt and pass a spending bill that passes the Senate and is veto proof. Further, Heliotropeis completely unclear as to why the Senate’s refusal to pass the Reps spending bill (or the President’s unwillingness to play ball) means that it (or the President) is responsible for a debt default, whilst the ones who set this mess in motion by not raising the debt limit, somehow are held blameless. Heliotrope asserts this, but provides no argument for this claim. After all, even if the House originates revenue bills, it is the Senate’s job “to propose or concur with Amendments, as on other bills.” So, why exactly is it the Senate’s fault, if a default occurs because the lower House refuses to budge on its demands and a bill to authorize raising the debt limit is not passed by the Congress as a whole?
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 11:32 pm - October 11, 2013
Thje malicious imbecile Passing By does not realize just how much it has stepped in it.
The malicious imbecile Passing By admits that the government is so addicted to borrowing money that it cannot possibly ever pay its bills with the revenue it accrues.
Which shows that all of the “investments” that the screaming Passing By has demanded the government make are FAILURES.
That’s right, Passing By. “Investments” MAKE money. You admit that your investments, your government spending, do NOT make money — and that, unless you borrow more and more and more, you cannot pay the bills.
If your Keynesian “stimulus” theories were working, the government would not need to borrow more money because the “stimulus” would have increased revenue above and beyond the amount borrowed at this point by increasing “aggregate demand”. Your screaming insistence that the government must borrow even more money proves that your “stimulus” has NOT increased revenue, has NOT increased “aggregate demand”, and instead is wasting and misallocating money.
You have failed, Passing By. Your screaming insistence that the government cannot function without borrowing money constantly and at an increasing rate utterly destroys your Keynesian fictions about “stimulus”. Your own attempt to trap Heliotrope by claiming that reducing spending and borrowing will crash the US economy proves that your own economic theories are utter failures.
You lose, brat. You are a failure. You have admitted that your “stimulus” is a lie, that all your theories are lies, and that your Obamanomics are utter bunk.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - October 11, 2013
Passing By is clearly at a loss for facts and is desperate to spin and project and shift blame away from the economic failures of its Barack Obama, as well as the numerous times in this thread alone that Passing By has been humiliated by far-more intelligent commenters using facts to counter its malicious lies.
So it attempts to blame Heliotrope and ILC for its failures.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 11:44 pm - October 11, 2013
In any case, Heliotrope has made clear (on more than one occasion by the way) that he thinks that what the GOP is doing is constitutional, and that the onus for breaching (?) the Constitution would lie with the Big O for not acceding to the GOP’s demands.
Comment by Passing By — October 11, 2013 @ 11:08 pm – October 11, 2013
Unfortunately, the uninformed racist Passing By has the delusion that choosing to defund a government program is unconstitutional simply because Barack Obama, who has black skin, told Passing By that it was.
Passing By also has racist beliefs that cause it to believe the lies told it by Barack Obama, who is always right because he has black skin, according to Passing By, that government shutdown = default, even though the Passing By has clearly been shown that its Obama Party shut down the government on numerous occasions to demand that the President give in to the Obama Party’s demands.
At this point, it is safe to say that Passing By is not an intelligent or rational person and instead is a blind and bigoted racist who is making its decisions based solely on Barack Obama having black skin.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2013 @ 11:48 pm - October 11, 2013
You know that things have really gone off the rails when NDT feels the need to try (and the emphasis here is on the word, “try”) to defend (in NDT’s unique, classic, and much appreciated style) recently advanced contradictory and asserted claims.
Comment by Passing By — October 12, 2013 @ 12:39 am - October 12, 2013
And the malicious liar Passing By, having been humiliated again, screams and cries and rants and tries to blame others for its lack of facts, its blatant dishonesty, and its racist hatred and bigotry.
Perhaps if you were not such a racist, Passing By, you would not have taken Barack Obama’s claims at face value and made a fool of yourself by insisting that the Obama Party has never shut down the government, that government shutdown equals default, that stopping waste and welfare fraud would collapse the economy, and that your Keynesian “stimulus” and “investments” generate nothing but debt that you cannot pay.
But you are a racist, and thus you make such stupid claims because Barack Obama tells you to do it. Not to mention the fact that Barack Obama plays on your laziness, your sloth, your jealousy and spite towards those who earn and succeed, and your petty little power fantasies of living in luxury and comfort off the taxes of others.
As you have admitted, Passing By, you would starve to death without welfare, because you are both indolent and incompetent and would never work for a living — provided you even had skills to get a job in the first place, which you do not. Just like your childish Obama, you are an utter failure in any arena in which success requires performance versus demagoguing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2013 @ 1:22 am - October 12, 2013
It warms my heart to see a gay site engrossed in government policy rather then in the agenda of political party.
Comment by mike — October 12, 2013 @ 5:22 am - October 12, 2013
Wrong. The GOP IS NOT threatening to do that. You can’t point to one single statement where the GOP has threatened a default.
OBAMA, on the other hand, threatens to do it every time he invokes the word “default”. You see, tax revenue alone is many times what is needed to pay the interest on the debt. That means a default is totally unnecessary, totally optional, no matter what happens on the borrowing side. Which means, in turn, that for Obama even to mention default as a possibility is his way of threatening people with it.
And indeed they can – it’s called, current tax revenue.
Total nonsense, impossible to parse in any intellectually honest way.
Indeed. But, THE DEMOCRATS won’t do it. And so THE DEMOCRATS force a (partial – only 17%) government shutdown, as they refuse to pass any of the many spending bills that the House has, in fact, passed to keep the government open.
Nope. He doesn’t.
No. When you consider that this “crisis” is totally unnecessary and manufactured by the Democrats who refuse to follow the Constitution on budgetary matters, heliotrope’s approach (combining well-deserved ridicule with appeals to the Constitution) is logical.
I will leave aside the rest of your argument with heliotrope, but let’s not lie about facts, OK? The facts are:
1. Raising the debt ceiling means raising our debt.
2. Nothing compels the U.S. to default, not even if the debt ceiling is never raised again. The only reason we’d default is if we CHOOSE to skip our minimum debt payments, rather than cut our profligate spending to achieve a sustainable budget.
3. Future spending promises are NOT “bills to be paid”. They are only future spending promises; and possibly crazy ones – possibly destructive or immoral promises that should not have been made.
4. There is every reason to under-spend the federal budget; especially since *the Democrats have refused for years to even pass a budget*, proving that they are not rational about spending and will never voluntarily agree with the Republicans / Tea Party on budget reduction and rational budget control.
Any argument which cannot begin with these facts, or take them into account, is somewhere in the territory between “dishonest” and “insane”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 7:18 am - October 12, 2013
[Sockpuppet comment not really from PB; deleted; more explanation below. --Jeff]
Comment by Passing By/Cas — October 12, 2013 @ 7:52 am - October 12, 2013
PB: I wouldn’t know your biography and I haven’t said any of that.
Which of the following (mostly facts; some conclusions/opinions) can be rationally contradicted?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 8:05 am - October 12, 2013
And so it goes.
Comment by heliotrope — October 12, 2013 @ 9:19 am - October 12, 2013
It no longer matters what the enemies of this once great constitutional nation do or say. They now enjoy “carte blanche” on their journey to make this country in their own image. The common citizen has no choice but to watch from the sideline as the civil war in the republican party has major donors like me running for the exits hoping we do so for the last time. All that will be left in the end is the new ruling class, the crony capitalists and the press/media telling us, everything is okay.
Comment by Richard Bell — October 12, 2013 @ 12:10 pm - October 12, 2013
Precisely.
That is why you are not entitled to any of the goods, services, and resources that ILC, Heliotrope, V the K or I produce.
That is why grifter and racist Barack Obama and his Barack Obama Party saying that you are entitled to such things is rewarding destructive behavior and eroding the foundations of a successful, productive, and civil society.
And that is why encapsulating such notions of entitlement into law is subversion of the Constitution and criminal.
If ILC, Heliotrope, and V the K decide to then give you money they have earned, freely and without coercion, that is charity and their choice.
Put bluntly, your statement is the most foul, disgusting, and exploitative thing one can make — a demand that other people inconvenience themselves, give up their precious time and resources so that you can live a lifestyle you neither produce or earn, and then demonizing them as selfish if they refuse.
Christ calls for us to be merciful to those who confess their wrongs and repent from their evil ways. In contrast, liberals like you and Barack Obama demand confessions and repentance from those from who you are demanding mercy.
No more. As the parables of the talents and the unfaithful servants show, mercy is not a requirement for those who willfully abuse the kindness of others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2013 @ 1:05 pm - October 12, 2013
Well put!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 1:23 pm - October 12, 2013
“PB: I wouldn’t know your biography and I haven’t said any of that.”
I know ILC. That is a first for me to see. And a sign of some desperation and fear. I thank the individual for the compliment, unintended as it was to offer it.
To all commentators here: Maybe this is a common practice, and I missed the other examples, but if this is new, I ask only: is this a precedent this site wants to support? It might be something worth its own thread to discuss as a community of commentators. Or worth a top down decision from a moderator. Satire is all in good fun, but hijacking a name is a bit problematic, as it has the potential to interfere with free exchange of rational arguments/ideas. What do you think ILC? I mean, someone could post as Jman1961a or North Dallas Thirty-One for example, and say nice things about progressives. People would be running to the windows to make certain that the end of the world hadn’t begun, whilst denizens in hell would be building snow figures out of all the snowballs lying around that had fallen from the heavens throughout the upper nine circles…
I have some domestic duties to attend to, but I will be back to answer your question ILC. In the mean time, if you have time, I would like to know something about your argument. Since the executive enforces the law of the land, and that includes the “spending promises” that the legislative branch embedded into the laws it passed, and that the executive branch is constitutionally obligated to execute and enforce the laws, why is it that it has to prioritize debt servicing over, say, social security payments, and the like. They are all laws that need to executed. Are you using a 14th Amendment argument here? Or does your reasoning go in a different direction?
Comment by Passing By — October 12, 2013 @ 1:29 pm - October 12, 2013
No, a**hole, it’s a sign of mockery, scorn and ridicule, all of which are, quite frankly, more than a sick parasite like you deserves.
Telling others how to run their show again. You can’t help yourself, can you?
Except for any instance where YOU are its target.
That’s the ONLY problem you have with it.
And those minor name modifications alone would be a giveaway, along with your hypothetical re: praising progressives.
What has you shaken is the writer captured your tone and your very essence PERFECTLY.
Like bathing for the first time in 4 days?
Or is it going to be spit shining your EBT card before you head to the corner store for the weekend Twinkie, Cheetos, and Mountain Dew purchase?
Edited for honesty and accuracy.
Answer ILC’s questions FIRST, you [...Comment edited. Come on, jman - right in front of me? You really want to provoke me to spend my time, like this? Really? --Jeff]
Comment by Jman1961 — October 12, 2013 @ 1:52 pm - October 12, 2013
Only if you acknowledge that conservatives are better and more moral people than liberals like Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party who maliciously lie and claim their political opponents are murderers and tax cheats.
When you acknowledge the superiority and greater capability for moral behavior of conservatives, then you may demand that conservatives meet higher standards and chastise us for not doing so.
Until then, any screaming and whining about “incivility” or whatnot from you is pure hypocrisy and done out of malice to exploit others’ sense of good will and fair play that you utterly lack, and thus deserves no mercy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - October 12, 2013
No, it isn’t. I have since deleted the comment.
I apologize for having let it through the spamfilter. Simple fact is, I was fooled by the comment (not understanding who really wrote it) for these reasons:
1) A moderator’s time is limited; this morning, I used too much haste (not really thinking about what I was skimming in the spamfilter).
2) I believe I’ve seen comments from you (PB) before, where you sarcastically exaggerated people’s criticism of you. (Unless those were also fakes?) So, on a hasty skim, I assumed it was you, doing that. (Hence, the intro line of my #63.)
Using a handle deliberately similar to another’s is a fine line; probably a bad idea, most of the time. The occasional joke is OK, provided that (1) it is very occasional and (2) it is very clearly a joke.
In this case, you could argue that the commentor who did it meant the joke to be obvious, and I’m the one who is stupid or wrong, for not getting it until now. That’s fair
So, I’m not going to take any action…this time…and except that I have, again, deleted the offending comment.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 5:37 pm - October 12, 2013
Back on topic:
Really? Have you told Obama? We can give you any number of examples where he has explicitly announced his intent to not enforce law X or to unilaterally enforce something different than what law Y says.
…and which, being the legislative branch, they can change any time Obama asks them to.
See, PB, you want me to join you and Obama in pretending that all spending which Congress has passed, no matter how crazy, is somehow inviolate and sacred. But I can’t pretend that; it is, quite simply, a lie.
Simple: To avoid a default.
I’m not sure what the law is here, exactly. I just know that I’ve seen various arguments from right AND LEFT, at various times, that because of the 14th amendment or traditional practice or some other laws Congress has passed at other times, of course debt service can and must be prioritized.
Obama, by talking about default, announces his (or the Democrats’) positive plan/intent to default…if not now, then whenever the real budget crisis hits in the future. When the real budget crisis hits, they’ll be putting debt service last. They have, in effect (and perhaps without meaning to), put the world on notice.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 6:11 pm - October 12, 2013
Hi ILC,
Thank you for your action in moderating the thread. I also really enjoyed Jman1961′s subsequently truncated post. Again thank you.
I have a better sense of where you are coming from. I spent some time on a reply without realizing that you posted in the meantime. If it was OK, I’d like to post it, realizing that some of the points you made will not mesh with what I said. We can hash out where we agree and disagree after that.
First off, I find the facts you offer a bit problematic, because it is not obvious to me that you offer them within the context of the constitutional roles of the three branches and the way they interact. So, what do I mean.
First off, according to the Constitution, Congress is responsible for paying the debt. Since Congress is the most powerful branch (as the Founding Ancestors envisaged it), it is up to Congress to pay the debt or direct the President to do so. Congress has control of this through the debt limit ceiling. Congress also directs the ways in which the monies it has appropriated for the bills it passes are actually used by the executive branch to implement the laws that it passes (it can allow the President discretion in this). So, has the Congress given the President primary discretion in how to pay the debt (e.g., taking monies from other Fed programs to pay for it)? Or can it ever actually delegate that authority to the President? What do you think? Because, when I look at this within the Constitutional framework, I don’t see this as simply as you do. At the very least, I would expect Congress to issue explicit instructions on how this issue is to be handled. So, if those instructions include cutting spending to other areas in order to take care of this issue, the Executive better do just that. So, has the Congress passed such a law to allow the President to have this power or will it? So, your approach is expedient (and would avoid the debt default, I think, though at great cost to the country), but I have no reason to believe that the President has the authority to do it (e.g., does it conflict with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 for example). And if he doesn’t have the power, then Congress has to give it to him. So, just how likely is that possibility given that it’s a Repub dominated House of Reps and the President is the Big O?
And this is a problem, ILC. Congress is made up of TWO houses, not just one. One can assert till one is blue in the face that what the House of Reps wants, it gets constitutionally, but as I pointed out earlier, the Senate has the power to amend or concur on those revenue bills. So, it is completely unclear to me why someone can argue on that basis that everyone must do as the House of Reps demands. It might also help explain why budgets are rare creatures these days. If Senate and Representatives can’t agree, well, where is the budget. That power lies with Congress, no matter what the Big O proposes.
What we have here is something that should disturb you and all resident constitutional scholars, in my opinion. So, are you OK with setting a precedent that says the House of Repubs can impose its will on the country (by threatening the debt default), overturn the settled constitutionally upheld law of the land (I am talking about the ACA here), and get rid of it, without the Senate or the Presidency offering anything else but token resistance and without control of at least Congress (because of the very real threat of debt default)? Because, if you are, how different would this be to just having a parliamentary system, with a Prime Minister chosen by the House of Reps, and a rump senate that is a rubber stamp for what it proposes to do? It might help explain why Senate Repubs are not following the House of Reps lead on this, but are offering their own approach, leaving the House of Reps somewhat sidelined at the moment. In my mind, the current situation, as “constitutional” as it is, aims to subvert the underlying principles of that Constitution—namely, the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. I am sure that the writers of the Federalist Papers would be a little surprised by that outcome.
Please note that even though you suggest that GOP folks have not made the threat of debt default explicit, we are arguing as if that threat is very real. You want to argue that this is a function, apparently solely, of Dem intransigence. And though I would be happy to say that Dems would bear part of the burden of responsibility for such a catastrophe, the Repub House would be as equally culpable in bringing on that disaster, especially as it could not have happened without their opening demands and willingness to embrace the ppossibility of not lifting the debt ceiling.
Comment by Passing By — October 12, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - October 12, 2013
Sithering-By @ #41:
Am I being told I am incoherent?
However, the important point is that Passing Cas/Serenity Slithering By says the GOP position on the DEBT CEILING and why ……. Wait a minute…. How does one manage to combine the default on servicing the national debt with the debt ceiling?
This is the important shifting and obfuscation tactic which Obamaslaves are using to confuse the weak-minded and drooling classes of ignoramuses and worshipers. It is imperative to conflate blocking borrowing with paying primary obligations in order to make the demagoguery work. The proof is in the pudding. Will the MSM clown chorus echo it without restraint and will the typical ideologue bozo run with it as primary truth? If so, it is first class doublespeak and propaganda.
So, the dutiful Passing Gas comes here expecting the Gay Idiot Patriots to be stumped by its brilliance.
However, as this thread has unfolded, it has become increasingly clear that Casting Bile is totally confused and unable to understand the basic blueprint.
Then, out of the blue, a satirist provided an ego stripped version of what could pass for a Slithering-By epiphany. The “error” embedded in this satire was failing to alter the moniker in such a manner as to reveal the spoof. This catharsis by proxy, however, was stunningly well aimed.
So, the “victim” has returned to cry “foul” and appeal for moderation and “justice.” Here, I agree with Passing Gas and support the cause that no one’s moniker should be hijacked.
Several years ago, Serenity decided I should be HT. I asked how I came to be so addressed and I was told that time and patience were so valuable in the Slithering By realm that my truncated handle was a necessary abbreviation which afforded a more reasoned response as a result of the initial efficiency.
From that lame pomposity, I arrived at the conclusion that playing with monikers was fashionable among the elite and I have never missed an opportunity to return the favor.
So, now Senility’s moniker has been misappropriated . We should not do that and I doubt it will happen again. However, I see no particular problem with a Poet Laureate treating us to an amusing satire signed with a play on the peacock’s (or is it peahen or hatchling?) latest nom de fume.
Comment by heliotrope — October 12, 2013 @ 8:29 pm - October 12, 2013
Dithering By @ #73:
Stop • right • there.
Congress has no choice in paying the service on the national debt. It is ordered in Article I, Section 9, clause 4.
The debt ceiling is immaterial until the amount to service the national debt exceeds the debt ceiling. The current amount to service the national debt is a bit less than $240 BILLION for 2013. The Congress has revenues in 2013 of $2.71 TRILLION dollars from which to pay the $240 BILLION.
The debt ceiling “needs” to be raised to pay for all the other trinkets above and beyond the $240 BILLION that must be spent FIRST on servicing the national debt. (This $2.71 TRILLION is before all the borrowing up to and beyond the debt ceiling.)
What part of this formula confuses you, Dithering By?
You seem congenitally unable to grasp this fundamental concept.
Comment by heliotrope — October 12, 2013 @ 8:43 pm - October 12, 2013
That is because you have never read the Federalist Papers.
What you instead read are the Obamunist Papers, in which Barack Obama and the Obama Party must get their way in everything because Barack Obama has black skin, there are no restraints on Barack Obama’s power, and anyone who criticizes Barack Obama or votes against Barack Obama should be punished and harassed by the Federal government.
The hilarity in your blathering, Passing By, comes from the assertion by liberals and yourself that Obama can ignore any law he wants and do exactly as he pleases. You and yours have screamed that Congress has no power to bind Obama in law, so your statement that Obama cannot prioritize payments demonstrates only your own mendacity and hypocrisy.
Either state that it would be unconstitutional for Barack Obama to fail, refuse, or otherwise change the enforcement of a law in opposition to what Congress has dictated — in which case, Barack Obama should be impeached for having done so REPEATEDLY — or that default will be due solely to Barack Obama’s choice to stop paying our debt.
The spoiled and screaming racist grifter brat Barack Obama has asserted that Congress has no power. Let him demonstrate it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2013 @ 8:48 pm - October 12, 2013
I am the satirist of whom you speak.
Thank you for the kind remarks, heliotrope.
Well, without intending to offend, I’m surprised that anyone familiar with the comment history of the vile creature that I lampooned could have possibly thought that it was posted by said creature.
In my interpretation, I didn’t ‘hijack’ anything; the vile creature now posts as PB, after it sullied it’s own brand and abandoned the Cas moniker. I merely combined the two, delineated by a backslash ‘/’ (or is that the forward variety?), and thought that alone would be a giveaway.
I thought wrong.
I’m terribly sorry…
Well, as the original was deleted, I could repost, as myself, after a few small edits for, shall we say, ‘blue’ verbiage.
Or I could work up another one while trying diligently to remain just this side of the ‘foul’ line.
Time will tell…
Comment by Jman1961 — October 12, 2013 @ 8:58 pm - October 12, 2013
I swear on the soul of one of my many childhood pets, the indefatigable guinea pig, Samson, that I won’t ever do it again.
Cross my heart and hope to die…I promise…really, I do!
Comment by Jman1961 — October 12, 2013 @ 9:04 pm - October 12, 2013
Jman,
Your work was immediately evident to me, but, then, our minds warp similarly. You will note that I wrote: “error” ….. I would gladly waive the call on it as being possible. However, just for sanitary housekeeping reasons, I believe you might have done a Pressing On moniker or such to avoid confusion by the reader who was less engaged or just skimming over the comment.
Just a thought.
Comment by heliotrope — October 12, 2013 @ 9:08 pm - October 12, 2013
No, I’ll accept the call, ref.
“Misappropriation of posting moniker…JMan1961…5 yard penalty…repeat 1st down.”
Comment by Jman1961 — October 12, 2013 @ 9:16 pm - October 12, 2013
Business Insider:
Do you suppose that the media has the capacity to understand this?
Or ….
Does the media believe that you should never let good demagoguery be upended by facts and the truth?
Comment by heliotrope — October 12, 2013 @ 9:16 pm - October 12, 2013
I still say I’m to blame; I failed to detect the satire.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 12, 2013 @ 9:18 pm - October 12, 2013
“Minor penalty on GayPatriot mod ILC…2 minutes for ‘Failure to detect satire’…Time of penalty: 7:52 am on October 12.”
Comment by Jman1961 — October 12, 2013 @ 9:23 pm - October 12, 2013
Hi Heliotrope,
“Am I being told I am incoherent?
However, the important point is that Passing Cas/Serenity Slithering By says the GOP position on the DEBT CEILING and why ……. Wait a minute…. How does one manage to combine the default on servicing the national debt with the debt ceiling?”
No, you are not incoherent (as far as I can tell; are you?), your argument is incoherent. As for the distinction you are having difficulty with–the debt ceiling says how much money the gov’t can borrow (which Congress sets). Next week, we get to the point were the government no longer has its borrowing authority, and will have to pay out of cash in hand. That won’t last long, and then we get to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes, Heliotrope.
Also, when you say: “Congress has no choice in paying the service on the national debt. It is ordered in Article I, Section 9, clause 4.” Do you mean Article 1, Section 8? I quote (it is right up the top of the section, by the way): “The Congress shall have Power … to pay the Debts.” Otherwise, I agree with you. So what are we arguing about there?
Also, since the debt limit is set by Congress, and it has the ability to change it, what is the point of the argument you are raising? That the government can spend money–sure; but it is also spending money on other programs that Congress has provided revenues for in the bills that passed as laws, Heliotrope. So, I am unsure why you didn’t pick up on that from my reply to ILC. The problem is that Congress (well the House of Reps) doesn’t want to raise that debt limit. So, a case (strong, I think) can be made that it is abrogating its responsibility to pay the debt, by taking this action.
And NDT, I want to commend you on digging into the Federalist Papers. Rathger than just insult, you insult and made a rational argument. I can at least address the argument. Just remember that The Senate can Amend or Concur on Revenue Bills, OK? The link you used is titled: “James Madison Anticipates the Possibility of Government Shutdown–and Predicts that the House of Representatives Can and Should Prevail.” We agree there. After all, I did say that the Founding Ancestors felt that the Congress was the most powerful Branch (and more specifically, the Reps as the passage you cited shows). But no where in this passage does it say that the House of Reps should exercise its “power of the purse” to hold the nation hostage over the possibility of a debt default. Withold supply, sure. But withold debt payments? No way. If we face default, maybe we can restructure our debt, as we did back in the day with Alexander Hamiliton. Than we can really be like Greece!
Comment by Passing By — October 13, 2013 @ 2:18 am - October 13, 2013
Jman1961 says:
“I thought wrong.
I’m terribly sorry…”
No worries. I figured it was likely you, given the style of writing, but I didn’t want to assume too much. True, you didn’t seem to like satire much when it came back your way when I suggested snowballs in hell based on Jman1961a sudden love of liberals! But the post from you in return was a truncated classic. It was really funny. As for Passing On. Well, it is no better or worse than all the other variants that have been used around here.
Comment by Passing By — October 13, 2013 @ 2:41 am - October 13, 2013
And Heliotrope,
“From that lame pomposity, I arrived at the conclusion that playing with monikers was fashionable among the elite and I have never missed an opportunity to return the favor.”
I offer a deal: I refer to you as “Heliotrope” in my posts and you refer to me as “Passing By” or “PB” in your posts.
Comment by Passing By — October 13, 2013 @ 2:54 am - October 13, 2013
Oh, bother.
Funding is critical to the continued life of any program or the existence of a program. The Demonizing rats defunded the war in Vietnam. The Demonizingrats have reduced NASA to a Muslim outreach program.
So goes the process of Mr. Yin meeting Mr. Yang. The political side getting the run pulled out can usually be counted on to announce pending disaster, skies falling and the end of the earth.
It is up to you to separate the drama from the facts.
Nice try at circular argument, but your cigar exploded many comments earlier on this trot around the blather.
Comment by heliotrope — October 13, 2013 @ 6:46 am - October 13, 2013
Bullshite.
Your every post at this blog contains assumptions, and they’re virtually always wrong.
False!
I didn’t ‘like it’ because it undercut the reason for your pissing and moaning re: the harmful effects of ‘hijacking’ another person’s name. And I made that point clearly at #69.
What YOU wrote was not satire.
It was (as it almost always is) flat tire.
Sure.
I’ll bet you were doubled over and couldn’t draw a breath between guffaws.
What it is…is right on target, and gets at the heart of who you are and the dreck that is your daily existence, just like the (now memory-holed) post #62 did.
Since you’re the personification of a ‘target rich environment’, there’s plenty more where those came from.
Comment by Jman1961 — October 13, 2013 @ 8:39 am - October 13, 2013
If I am to understand this correctly, by Constitutional law the debt is to be paid first before all else. The taxes collected from the citizens is more than enough to pay for the debt. So, the only way the debt could be defaulted is by executive order. And that would make it Odrama’s fault.
Comment by Juan — October 13, 2013 @ 10:19 am - October 13, 2013
Actually, blathering liar Passing By, you shrieked that the Federalist Papers said the Hous exercising the power of the purse was unconstitutional.
The quote proves you to be a malicious and malignant liar.
Just as you were shown to be the same above with your claim that defund = default — another lie.
Furthermore, since you scream that refusing to raise the debt ceiling and voting against = threatening to default and economic terrorism, you and your fellow Ibama supporters are economic terrorists who threatened to drive the country into default and destroy the economy multiple times.
Facts destroy your malicious lies, Passing By. Facts prove that you are a malignant bigot and hypocrite incapable of rational or principled discourse. You are merely repeating the talking points of the malicious liar and racist bigot Barack Obama, who appeals to your selfish and immature brats like yourself, demonstrating once again your lack of intelligence, knowledge, or research capabilities.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2013 @ 12:36 pm - October 13, 2013
In all candor, I am sickened by this constant, steadfast refusal to accept simple definitions by a neopseudointellectal interloper who will not deal with definitional language and insists on morphing and warping concepts to feed its own argot.
I have just read a speech by the head of the IMF who “warns” the United States not to be fiscally prudent for its own sake when the profligate world of state socialism is dependent upon the quantitativive easing of the U.S. dollar in order to help the overextended socialist utopias postpone judgement day.
OK. She didn’t say that explicitly, but any fool can read between the lines.
If the U.S. insists on maintaining the strength of the dollar, the critically unstable Euro goes into extreme tremors and, perhaps, collapse. Therefore, the U.S. should continue to devalue its economy in order to help underpin the European economy which is circling the drain.
At what point does the U.S. step back from the IMF and cry “every socialist nation for itself”?
Meanwhile, China is insisting that the era of “Americanization” is over. Really? It is now time for the first world to take its lead from ……. who?
When a great power is stumbling and in jeopardy of collapse, you can count on the underdogs to line up to assure a front seat to pick the bones.
Suppose that the U.S. were to abandon NATO and let the European Countries start to bear the cost of a wide variety on national defense systems. What if, say, Germany had to dedicate 20% of its budget to defense? What the heck would happen in Greece under the same budget constraints? Or Spain? Or Italy? Or France? Or Portugal? Or Belgium? etc.
These are interesting times. We have subjects of English state socialism prodding us on how to join the fun and games in the shallow end of the pool where risk is minimized by everyone having three lifeguards keeping them afloat. Meanwhile, we are expected to to keep the game they play safe from reality.
Comment by heliotrope — October 13, 2013 @ 10:16 pm - October 13, 2013
When Passing By reverently invokes “the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances” he makes an Orwellian lie. What Passing By really wants is for the Left to have all power, and its opponents to have no power, no rights. Just another Stalinist pig.
Comment by pst314 — October 14, 2013 @ 1:04 pm - October 14, 2013
Japan, varoius European nations, and the US are on the same perilous path of fiscal profligacy. I read another analysis recently by someone I respect — it gives us two decades before China emerges as the financial capital of the world.
Hate to say this, but if Japan goes down first, it may at least give our leaders a glimpse of things to come if we don’t change our spending habits — and that could be the incentive for change. But then again, when I read comments by PB, mike, and others like them, I don’t hold out much hope. Perhaps we as a nation have to swing way over to the left before we learn. As they say, in markets and elsewhere, majority has to be wrong before the tide turns.
Comment by Jane Austen — October 14, 2013 @ 1:54 pm - October 14, 2013
[…] But 60% of Senate Republicans, it seems, would rather undercut the boat rockers – or even attack them. If their problem isn’t a form of Stockholm Syndrome, then I suspect it’s the GOP’s real civil war, K Street vs. the Tea Party. […]
Pingback by GayPatriot » GOP Establishment preferred to lose? — October 18, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - October 18, 2013