The Tea Fragger Party

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
The Tea Fragger Party
67
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 8:19am

What do these TP's hope to accomplish?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-tea-fragger-party/2011/07/29/gIQA23pAiI_story.html

Fragging: “To intentionally kill or wound (one’s superior officer, etc.), esp. with a hand grenade.”

Take names. Remember them. The behavior of certain Republicans who call themselves Tea Party conservatives makes them the most destructive posse of misguided “patriots” we’ve seen in recent memory.

If the nation defaults on its financial obligations, the blame belongs to the Tea Party Republicans who fragged their own leader, John Boehner. They had victory in their hands and couldn’t bring themselves to support his debt-ceiling plan, which, if not perfect, was more than anyone could have imagined just a few months ago. No new taxes, significant spending cuts, a temporary debt-ceiling solution with the possibility of more spending cuts down the line as well as action on their beloved balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

These people wouldn’t recognize a hot fudge sundae if the cherry started talking to them.

The tick-tock of the debt-ceiling debate is too long for this space, but the bottom line is that the Tea Party got too full of itself with help from certain characters whose names you’ll want to remember when things go south. They include, among others, media personalities who need no further recognition; a handful of media-created “leaders,” including Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips and Tea Party Patriots co-founders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler (both Phillips and Martin declared bankruptcy, yet they’re advising Tea Party Republicans on debt?); a handful of outside groups that love to hurl ad hominems such as “elite” and “inside the Beltway” when talking about people like Boehner when they are, in fact, the elite (FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity); and elected leaders such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the Republican Study Committee, and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who grandstand and make political assertions and promises that are sheer fantasy.

Meanwhile, freshman House members were targeted and pressured by some of the aforementioned groups to vote against Boehner’s plan. South Carolina’s contingent was so troubled that members repaired to the chapel Thursday to pray and emerged promising to vote no. Why? Not because Jesus told them to but because they’re scared to death that DeMint will “primary” them — find someone in their own party to challenge them.

Where did they get an idea like that? Look no further than Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, where she warned freshmen about contested primaries and urged them to “remember us ‘little people’ who believed in them, donated to their campaigns, spent hours tirelessly volunteering for them, and trusted them with our votes.” Her close: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.” While they’re at it, they also should remember that Palin came to the Tea Party long after the invitations went out. The woman knows where to hitch a wagon.

Unfortunately for the country, which is poised to lose its place as the world’s most-trusted treasury and suffer economic repercussions we can ill afford, the stakes in this political game are too high to be in the hands of Tea Partyers who mistakenly think they have a mandate. Their sweep in the 2010 election was the exclusive result of anti-Obama sentiment and the sense that the president, in creating a health-care plan instead of focusing on jobs, had overplayed his hand. Invariably, as political pendulums swing, the victors become the very thing they sought to defeat.

Who’s overplaying their hand now?

It must be said that the Tea Party has not been monolithic — and the true grass-roots shouldn’t be conflated with leaders who disastrously signed on to the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge. What is it with Republicans and their silly pledges? Didn’t they get enough Scouting? This pledge now has them hog-tied to a promise they can’t keep — the balanced-budget amendment. As many as a third desperately want a pardon from that commitment, according to sources close to the action.

Hubris is no one’s friend, and irony is a nag. The Tea Partyers who wanted to oust Barack Obama have greatly enhanced his chances for reelection by undermining their own leader and damaging the country in the process. The debt ceiling may have been raised and the crisis averted by the time this column appears, but that event should not erase the memory of what transpired. The Tea Party was a movement that changed the conversation in Washington, but it has steeped too long and has become toxic.

It’s time to toss it out.

Video

In both debt plans, the wealthy win.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-debt-ceiling-clock/2011/07/28/gIQAqxDxfI_video.html

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 12:45pm
I posted from my smart phone, I can't explain why it chose you as the one I was responding to. I was responding to gal_callie
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:06pm
So, why didn't the Dems get revenue?

Despite what Doyle and Biden say, the tea party weren't holding guns to anyone heads; they weren't in the negotiations. Why do you think there was opposition to revenue (don't forget, closing loop holes was not ruled out as a revenue increase initially and actually was part of initial talks). Consider that the President has been very clear and consistent that he intends to allow the Bush tax cuts on those making $200,000 and above ($250,000 married), to expire. Therefore many American's are going to experience tax increases when this happens. Why would conservatives that follow economic ideology that believe it is a very bad idea to increase taxes in an economic downturn (something Obama once agreed on) vote to increase them on top of the eventual increase Obama is going to hand us, and agree to more?
I know people don't believe it, however, I do think that there is a valid argument here.
The argument I've heard is that those in the $200,000 range now employ people to do work for them, landscaping, painting, housecleaning, and other services. They have the extra cash to pay for these services. We do it when my husband get's a bonus at his job (it's not every year but it's nice when it happens), we hire people to do the things we never have time to do due to our schedules). When taxes are increased on this group of people, there will be housekeeper, nannies, landscapers, etc. that loose work. This argument extends to small business owners that are in the $ 200,000 plus range of income. this isn't income outside of their business, or in addition to their business, their business income is their personal income. Take a chunk of that and it will be felt.

Raising revenue through taxation isn't as simple as taking from someone with more and distributing it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:06pm
I didn't "spin" anything. His "doozies" weren't.

In a perfect world, the women and men of Congress would consider themselves leaders first, and party politicians secondly. They'd sit down, look at the budget long and hard, ask for shared sacrifice on essential services and encourage every agency, DoD included, to pare away fat--without cutting into muscle. And that shared sacrifice could well entail higher tax rates (just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have helped at least a bit). Before the "class warfare" charge is hurled at me--DH and I are in the top bracket. But the Tea Party has insisted that tax breaks/subsidies for big companies making money hand over fist, constitutes "tax increases" and they're not acting reasonable at all--denouncing "compromise" and threatening to hold the nation's economic health as hostage. If it made any sense, it would still be self-serving. But the pure TP'ers don't make any sense at all! An interesting and long read is here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right/%28page%29/4

I did miss the "new programs" bit but depending on what those "programs" addressed, they needn't necessarily be taboo. If a lean, effective new program replaced a bloated or outdated old program, there could be savings realized.

BTW, Obama gets plenty of blame for problems (debt included) inherited from BushCo. Let me ask you a question, just for grins. Let's say that you are leading a country which has been quite generous to its big businesses for a number of years but a burst bubble has resulted in major economic disarray--and deficit spending by your predecessor has depleted the country's coffers. Unemployment rises. Businesses claim they won't hire because they don't know that policies will continue to favor their bottom line (even as they ship jobs and product manufacture to China). Would you have any great faith that they would hire? Or would you try to find some other way to put people back to work so they would have more confidence and start buying things again? (BTW, I don't think we can spend our way out of the current mess--we need to start producing goods and services here in the U.S. which are in demand by other countries rather than expecting to tap into consumer buying). That's what Obama tried to do. And he caught aitch eeee double hockey sticks.

Obama is a moderate to all but the most rabid rightists or conservative ideologues. For them, NOTHING he did would be errrr........ ummmmmmm......."right".

As far as a second term of office for Obama, even if he didn't want it, Democratic leaders would. There doesn't seem to be anybody out there right now who would have a better chance. While I agree with you that "All the politicians in this debate had the next election cycle in mind", they're going to be hard-pressed by angry voters who saw the political theater and are tempted to kick the whole sorry lot out of office. I saw a poll the other day which indicated that 6% of the survey group approved of Congress's performance. http://politicons.net/ouch%E2%80%A6-congress-approval-rating-6/

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:07pm
It's not spin to ignore half of his comment?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:31pm

Are there any facts that support raising taxes causes job loss?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:34pm

Regarding the Progressive Caucus, they have...........wait for it..........83 members.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:38pm
I am responding to your posts and making sure to use the same terminology so there are no accusations of words being put in mouths, etc. It appears that umbrage is being taken anyway.

Yes, I AM being civil.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 1:41pm

In my earlier post, I admitted missing the "new programs" bit.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 3:34pm
Yes, it is more than opinion. You highlight the problem with the narrow soundbites the media and our politicians give us. The economy doesn't work so simplistically, ie. do "x" and "y" will happen ignoring that a,b,and c are affecting y at the same time. Of course, that is how it is often framed in politics, completely for political purposes. Why do you suppose that when the debt ceiling was raised in rep. controlled years Reid and Durbin never supported or voted for it. Why do you suppose that Obama voted against an increase during his tenure in the Senate twice and missed the other 2 votes and said that <"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."> http://www.rove.com/notes/291
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/reid-durbin-and-obama-very-partisan-record-debt-ceiling#ixzz1Tb1lXQSI

Economics is complex. I don't know enough to say that never are events completely exclusive, but it's hard to imagine that with all the variables involved that jobs, debt, deficit, etc. hinges on one exclusive event.

To answer your question, I could locate the times when taxes were decreased and jobs increased and visa versa. They would be just as relevant as your comment about Reagan's Budget Secretary. Your point?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 3:37pm
So because the caucus is small their opinion doesn't matter. I don't get that.

However, if the tea party are evil because they had power it seems that the Tea party republicans should be getting favor, the bill passed and they did not get all they wanted. They had to compromise.

the analogy on the tea party was Bidens, you can thank him.

Pages