Tea Party Boo-boo

[grbeck]

All this political bullshit. Who cares. All I care about is a Congress that gets things done for us, the people. Like maybe $10 in long term debt cuts for every $1 in revenue raised. Maybe adopting lots of Simpson-Bowles spending cuts and revenue enhancements. Instead, the House is dominated by NIHILIST Tea Baggers that are nothing more than obstructionists that want to defeat a sitting President even if the whole country goes down with the ship. They spend their days voting for bullshit policy that will never see the light of day much less be signed by President while the red ink flows even more.

 

The House of Representatives is one chamber of a bicameral Congress, which, in turn, is only one branch of the two branches of the federal government that is charged, under the Constitution, with devising a spending plan for the country. Apparently the Tea Party is running BOTH chambers of Congress AND the White House? Wow!

 

Blaming all of this on the Tea Party is downright inaccurate. For example, it seems that the President himself and his chief ally in the Senate (Democrat Harry Reid) don't like the Simpson-Bowles plan either:

 

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., wanted to do the right thing. He wanted to introduce a Democratic budget, allow amendments, and allow a vote on final passage. He wanted the American people to see how their elected representatives planned to spend their money. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had other plans.

 

Yesterday, Conrad held a 2:45 PM press conference where he released a Democrat budget virtually identical to the Bowles-Simpson plan that President Obama rejected in 2010. Conrad promised that he would hold a mark up hearing on the budget where Senators could offer amendments and the committee could vote on final approval. But this did not sit will with Reid. A real Senate debate about budget priorities would expose how radical Obama’s spending plans are and force the president to reject his own fiscal commission plan again. Not that the Bowles-Simpson is perfect either. It contains no spending cuts beyond the spending caps Congress set in last August’s debt limit deal, and it raises taxes by $2.6 trillion. (emphasis added)

 

So Conrad was abruptly forced to pull his budget from consideration. “This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor,” he told reporters late yesterday afternoon. Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., responded: “Chairman Conrad’s stunning announcement, forced on him by his party, is a defining moment in 2012 and a national embarrassment for a Senate majority that is unable to meet the great challenge of our time. It’s been 1,084 days since the last time the Senate’s Democrat majority passed a budget plan, despite a simple majority threshold for passage.” (emphasis added)

 

Here's more:

 

The Senate on Wednesday rejected every single budget being offered this year, leaving the chamber — and therefore the federal government — without a plan to address Medicare, Social Security and the other major entitlement programs that are driving deficits and debt.

 

In repeated votes, Democrats who control the chamber defeated four Republican proposals, including a plan that passed the House in March. The entire Senate also unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget, voting 99-0 against it, following a 414-0 vote against it in the House earlier this year. (emphasis added)

 

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican.

 

You can keep blaming the Tea Party for all of this, but a clear examination of the facts and record shows that you are incorrect in your assessment. (I'm guessing that, since those votes were 99-0 and 414-0, the Democrats were voting with the Tea Party Republicans on the President's budget proposal.)

 

The idea that the President is too detached, and that he is doing nothing while the Tea Party runs Washington, D.C., is nonsense. He has been active in refusing to consider other spending plans, because he does not want to accept any spending constraints. The Tea Party makes a convenient foil, but, at this point, Obama supporters blaming it for everything short of erectile dysfunction and the trajectory of Lindsay Lohan's career is nothing more than an excuse.

 

They talk about jobs, but won't approve any job plans by other side no matter how effective. It took many extra months just to get a highway bill through Congress to keep thousands of construction workers working because the NIHILISTS didn't like the Complete Streets program that actually helps keep pedestrians alive and communities walkable. The NIHILISTS want to turn the clock back and revisit an America that was never that great in the first place with even more poverty, dirty air, and toxic ground.

 

Maybe they won't approve a transportation spending plan because they realized that it diverts too much federal fuels tax revenue from roads and bridges to "non-road" projects, which is what your walkable communities projects really are. The government already diverts 1/5 of all revenue from the federal motor fuels tax to mass transit, and even more to "non-road" projects (i.e., downtown beautification projects and "walkable community" projects).

 

Meanwhile, posters on this site complain that their is not enough money to repair roads and bridges...but they ignore this salient point, because bashing Republicans is more fun instead. But when the Tea Party Republicans have the gall to point out one reason WHY there is less money for roads and bridges...they are branded as obstructionist by those same posters.

 

So you want to maintain or increase this diversion while our roads and bridges crumble?

 

Here in the Harrisburg region, two suburban communities used federal highway dollars for downtown beautification projects, which have made their downtowns more attractive. Only problem is that there are still rough sections of I-81 and I-83, and several entrance and exit ramps need to be reconfigured to better handle traffic and make them safer.

 

Please explain, in 200 words or less, how diverting federal motor fuels revenue for brick crosswalks for pedestrians, along with flower pots and hanging baskets for downtown shopping districts, is making these interchanges safer and the interstate highways smoother? Or are we supposed to raise the federal motor fuels tax even more to pay for ALL of these projects? I guess it must be Christmas in Washington, D.C., 12 months a year when the taxpayers are footing the bill...everyone gets all of the goodies, I mean, projects, that he or she wants. Just raise taxes again!

 

This is certainly a dandy idea as people struggle with gasoline already over $3 a gallon for 87-octane unleaded.

 

If those awful "Tea Party" types are pointing out the flaws in the transportation bill, I say, "Good for them." It's about time.

Edited July 5, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

That's politics as you take my quote out of context. The Repubs blame Obama when gas prices hit $4 and give him no credit when gas prices recently hit $3.20 around here.

 

And the Democrats were blasting Bush when gasoline hit $4 a gallon during his term. Did they give him credit when it was cheaper before that point? For someone who complains about overly partisan movements or posters, you conveniently turn a blind eye to the actions of one party and its supporters. Methinks you doth protest too much...

 

So if Ford almost goes out of business under Bush, I blame Bush. If Ford does well under Obama, I credit Obama. Blame or not, Hoover got the blame for Depression. If candidates don't like this, then they shouldn't run. President's are blamed for everything that happens on their watch. The economy is ONE big business cycle, and as President you catch the cycle going up, you get credit, and if you catch cycle going down, you get the blame deservedly or not. Thought you knew that.

 

Are you going to blame Bush for GM's bankruptcy, since it occurred when he was president?

 

So it was President George W. Bush who forced GM to maintain an outdated divisional structure from the Sloan days; waste money setting up Saturn when the corporation ALREADY had too many divisions; develop the crappy Northstar V-8 that has just about destroyed Cadillac's reputation; compete in the small car market with the subpar Cavalier and the Cobalt when Honda had the top-flight Civic; sign overly generous contracts with the UAW; devise a product strategy that relied heavily on full-size pickups and SUVs for profitability; and enter a badly constructed deal with Fiat that required GM to fork over $4 billion just to get out of the contract?

 

Wow, I hardly imagined that he had the time to do all of these things...especially since many of them happened even before he was governor of Texas.

 

For that matter, I guess, based on your line of thinking, President Obama renegotiated the contracts with the UAW to make Ford more competitive with the transplants; instructed the Ford executive team to take out a hefty line of credit while borrowing was possible; told them to eliminate deadweight such as Mercury and sell off Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover; made management institute new production processes to improve quality; and told Bill Ford, Jr. and the Board of Directors to focus more on smaller cars and crossovers to better ride out volatile gasoline prices.

 

Who knew?!

Edited July 5, 2012 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

Look it, a good analogy to all this is sports. For example, the Detroit Tiger signed Fielder for almost a quarter billion dollars over 10 years and won their division last year and were expected to easily win their division this year. Instead they are playing like shit and can't even make it to .500 ball. Who are the fans blaming? Players? NO!!!! Manager Jim Leyland? YES!!!! Blame or not, he is under fire. Ditto with President. Economy cratered under Bush with financial implosion. Is he to blame? Don't know, but he was President and everyone knew including me that collateral damage from this huge implosion would last for many years if not decades. Now the economy is recovering, but not fast enough for those unemployed. Who gets the blame? Obama right or wrong. Europe is a basket case. Who gets the blame if Europe depression affects U.S. economy? Obama deservedly or not. Personally, I hope economy keeps recovering at a continued slow pace because a very fast pace would trigger hyperinflation and our infrastructure couildn't handle that pace anyway. So debate is moot to begin with. No matter who is President next year, economy will continue to grow at slow pace of maybe 2.3% or so. And interest rates will stay at historic lows and bankers will take risks with cheap money. I don't think Romney will change the economy here much if he is in White House, but I worry what he would do foreign policy wise if he gets the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz allies back into the Pentagon. After having lived through 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama, I will take 4 more years of Obama unless this Fast and Furious scandal grows and coverup continues to widen. Then bye bye Obama until Romney screws up as every President seems to have his scandal.