The "Shut 'er downers"

Well I vote for mine don't you?

 

There is no national congressional election, national results are of no matter. In states where it is overwhelmingly clear one candidate will win it effects total voter turnout so if more of the Rep seats are safe and turnout is lower in those states it affects a national tally and skews it towards Dems or vice-versa. In 2010 the Rep won more votes than Dem, that was right after Obamacare was passed and had higher polling support, so we could also conclude by both those that the people want it repealed.

 

I didn't recognize my bold font quote without the filler.

Who elected the House of Representatives that we have today?
​

"Money.
Monied interests.
Money Controlled Media void of better journalistic quality such as fair and honest representation.
Its' the money that elects these peoples' representatives."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really, really vote for "yours" ?
When was the last time you could vote for "Joe the Plumber" ?
Who are these candidates, how did they get selected and so prominently named to attract YOUR vote.
Lastly, YOUR vote is an illusion of choice courtesy of the RepubloCratic Party.
You want proof? When did anything really change with a change of administrations and congressional majorities.

Obama had both houses of Congress in his early months and for our sakes, "blew it".
Obama = Bush Jr. There is No Difference in Economic or War policy. And everything else is fluff.

So come November, keep taking part in the RepubloCratic illusion of choice.
Or put on your Tin Foil Cap to defend from the bought media, and vote for the Third Party of your choice.


Moi
Anti RepubloCrat.

Among RepublCrats, There Is No Lesser of Evils​

 

But by 2012, more people voted Democratic in the House, Senate and Presidential elections, so we could conclude that people do not want ObamaCare repealed now.

 

You mean the Democrats in the House are only there because of monied interests?

 

I mean all RepubloCratic choices are there because of monied interests !
That is why nothing changes whether we have a Democratic or Republican controlled this or that.
Same economic policy.
Same war policy.
What is left is "fluff". And people get so worked up over fluff, believing it justifies their candidate.
Although these same people are dissatisfied with the sameness of the one policy fits both parties economic and war policies.


Moi

Miswrote above. It should have read
To an Anti-RepubloCrat,
There is NO Lesser of RepubloCratic Evils.​

 

Everyone has "monied interests," certainly the poor. People want what they can get. The question is always who benefits beyond the individual. If I stick up a bank, no one benefits but me. If I start a business offering high quality, affordable products that people need, many benefit. That's the difference between anti-social and social behavior.

If government starts a program, economists can do an objective analysis of the costs and benefits. The balance can tip either way. Too often, pols substitute programs that sound good for those that actually achieve net good. Net good should be our criterion, including the recognition that funding one program means denying another, and that programs often have broad economic and social effects beyond the knowledge or intentions of their designers.

Resentment of "monied interests," a mainstay of populist politics since the 19th century, is misleading because it suspects achievement and the rewards of achievement. Those who do the most for society are likely to get rich from it, unless they decline the rewards they've earned. Those who do the least for society are likely to get poor from it. If society celebrates failure, we're likely to get more failure.

When big businesses seek to align public policy with their interests, their motives may be venal, but the consequences are often beneficial. That's Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" of the market at work. I know the fashion is to say the opposite. But LBJ's Great Society intended to put a "floor" under people to give them opportunity. It wasn't until the loathsome Jimmy Carter that failure became an end in itself, intended to be permanent.

 

There is an actual ideological difference in Washington now called the Tea Party that is shaking up both sides.

 

Please tell:
How does the Tea Party economic policy differ from RepubloCratic policy. Or War policy.
The Tea Party is about the "fluff", not the core.
The core is economic policy and war policy.
Like duck's feet. One is both the same as the other.


Moi

 

The Tea Party, to which I belong, believes in free market capitalism, and believes that government must live within its financial means, i.e., without regular deficits. In these two respects, its economic beliefs are a sharp departure from "Republocrats," who believe government has a decisive role in the economy and who support huge deficits, the two parties differing only in degree.

The Tea Party believes in the Constitution and limited government, which means that it disapproves of war without Congressional approval and disapproves of war if the interests of the United States are not plainly threatened. This is again a sharp departure from "Republocrats," who believe the President can commit US forces without Congressional consent, and who approve of wars to assert US values or expand US power, the two parties differing only in where they prefer to intervene.

The Tea Party seeks restoration of the values and practices that guided America's founding. Neither socialism nor empire are included.

 

The House simply refuses to cave in to the demands of the terrorists in the Senate. See how that works?

- - - Updated - - -

That's what terrorists like the Senate Democrats do. They threaten or cause harm and damage if their political demands, which they cannot achieve through legitimate means, are not met.

See how that works?

 

The Tea Party is about smaller central government and fiscal responsibility. Two things you cannot attribute to the Democrat party or the entrenched Republicans.

 

Oh Really

Where were they during Baby Bush's adventures and TARP ?
The Tea Party is a mentally manipulated voice of the corporationist.
More partisan then ideological.
Enjoy your bund meetings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co

Moi

- - - Updated - - -

see # 413
Thank you.

 

I will answer that. A lot of people had high hopes for Bush but he turned out to be just another progressive. When Obama came along with a decidedly socialist bent, the disaffected were motivated. Of course it is always easier to motivate against the opposing party and it is no different now with Democrats giving Obama a pass for what they pilloried Bush for.

 

Your words would be believable if the Tea Party took on the NeoCons who I assume are your "progressives".
I know it is a matter of whether the word controls the man, or the man controls the word
but "progressive thought" is in no way manifested by Baby Bush. Progressive thought is "percolate up", not TARP.
Thus far the Tea Party has manifested itself as void of an intelligentsia and manipulated by the corporationist.
Failing to take on Baby Bush and like minded Republicans is the proof. The Libertarians have done so. It can be done.

What has the Tea Party done to speak to the national economic policy, or war policy?
Simply spending less on government is NOT the whole answer. It is the 1% supplied answer to their Tea Party mindless minions.


Moi

 

You have the progressive sound bites down pat.

 

As you must know, the Tea Party didn't form until 2009, so you can hardly blame them for not opposing Bush. The people who later joined the Tea Party did oppose Bush, but they had no organized voice. When Obama continued the worst of Bush's policies, in exaggerated form, while adding bad policies of his own, the Tea Party formed in response.

The Tea Party does indeed support American business. Since businesses provide most Americans with their jobs, incomes, and the goods and services they consume, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. If you think it is, please explain how people will make a living, or where their food, clothing, and shelter will come from. The American government rightly backs American business of all sizes.

Sad that you'll never know the joys of bund meetings.

 

By using extortion, of course.

 

What I see is you trying to escape blame for the shutdown created by the House Republicans, by casting the illusion that Senate Democrats are somehow to blame. Problem for you is the American people aren't stupid, and they don't fall for such sillieness.

 

Oh, but they do.

 

And if they did, it's your job to deceive them, is that it ?

 

Actually, it's my objective to help them - you - avoid being deceived.

 

Moi, my dear friend, you are so confused!

"Progressive thought" - an oxymoron - meant "percolate up" back when Teddy Roosevelt led the Bull Moose Party. In 2013, "progressive" is just a euphemism for Marxist. They're the people who used to call themselves liberal, and before that Communist. Communists became liberals about the same time (1949) that the War Department became the Department of Defense. It sounds so much nicer. When "liberal" began to stink, they metamorphosed into progressives.

Since the Tea Party formed in 2009, they obviously couldn't take on Bush or the NeoCons. Those who joined the Tea Party, including me, disagreed with many of Bush's policies but had no organized voice. When Obama extended the worst of Bush's policies and added even worse policies of his own, it was insufferable, so the Tea Party formed.

The Tea Party includes some of the keener political minds of our day. Against whom do they suffer by comparison? The mental giants of the Obama Administration, ever ready with glib apologies for tyranny? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? Or do you favor John McCain? The Tea Party has enjoyed success among voters. They were the prime movers behind Democrats' crushing defeat in 2010. Most of the candidates they've endorsed have won. The candidates endorsed by "respectable" Republicans led by Karl Rove, including Mitt Romney, have been decimated at the polls. The Tea Party is attacked because it's feared - smart, principled, driven people are the nightmare of "go along to get along" politicians.

"Corporationists"? No. Tea Party members are overwhelmingly small business and professional people - doctors, lawyers, owners of small companies and stores. If there is such a thing as a "corporationist," they're the opposite. They express the entrepreneurial self-reliance that built this country. Anyone who knows "progressives" knows they detest the sort of people in the Tea Party far more than big corporations. That's because they're living rebukes to the "progressive" theme that most people are helpless victims who would be lost without the ministrations of an all-powerful State. Big corporations, by contrast, wield the sort of massive organizational power that "progressives" like. Their beef with big corporations is that there are many of them with diverse points of view. "Progressives" are monotheists - they worship the State, and the State, to paraphrase the Ten Commandments, shall have no other gods before it; we shall not bow down to them, nor serve them, for the State, the LORD our God, is a jealous God.

I like libertarians, but they're on the margin. The Tea Party has shaken American politics to its core, and continues to do so.

I explained the Tea Party positions re economics and war in post 410 of this thread. Please re-read at your leisure.

 

In a revealing post-note, the NY Times reports that Democrat Cory Booker is in trouble in his run for the deceased Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat in New Jersey. Tea Party Republican Steve Lonegan is gaining on him in this blue state. Michael Bloomberg has donated $1M to buy Booker TV commercials; Booker has Hollywood support too - Democrats outside of New Jersey, who know nothing of the state and its problems - all love Obama-fan Booker. The Special Election is October 16th. Booker will probably still win because he's a Democrat in New Jersey, and black, but it will be by a much slimmer margin than any Democrat in modern times.

Here's the NY Times story.

 

It's emerging that the "shutdown" is little more than a Democrat stunt to scare the public into doing as Democrats say. Only about 17% of Federal employees have been furloughed after many were recalled. The House passed a bill giving retroactive pay to all who are furloughed. Obama already signed a bill guaranteeing uninterrupted pay for all military personnel. So the "shutdown" is no more than a paid vacation for clearly unessential Federal employees. Some "shutdown"! Yet media Democrats continue to gabble about how Tea Party "anarchists" have "shut down the government."

The White House has chosen things to close for maximum PR value. For example, the government owns the parking lot at George Washington's home, Mt. Vernon, although the estate itself is privately owned. A squad of - unfurloughed - Federal officers is guarding Mt. Vernon to make sure no tourists enter. In doing so, they're spending more than the usual zero the government puts into its parking lot. The intention is obviously high-profile public inconvenience so that - presumably stupid - people will blame "Tea Party arsonists." Are you fooled?