this is more of a reflection on the part of the people and not the entire party, but still a chuckle from this evening

I stopped at a gas station this evening. while filling up, I ran inside for a drink. in front of me was a man and his wife (looked upper-middle class) buying a ton of hostess products. they were bullshitting with the cashier about hostess going out of business.

then the guy started in on why hostess was going out of business. "they're closing down because of obamacare" he said. she reiterated it on their way out the door.

as I walked to my car after my purchase, I saw their SUV. on the back? a "MITT" sticker

yup, that sounds about right

and because no one reads the end of the last page

Quote :

"And I'll restate my earlier question, why is it that you support the treaty and why should the GOP members of the Senate who opposed it voted for ratification instead?"

because they're fear mongering about the UN coming to take over the United States.

because there's nothing in the body of that treaty that would in any way endanger the life of an american or our own sovereignty

because the treaty is basically saying HEY DO WHAT AMERICA DOES ASSHOLES

because by not ratifying it you're basically telling everyone else to go fuck themselves. that you don't give a shit if some poor guy who got disabled in a civil war is discriminated against because he lost his legs fighting people trying to rape his whole village

BECAUSE IT'S A GOD DAMN MORALLY RIGHT AND AN EASY LEADERSHIP POSITION TO TAKE ON THE GLOBAL STAGE

[Edited on December 8, 2012 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2012 10:26:28 PM

^

You know they got that from right wing radio/tv too.

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason : ]

12/9/2012 12:55:27 AM

Quote :

"BECAUSE IT'S A GOD DAMN MORALLY RIGHT AND AN EASY LEADERSHIP POSITION TO TAKE ON THE GLOBAL STAGE"

That doesn't really sound like a well thought out position on why anyone, much less the members of the Senate GOP who voted against, should have voted in favor of this treaty. But maybe I'm just less persuaded by caps lock than some people.

12/9/2012 11:18:29 AM

so tell me why they should have voted against a recommendation for every other country in the world to look to the United States' treatment of people with disabilities and use that as a template for their own countries

12/9/2012 12:33:06 PM

Because the typical republican politician is an idiot.

12/9/2012 1:07:06 PM

Basically Republicans don't think in anything resembling principles or even logically connected concepts. They literally just have a list of entities and groups they vote against. Topping that list is

* The U.N.

* Non-normies (Non-white, non-Christian, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-able-bodied)

* Foreigners who aren't Israeli

12/10/2012 10:50:31 AM

how did you miss "Obama"

(although I guess he is a non-normie)

12/10/2012 12:33:56 PM

Mike Huckabee

12/15/2012 2:15:17 PM

Boenher today

"Hey we're not going to negotiate anymore. Instead we'll ram a proposal through the house and then blame you for the fiscal cilff if you don't force the senate to agree with us."

12/19/2012 6:00:19 PM

12/19/2012 8:44:56 PM

So why was Obama #3 rejected?

12/19/2012 10:00:05 PM

because he has cooties, duh

12/19/2012 10:09:04 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/house-republicans-pushing-doomed-fiscal-cliff-plan-b-004700686--politics.html

Quote :

"“And if Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to act, they’ll be responsible for the largest tax hike in American history.”"

Fuck Boehner with a horse boner. Make a deal, you chickenshit.

12/20/2012 9:05:57 PM

I hope everyone understands now why it was vital that the GOP didn't win back the White House via this sort of obstructionism. Look at all the damage they are doing with just control of the gerrymandered house.

12/20/2012 9:43:51 PM

AHAHAHA plan b couldn't get the votes

combine that with the self filibuster and....welp

good job, good effort goppers

[Edited on December 20, 2012 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2012 9:46:00 PM

How does he still have his job as speaker? I mean, I guess I understand not firing him after the GOP held onto the House but you'd think the rank-and-file Republican congressmen would want someone they LIKE as Speaker.

Or at least someone they'll listen to.

Otherwise it just looks like they're keeping an inept Speaker in power merely to provide another broken cog in the system.

12/22/2012 7:17:06 AM

This election was a watershed moment in American politics. The Republican Party will have its civil war and it will play itself out partly through a speaker of the house battle.

Also notice that the NRA came out with a specific public policy proposal on school safety. I can't remember that EVER happening.

12/22/2012 11:19:36 AM

The republican party is not gonna go belly up and split like the Big East. I just don't see it happening, not with so many religious votes up for grabs.

Also, I don't see them winning the white house anytime soon because of their demographic nightmare.

The dems will have the white house and the gop will have the gerrymandered house, and it will continue like that until a black swan event in the distant future.

12/22/2012 12:08:41 PM

There's no way the religious right and hyper conservatives can stay in the Republican Party when you've got the speaker calling for higher taxes and people like newt Gingrich saying that gay people should be allowed to get married. It just can't work.

12/22/2012 2:25:31 PM

Those guys lit a match and started a fire that they could not control. Now that fire is going to run them out of town.

12/22/2012 2:31:21 PM

Exactly.

12/22/2012 2:45:18 PM

No way a republican party wins the presidency without the evangelical votes, at least not for the near future.

12/22/2012 2:53:32 PM

at this point if the house wants to get anything meaningful done, the republicans who aren't complete obstructionists are going to have to form a coalition with the democratic minority. both parties will have to negotiate, and the absurdity of the tea party will get marginalized, not empowered. it's really the only move that's left.

if they continue on this path for the future, they have no hope, regardless of the evangelical vote

[Edited on December 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/22/2012 3:00:39 PM

I just don't see it ever happening. You don't understand, the majority of the base would rather take up arms and march towards Washington before compromising an inch.

12/22/2012 6:25:03 PM

If they weren't afraid to leave the safe naive bubble of the world that is their backwoods podunk towns, that is.

12/22/2012 6:28:27 PM

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/12/headline-of-day_22.html#disqus_thread

12/22/2012 11:24:23 PM

if we assume all tea party members are complete obstructionists, the "regular" republicans would need 35 dems to join them. you only need 17 republicans to cross over and join the democrats to get the required votes to pass legislation in the house

i believe there are republicans out there who are willing to work on real compromise. i have to believe that, otherwise what else is left for this country

12/24/2012 12:02:24 AM

Quote :

"This election was a watershed moment in American politics. The Republican Party will have its civil war and it will play itself out partly through a speaker of the house battle. "

1/1/2013 6:05:14 PM

this "deal" is hardly a deal. there are virtually NO cuts with massive tax increases. I don't understand how anyone (even the most die hard liberals out there) think that this is a good idea.

1/1/2013 6:17:39 PM

Because spending is not the problem. It's revenue + a recession. The US already spends less money on entitlements than every other modern nation in the world. Plunging the economy back into recession will only hurt the deficit even more. How can even the most idiotic conservatives out there not understand this?

1/1/2013 6:45:54 PM

you are clueless. we are spending our way into bankruptcy. of course it is the problem.

[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2013 6:51:32 PM

So you'd rather cut spending in a fragile economy, which sends the economy into a recession, creating even MORE of a revenue problem and not helping the deficit at all. Good plan. You've still got a deficit problem and all you've managed to do is destroy the economy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

1/1/2013 7:07:17 PM

Also, taxes on the elite have been too low for far too long nc of the Grover pledge. They are to go up to keep a balance

1/1/2013 7:24:27 PM

These aren't immediate cuts we are talking about... we are talking about cuts over years. There is more than enough wasteful spending to trim to cut a huge portion of our spending without hurting these people... and i'm not just talking about government jobs (even though the federal government shouldn't be used as a jobs program)... Entitlements need to be cut. social security beneficiaries have gotten MUCH more of a "cost of living" increase over the past half decade than I have seen in raises. This is a problem.

and if you truly want to increase revenue, then increase the base... lower taxes and give the free market ample opportunity to expand. This is what has led to success in the past, and will continue to lead to success.

[Edited on January 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/1/2013 10:34:02 PM

As soon as we decided that wars didn't need separate fundraising and could just be added to the debt, that's when we should have decided that we need increases to revenue

1/1/2013 10:46:18 PM

Quote :

"lower taxes and give the free market ample opportunity to expand. This is what has led to success in the past, and will continue to lead to success."

[citation needed]

1/1/2013 11:32:59 PM

^ It has not led to success in the past and just typing that means you are spitting out what the corrupt have told you to say.

The fact of the matter is that demand stimulates business, not supply. There was a pretty thorough non-partisan congressional report released recently that comes to that exact conclusion.

1/1/2013 11:37:08 PM

I'm sure the libertarians and republicans are going to crucify me, but are there ANY examples of supply side economics ever succeeding?

1/2/2013 8:35:55 AM

How do you define "succeeding?"

1/2/2013 8:39:14 AM

Quote :

"The fact of the matter is that demand stimulates business, not supply"

even if true, the government should not hand out money for the sake of "oh here's some demand"

entitlements such as welfare lead to people living off the system with no motivation to join the rest of the productive side of the economy.

1/2/2013 9:43:58 AM

That's weird, I thought entitlements led to them not starving to death or turning to crime and generally fucking up my quality of life.

1/2/2013 9:54:13 AM

You're both right-

(Smath) entitlements are out of control and enable the folks who abuse them to live in such a way that there is no motivation to better their situation and lose their benefits.

(disco) entitlements are necessary to prevent other evils, which would be true if entitlements truly provided the bare minimum (which they dont).

That doesnt mean they should be scrapped or gutted altogether, but it does mean that the disgusting fucks that abuse the system need to be punished severely. Their removal from such programs alone would allow existing funds to better serve those who use them in their intended way.

Unfortunately we live in a society where these folks tend to vote one way in particular and as far as theyre concerned "the more the merrier." Hence, bankruptcy, borrow, or tax. Hence, animosity and stereotypes.

Just eliminate the cousin or aunt or best friends girlfriends mom that we all know who gets a couple grand a month and throws keggers but doesnt do a goddamn thing except get fucked by local HS students. Then the reputation of your precious entitlement programs will cease to suffer-

Hire 10,000 government auditors to scour the nation and investigate these people door to door. Simple.

1/2/2013 10:15:46 AM

You would think that in the wealthiest and most prosperous nation to ever exist, with an economic system that guarantees that some will be more prosperous than others, there would be some form of aid to the "losers" of that society. Not only is it a morally necessary measure to take from a humanitarian point of view, it is proven to strengthen the economy because the less fortunate need to spend all of their income which increases demand and economic activity overall. This is a fact.

If you want to cut spending by reducing fraud and ensuring that entitlements go to those who actually need them, I fully agree. Unfortunately, that is hard work that our politicians are unwilling or incapable of doing. Slashing entitlement spending in a weak economy is a guaranteed recipe for disaster and ignores the fact that this budget crisis was manufactured over the course of a decade through two wars, deregulation of banks, and a major recession. Asking the very wealthy to pay more to fix a problem that they largely created is not immoral or unethical. It is the only logical course of action. Breaking the backs of the middle class and then kicking them while they're down is not how we will solve this problem. Continuing the slow but steady job growth were have had over the last couple of years is the best way to dig ourselves out. By doing that we will broaden the tax base while reducing entitlement and welfare spending. The deficit problem will fix itself mostly by continuing on the path we're already on.

When you parrot the tropes of the people who are mostly responsible for this mess, you reveal yourself to be intellectually lazy and weak-minded. If you do any research into the topic at all you will quickly discover that we have already been trying the remedies being prescribed for the last 30 years. The only thing were have to show for it is stagnant wages, weaker competition, and levels of inequality that have not been seen since the 1920s. Our brand of politics flies in the face of every other western democracy in the world. Continuing down this path will only lead to more of these problems. How can you not see this?

1/2/2013 10:40:29 AM

^

Quote :

"You would think that in the wealthiest and most prosperous nation to ever exist, with an economic system that guarantees that some will be more prosperous than others..."

Your premise is flawed, our economic system doesn't guarantee anything. You shouldn't attempt to disguise your disdain for the free market as a defense of entitlements.

1/2/2013 10:58:23 AM

Fraud and waste are rife within social security and medicare. The savings that could come from efficiency improvements and fraud elimination are vast.

The problem is, politicians are not motivated by real results. They are only concerned with getting reelected. Democrats won't cooperate on anything that could be perceived as- or spun into a benefits cut. Republicans will do the same for anything that ISN'T a cut. Even when they personally think the bill is a good idea, they are vastly more concerned with voter perceptions and their next campaign.

Too often, the right thing to do by the American people and the politically safe thing to do are not the same.

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

1/2/2013 11:06:33 AM

1/2/2013 6:00:28 PM

Did boehner gain anything by putting the vote on the floor? You know, like respect?

1/2/2013 6:27:51 PM

Quote :

"Not only is it a morally necessary measure to take from a humanitarian point of view"

Why is it morally necessary? I disagree with that. How about a more realistic point of view that some people are going to make it in life and others will not. If everyone is going to end up succeeding, why bother trying? You're going to make it regardless...

Without the threat/fear of failure, there is no longer a need to strive for success.

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2013 6:34:02 PM

^^^ Do you have a source for your elaborate bar graph?

[Edited on January 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM. Reason : ....]

1/2/2013 6:35:17 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-fiscal-cliff-negotiations-in-one-chart/

1/2/2013 7:02:23 PM