Major Win For the Tea Parties

FISMA

Like them or not, the debt deal is a major win for the Tea Parties.

When Obama passed his Obamacare bill, the largest entitlement in half a century, it was riddle with pork and gimmes for those that signed on.

For the last week in the States, Dems and Reps have condescendingly referred to the newly elected Tea Parties as freshmen. They told us these freshmen were going to have to learn how to compromise.

Obama promised us that he would change the way they did business in DC - he didn't. Instead, the Tea Parties have.

The Tea Parties went against the old network and prevailed.

They said no to new taxes and demanded cuts and they got it.

The Tea Partiers, unlike so many others, stayed true to the constituents that put them there and stayed on message.

Also, if you do not find it amazing, you should. There's no pork in this bill, no funds for airports for congressmen, or bridges named after whomever!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the politicians even had the nerve to try and tack on anything frivolous.

That's amazing.

If nothing else, the Tea Parties helped us get a pork free bill.

Like it or not, this one is a win for the Tea Parties.

gargleblaster

FISMA wrote: »

For the last week in the States, Dems and Reps have condescendingly referred to the newly elected Tea Parties as freshmen.

That's not condescension. That's the term for newly-elected members of congress.


As for this being a win, I will be very glad if people will keep in mind that this is the tea party's budget when it starts to bite them in the ass.

Or maybe they'll manage to create some of those jobs they were all claiming they'd be so focused on before they got elected and forgot all about unemployment. We shall see.

pgmcpq

It is unclear that this is a clear win for the TP. The bulk of the agreed/triggered specific cuts come from defense spending with which the Democrats would have little problem. I suspect the bipartisan committee will likely be insulated from the TP and contain Republicans with more seniority (not a very democratic solution but does free the committee from the threat of getting bogged down like the debt ceiling issue). The committee proposals are then subject to a straight up or down vote.

As the bulk of the cuts are pushed to 2012 much of the damage the economy in the short term may be avoided.

It structure of the agreement is laid out quite well in the NYtimes

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/22/us/politics/20110722-comparing-deficit-reduction-plans.html?hp

Much will depend on the next Congressional election. For all the talk about Obama's ratings (which are no worse than Regan's or George W's at this stage of their presidency), Congresses approval ratings are in the tank completely. So there may be a much changed Congress by 2012.

20Cent

Wen the cuts kick in and tea party members can't get medical care it will be interesting to see if they still get support.

pgmcpq

FISMA wrote: »

If nothing else, the Tea Parties helped us get a pork free bill.

Yes, the TP is into "curing" pork all right

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/pork-earmarks-what-do-you-mean.html?scp=1&sq=tea%20party%20pork&st=cse

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Wen the cuts kick in and tea party members can't get medical care it will be interesting to see if they still get support.

There are no cuts. The "cuts" are increases.

FISMA

gargleblaster wrote: »

That's not condescension.

In the states, the term freshmen is often used as a pejorative term.

In high school and college, calling someone a "freshman," although technically correct, is a way to imply that: they are new, don't understand the workings of the institution, and are naive about the goings-on.

If you were a sophomore, junior, or senior in school and someone called you a freshman, you would be insulted.

It is also used to excuse incorrect behavior. It's not their fault, they're just freshman.

I hear the term a lot. When used by ones peers, it is more often derogatory.

That's the way they were using it a week ago when the Tea Parties were holding out.

Both Dems and Reps were smiling and had that look, one that said, yeah, they're holding out, but not for long, they'll play ball soon enough, they're just acting like freshman.

Wasn't this verbiage a Democrat move?

Makes sense as I find they are far more concerned in labeling people like Palin, Bachman, and the Tea Parties. Yet, they manage to excuse Democrats that were Klansmen, like Bird, that openly used the "n" word.

Back in 2006 the House Dem Caucus said that it was politically incorrect to refer to new members of the House as Freshmen.

Again, it makes sense. Obama was then a Freshman Senator. They did not want the word "freshman" associated with him running for President as it implies a lack of experience, amongst other things.

gargleblaster

FISMA wrote: »

In the states, the term freshmen is often used as a pejorative term.

I hear the term a lot.

Seriously? You're being serious here? You're talking about college idiots and bullies in high school picking on younger kids? Do you work at a high school or a college? (btw I happen to live in "the states")

That's the way they were using it a week ago when the Tea Parties were holding out.

Both Dems and Reps were smiling and had that look, one that said, yeah, they're holding out, but not for long, they'll play ball soon enough, they're just acting like freshman.

Really? Really?! smh

Look, just look it up, ok? You'll find the term is in wide use all over the place, dating to way back before any Tea Party members decided to so laughably try to play the victim. It's not pejorative to anyone outside of high school (and college too I guess). It's just the term for new members.

Wasn't this verbiage a Democrat move?

Oh, the irony. Then again, at this point I suppose we have to assume some right-wingers may not even realize what they're saying, given how popular this slight is with certain types of right-wing leaders.

(Helpful suggestion, might want to also look up 'verbiage'.)

Back in 2006 the House Dem Caucus said that it was politically incorrect to refer to new members of the House as Freshmen.

Citation please. If it actually happened then yes, it's just more politics. Just like omitting that "-ic".

FISMA

GargleBlaster,
Stop acting like a freshman.

Perhaps, verbiage, in the sense of "a manner of expressing oneself in words" was not the best choice of words. If so, I stand corrected.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate your proof reading efforts.

Let's instead say that the Democrats are the party of Euphemisms.

Fair enough? By that I mean they are overly concerned that something may sound offensive and instead use more pleasant words. Now would that be semantics or the system's antics?:D

Let's review a few of the more recent Democrat Euphemisms.

First, let's not call it the "Global War on Terrorism." Rather, let's say "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Are we engaged in hostilities in Libya? No, "we're involved in a limited kinetic operation."

It's a good thing there's no more "terrorism" in the world. Although there does appear to be increase in "man-caused disaster."

Please Republicans, don't say "House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan." Instead, how about "The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan."

I am not sure what we're supposed to call "Enemy Combatants" anymore. How about calling them "potential rehabilitative future community organizers.";)

Anyhow, ...

So, you find it difficult to believe that the Democrats would not want to use the term freshman, do you?

Let's say that again - freshMAN. Yes,"man." Even for a female? :eek:

That's not, how would you say it gargle, gender neutral?:D

As for your citation request.

On January 24, 2007, shortly after the State of the Union, there was a breakfast meeting by the National Journal and NBC.

Feel free to search their archives for the full article. Here's a quick link and excerpt. (another link)

"Among the things attendees at this morning's National Journal /NBC post-SOTU breakfast learned was that it is no longer politically correct in the House Dem caucus to refer to the newly elected members from '06 as "Freshmen." How did we learn this? House Maj. Whip Jim Clyburn referred to the "freshmen" and then corrected himself and then went on to admit the new policy. Freshman, er newly elected Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) told the crowd that he "suspected" it had something to do with the word "new" being more appealing to the public than "freshman," which can be seen by some as derogatory. So there ya go!"

Slan Abhaille!

Overheal

Let's instead say that the Democrats are the party of Euphemisms.

Fair enough? By that I mean they are overly concerned that something may sound offensive and instead use more pleasant words. Now would that be semantics or the system's antics?

"Enhanced Interrogation"?

I hardly think Euphemisms are solely a Democrat edifice. Did you notice how the Wealthy recently became re-coined "the Job Creators"?

DJCR

Hmmm, yes they have definately changed the way the government is run forever more - until of course they put forward a proposition ..............

matthew8

DJCR wrote: »

Hmmm, yes they have definately changed the way the government is run forever more - until of course they put forward a proposition ..............

The tea party caucus in the senate made a balanced budget proposal with all the details.

DJCR

matthew8 wrote: »

The tea party caucus in the senate made a balanced budget proposal with all the details.

Yes, but backs were against walls and they knew it (fair play .... I mean you get cards it's up to you how to play them and they played them very well).... next time may not be like that...

RichieC

pgmcpq wrote: »

Yes, the TP is into "curing" pork all right

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/pork-earmarks-what-do-you-mean.html?scp=1&sq=tea%20party%20pork&st=cse

It's not pork if it is going to your district. It's pork if it goes to a blue state or a liberal cause.

Exile 1798

FISMA wrote: »

When Obama passed his Obamacare bill, the largest entitlement in half a century, it was riddle with pork and gimmes for those that signed on.

FISMA, in another thread you claimed that the Health Care Reform Act was “the biggest entitlement program in the history of the US.” I pointed out that this was spectacularly false, and you chose not to even attempt to defend your indefensible claim.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73568884&postcount=15

Now you’ve claiming that “Obamacare” is “the largest entitlement in half a century”

This is also false in the context you are couching the claim. It’s curious that you chose to put forward the “half a century” assertion. The Health Care Reform Act, which has it’s own funding mechanisms and is designed to be budget neutral stands in stark contrast to the actual biggest entitlement expansion in recent times.- Medicare Part D passed in 2003 which will cost $727.3 billion – all of which was and is unpaid for. There was no funding mechanism attached to this new entitlement but to borrow and add too the debt. In fact this huge new unpaid for entitlement was accompanied by large tax cuts which decimated US Federal government revenue and turned a healthy surplus into a massive deficit in a very short space of time.

I wonder if it’s actually possible that you missed this? If you did miss this, how can you possibly continue to pretend that you actually care about the budget, debt and deficit? And if you didn’t miss this, you’re being intentionally dishonest

There comes a point with people like you where we have to question whether you are actually sincere in any of this.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

"Enhanced Interrogation"?

I hardly think Euphemisms are solely a Democrat edifice. Did you notice how the Wealthy recently became re-coined "the Job Creators"?

Now "submissive" does not mean "submissive"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/14/ftn/main20092175.shtml?tag=stack

nyarlothothep

^^^

lol, I'll never get over the flawed and pathetic human need for self deception and the deception of those around them. Collateral Damage ftw etc.

gargleblaster

Recent NYT Op-Ed about the tea party.

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Very interesting findings. Not exactly surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

matthew8

gargleblaster wrote: »

Recent NYT Op-Ed about the tea party.



Very interesting findings. Not exactly surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

The NYT is a rag and you shouldn't trust it any more than the Daily Mail.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

The NYT is a rag and you shouldn't trust it any more than the Daily Mail.

I'll give you the same argument we just got done with about conservative sources and editorials: it shouldn't matter if the article is opinionated one way or the other. If the facts cited are correct, they are correct. There isn't actually a big problem with news sources making up lies. Leave that to the politicians.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

I'll give you the same argument we just got done with about conservative sources and editorials: it shouldn't matter if the article is opinionated one way or the other. If the facts cited are correct, they are correct. There isn't actually a big problem with news sources making up lies. Leave that to the politicians.

But the NYT is trying to make out that the tea party is done. The tea party took it's last major hit with the debt ceiling because the media could say they weren't proposing anything. The only bump in the road to power in 2012 is the budget but they're already making proposals for that while the mainstream wait until the last minute for theirs as an excuse not to change anything. It will be extremely hard to spin the oncoming budget holdup as something caused by the tea party. They have reached a floor and will get more candidates elected in 2012, especially in the senate with the amount of dems running.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

But the NYT is trying to make out that the tea party is done. The tea party took it's last major hit with the debt ceiling because the media could say they weren't proposing anything. The only bump in the road to power in 2012 is the budget but they're already making proposals for that while the mainstream wait until the last minute for theirs as an excuse not to change anything. It will be extremely hard to spin the oncoming budget holdup as something caused by the tea party. They have reached a floor and will get more candidates elected in 2012, especially in the senate with the amount of dems running.

I remember being so sure of myself in 2004 declaring with all my might that we finally are getting rid of the Shrub, and guess what happened.

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

I remember being so sure of myself in 2004 declaring with all my might that we finally are getting rid of the Shrub, and guess what happened.

The thing is that there are no tea partiers in danger of losing their seat in 2012 because most are in solid republican states/districts and there are many up for election on the democratic side in districts/states with a republican PVI so it's almost physically impossible for them to lose.

pgmcpq

matthew8 wrote: »

The thing is that there are no tea partiers in danger of losing their seat in 2012 because most are in solid republican states/districts and there are many up for election on the democratic side in districts/states with a republican PVI so it's almost physically impossible for them to lose.

The real real thing is that the TP don't have the numbers to control the House. Their power lie in their ability to pull their fellow Republicans around to their positions by making them fear being seen as "moderate". It's squeeky wheel-ism done well. The question becomes at what point do the other Republicans make the calculation the being associated with the TP is more trouble than it is worth? I'm not sure what the answer is but you'd have to imagine the debt ceiling Russian roulette was pretty close.

There is a brinkmanship involved that would be entertaining if the stakes were not so high.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

But the NYT is trying to make out that the tea party is done.

Yeah: it's an Op-Ed.

It's only their opinion/theory that the movement is dying.

Hayte

It's an Op-Ed which means it isn't even NYT's opinion/theory that the movement is dying. It is the opinion of the writer only. If the NYT espoused such views they would put it in the editorial and it would be signed by NTY or one of its staff.