E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Glenn's Monologue is great as well ............
Glenn's Monologue is great as well ............
Dupontster
Would THIS face lie?
That was cool....I like Joe Walsh and I don't like Chris Matthews...You could tell Matthews was getting pizzed....
Tilted
..
I only watched the first couple of minutes - I couldn't make myself watch more than that. It shouldn't come as a surprise, but I don't much like Chris Matthews. That said, I don't see how anyone could think that Mr. Walsh humiliated him, at least not with regard to the 'plan' issue, unless they so much wanted such to be the case that they'd believe it to be no matter what. Quite to the contrary, Mr. Walsh made himself look like the typical, evasive, disingenuous politician.
Mr. Matthews was asking a legitimate, and very relevant as it goes to the heart of the problem and why there's so much BS regarding this spending / debt issue, question: Given that you guys have been critical of the other side for not identifying / proposing specific cuts, why doesn't your bill identify / propose specific cuts? Mr. Walsh kept evading the question and came off to me (and I would think any fair-minded person that had actually read the bill so that they understood what was going on) as a run-of-the-mill, evasive poli-spin-a-tician. I understand why he kept trying to avoid the question though - because answering it honestly wouldn't be politically expedient. I've little doubt that Mr. Matthews comes off looking like a fool sometimes (maybe often), but in this case, he wasn't the one filling that role (at least at the beginning - again, I couldn't watch all of it - I've eaten enough of the rhetorical gruel and have a hard time forcing more of it down). Mr. Matthews' assertion that the bill doesn't contain a plan, with regard to spending cuts, is quite fair.
Have people even read H.R. 2560? Never mind the reality that it would only cut spending for FY 2012 by a modest amount (around a hundred billion dollars, though it's hard to know for sure because of the built-in allowable adjustments - don't get me wrong though, anything is better than nothing), and would still leave us with massive deficit spending. Never mind the reality that it excludes (i.e., from both the implemented spending caps and whatever sequestration might be necessary) the aspects of federal spending that are the largest parts of our fiscal problems (e.g., Social Security, Medicare). Never mind even the reality that it does nothing to cut spending for FY 2011, and thus nothing to mitigate the need for continued borrowing in the immediate term and an increase of the statutory debt limit. (JUST KEEP SPENDING THE MONEY! No, you can't borrow any more, we need to get spending under control. Oh, btw, JUST KEEP SPENDING THE MONEY!). Never mind those things, it identifies exactly zero - no - nada - zippy - actual cuts. It proposes no specific cuts at all. It identifies a number (a few actually - one for new discretionary budget authority, one for total discretionary outlays, and one for direct spending), but that's it (and, again, it excludes from those numbers much of what needs to be cut). Beyond 2012, it just refers to portions of the GDP.
There's a reason for the lack of specificity - it's what I've said a gazillion times. This is a political game. This isn't about actually cutting spending to the degree necessary. This is about making people think you want to cut spending and, sometimes, think that you are cutting spending. The trick is to propose cutting spending in general, but not to actually make (significant) specific cuts. There's political benefit to be gained from being for spending cuts in general (at least for Republican politicians), but there's political liability to be incurred from being for specific spending cuts. It's easy to say 'we're gonna cut spending this much'. That's win-win politically. It's tougher to say 'we're gonna cut this by this much, and that by that much, and this by this much'. That's win-loss politically - for everyone you make happy with a specific cut, you're gonna piss someone else off. And, as it happens, a lot of the things that most need to be cut from a fiscal standpoint, are the things that would piss off significant portions of your base if you're a Republican.
People should read the bill. It's pass-the-buck political theater. It's an attempt to take advantage of the electorate's short attention spans, of their disinclination to actually look into things themselves and put forth a little effort to understand what things actually do, of their willingness to believe whatever their preferred pundits say, of their desire to believe that their side is the one fighting the noble fight, and of their willingness to seize on any scrap of a notion of what might be happening in order to support that belief. And so long as the electorate, by and large, displays those characteristics, the politicians will be able to get away with political theater rather than prudent governance.
The only chance we have to get good governance out of Washington is to call them out - our 'own side' especially - on the BS. We have to stop letting them play us for fools, and make no mistake Republicans and fiscal conservatives, that is what is happening right now. Our elected representatives are playing us for fools. Never mind what the Democrats are doing - let's just accept that they aren't ever going to do what we want or what we need to have done. We need to be looking at ourselves - at 'our side'. This situation is pure political theater. We are seeing hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and BS from the supposed fiscal conservatives.
Let's please not let them get away with it. Let's please not be the fools they assume us to be. Let's do the work to understand the situation so that we know when someone is pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining. Let's not fall for the 'oh, I'm not gonna let us pay our bills and that proves I'm against all the spending (please don't notice that I keep voting for all the spending)' red herring. To hell with what the accepted-as fiscal liberals are doing. We don't have any control over that - they need not care what we think, as we aren't going to vote for them anyway. Let's get our own house in order. The supposed fiscal conservatives do need to care what we think, or rather, how we will act. Let's hold their feet to the fire and expect better from them - not just better than the fiscal liberals or the same as the fiscal liberals, but better than what we've been getting. It will only be after we get our own house in order that we might have a chance to take control of this political system in a way that might lead to meaningful change. As it is, I'm not at all optimistic about getting meaningful change even if the supposed fiscal conservatives seize greater control. I wish we wouldn't waste so much of our efforts complaining about the President Obama's, Representative Pelosi's, and Senator Reid's of the world. They are what they are. We need better Representative Cantor's and Boehner's if we want a real chance at meaningful change - if we want to turn this ship around such that our children's children might enjoy the same prosperity we have enjoyed. That's where our efforts should be focused, because focusing them on the other side is much the fool's errand. WE need to change OUR own rhetoric and actions. And, we need to do it soon.
(Sorry, I don't feel like editing - if I called someone food instead of a fool, you'll just have to forgive me).
Mr. Matthews was asking a legitimate, and very relevant as it goes to the heart of the problem and why there's so much BS regarding this spending / debt issue, question: Given that you guys have been critical of the other side for not identifying / proposing specific cuts, why doesn't your bill identify / propose specific cuts? Mr. Walsh kept evading the question and came off to me (and I would think any fair-minded person that had actually read the bill so that they understood what was going on) as a run-of-the-mill, evasive poli-spin-a-tician. I understand why he kept trying to avoid the question though - because answering it honestly wouldn't be politically expedient. I've little doubt that Mr. Matthews comes off looking like a fool sometimes (maybe often), but in this case, he wasn't the one filling that role (at least at the beginning - again, I couldn't watch all of it - I've eaten enough of the rhetorical gruel and have a hard time forcing more of it down). Mr. Matthews' assertion that the bill doesn't contain a plan, with regard to spending cuts, is quite fair.
Have people even read H.R. 2560? Never mind the reality that it would only cut spending for FY 2012 by a modest amount (around a hundred billion dollars, though it's hard to know for sure because of the built-in allowable adjustments - don't get me wrong though, anything is better than nothing), and would still leave us with massive deficit spending. Never mind the reality that it excludes (i.e., from both the implemented spending caps and whatever sequestration might be necessary) the aspects of federal spending that are the largest parts of our fiscal problems (e.g., Social Security, Medicare). Never mind even the reality that it does nothing to cut spending for FY 2011, and thus nothing to mitigate the need for continued borrowing in the immediate term and an increase of the statutory debt limit. (JUST KEEP SPENDING THE MONEY! No, you can't borrow any more, we need to get spending under control. Oh, btw, JUST KEEP SPENDING THE MONEY!). Never mind those things, it identifies exactly zero - no - nada - zippy - actual cuts. It proposes no specific cuts at all. It identifies a number (a few actually - one for new discretionary budget authority, one for total discretionary outlays, and one for direct spending), but that's it (and, again, it excludes from those numbers much of what needs to be cut). Beyond 2012, it just refers to portions of the GDP.
There's a reason for the lack of specificity - it's what I've said a gazillion times. This is a political game. This isn't about actually cutting spending to the degree necessary. This is about making people think you want to cut spending and, sometimes, think that you are cutting spending. The trick is to propose cutting spending in general, but not to actually make (significant) specific cuts. There's political benefit to be gained from being for spending cuts in general (at least for Republican politicians), but there's political liability to be incurred from being for specific spending cuts. It's easy to say 'we're gonna cut spending this much'. That's win-win politically. It's tougher to say 'we're gonna cut this by this much, and that by that much, and this by this much'. That's win-loss politically - for everyone you make happy with a specific cut, you're gonna piss someone else off. And, as it happens, a lot of the things that most need to be cut from a fiscal standpoint, are the things that would piss off significant portions of your base if you're a Republican.
People should read the bill. It's pass-the-buck political theater. It's an attempt to take advantage of the electorate's short attention spans, of their disinclination to actually look into things themselves and put forth a little effort to understand what things actually do, of their willingness to believe whatever their preferred pundits say, of their desire to believe that their side is the one fighting the noble fight, and of their willingness to seize on any scrap of a notion of what might be happening in order to support that belief. And so long as the electorate, by and large, displays those characteristics, the politicians will be able to get away with political theater rather than prudent governance.
The only chance we have to get good governance out of Washington is to call them out - our 'own side' especially - on the BS. We have to stop letting them play us for fools, and make no mistake Republicans and fiscal conservatives, that is what is happening right now. Our elected representatives are playing us for fools. Never mind what the Democrats are doing - let's just accept that they aren't ever going to do what we want or what we need to have done. We need to be looking at ourselves - at 'our side'. This situation is pure political theater. We are seeing hypocrisy, disingenuousness, and BS from the supposed fiscal conservatives.
Let's please not let them get away with it. Let's please not be the fools they assume us to be. Let's do the work to understand the situation so that we know when someone is pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining. Let's not fall for the 'oh, I'm not gonna let us pay our bills and that proves I'm against all the spending (please don't notice that I keep voting for all the spending)' red herring. To hell with what the accepted-as fiscal liberals are doing. We don't have any control over that - they need not care what we think, as we aren't going to vote for them anyway. Let's get our own house in order. The supposed fiscal conservatives do need to care what we think, or rather, how we will act. Let's hold their feet to the fire and expect better from them - not just better than the fiscal liberals or the same as the fiscal liberals, but better than what we've been getting. It will only be after we get our own house in order that we might have a chance to take control of this political system in a way that might lead to meaningful change. As it is, I'm not at all optimistic about getting meaningful change even if the supposed fiscal conservatives seize greater control. I wish we wouldn't waste so much of our efforts complaining about the President Obama's, Representative Pelosi's, and Senator Reid's of the world. They are what they are. We need better Representative Cantor's and Boehner's if we want a real chance at meaningful change - if we want to turn this ship around such that our children's children might enjoy the same prosperity we have enjoyed. That's where our efforts should be focused, because focusing them on the other side is much the fool's errand. WE need to change OUR own rhetoric and actions. And, we need to do it soon.
(Sorry, I don't feel like editing - if I called someone food instead of a fool, you'll just have to forgive me).
Pushrod
Patriot
The question, what do we do Tilted? We vote new people in hoping that they are going to do something different and instead of calling the piss rain, they call it a light drizzle. It's the same sh!t in a different suit.
I'm about ready to throw my hands up in the air and just sit back and watch it all crumble around us, as it is slowly doing.
I feel like these politicians get in and just want to rape the nation for every penny they can stuff in their pockets, to hell with where they are driving the country.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that the ballot box option is coming to an end and I sorely don't want to see us have to use the last box option to straighten this nation out. That would be horrific for all.
I'm about ready to throw my hands up in the air and just sit back and watch it all crumble around us, as it is slowly doing.
I feel like these politicians get in and just want to rape the nation for every penny they can stuff in their pockets, to hell with where they are driving the country.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that the ballot box option is coming to an end and I sorely don't want to see us have to use the last box option to straighten this nation out. That would be horrific for all.
Mongo53
New Member
If this is true, then the Dems got everything they wanted. Why won't the Democrat control Senate pass it quickly and get it in under the radar? Why would Obama Veto it?
Last edited:
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
One underlying issue that drives the response from both sides in the Congress is that the voters have not really decided what they want. The Republicans and tea-party winners in the House would have you believe the voters have spoken loudly that they want government to shrink, taxes to shrink, the deficit to shrink and freedom to grow. But the voters, if they really thought that, would still be saying that unequivocally in the polls. Most importantly, they would have said that when they voted for a third of the Senators in November. But they didn't and that's the problem.
Nobody currently in Congress knows how the sheeple and other voters will swing in November 2012.
Nobody currently in Congress knows how the sheeple and other voters will swing in November 2012.
Last edited:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
You have to watch to know.
You are so long winded, you must be a lawyer or politician. Bloviate if you must, but don't expect to be read.
Tilted
..
I'm not sure Pushrod, but I do know that the first step, and what would have to happen if there was to be any hope of meaningful change, is for us - the electorate, and fiscal conservatives in particular - to change our mindsets and behavoir. We need to admit that it isn't just the Democrats that are relying on the ignorance and sheep-dom of their base in order to gain and maintain political power. We have to stop accepting the BS, spin, and insults to our intelligence from our side (i.e. supposed fiscal conservatives), even while we laugh at liberals for doing the same. We have to start understanding what's going on and being honest with ourselves, rather than abdicating our duty to know what we're talking about and to be aware of what's really going on, just so that we can pretend that our side is the one fighting the noble fight and that, but for the other side's efforts, our side would make things significantly better.
We get the elected leaders we deserve, and right now we deserve the poor governance we're getting. We let our side play us for fools, because at least then we can believe our side is better than the other - that the other voters are the idiots, not us, never mind that our side's voters swallow the BS, and accept the pundit's misinformation and spin, just as readily as their side's do. When it comes to core ideology, I believe our side - fiscal conservatism - is right and prudent. I believe it is clearly so. But, when it comes to execution, to performance, to sincerity, to actions - our side hasn't been much better of late. And, it won't be until we stop accepting the BS they've been spoon feeding us, and that they've found works, largely because it pulls our eyes off the prize by focusing our attention on how poorly the other side is behaving and how wrong it is. When it comes to politics, that strategy works (though it doesn't in most other aspects of life) because so many of us care more, at least in immediate term, about feeling like we're on the good side than about getting results. We care more about being on the better team than we do about winning.
Will things meaningfully change in this regard? It doesn't seem likely to me. But, even if there's little chance of fixing the problem, I still think it's better to correctly identify the real problem than it is to waste effort insisting that bogeymen are the problem. We are the problem. Until we take our political system more seriously and have a little more respect for ourselves than to behave as political sheep, obeying the will and falling for the political chicanery of our shepherds, we will never get good leaders nor good governance.
Tilted
..
How does that represent the Dems getting everything they wanted? That bill wouldn't seem to be giving the Democrats much of anything they want, let alone everything.
As for why they wouldn't quickly pass it, I can think of a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is that they probably don't want that much in the way of cuts (even if they aren't specified) without tax increases. I suspect they also have a problem with the balanced budget amendment, especially if it is required (i.e. to be transmitted to the states) before the debt ceiling is raised. I further suspect they have no interest in playing along with what they surely, in this case reasonably, consider political theater.
If I was inclined to give them more credit, which I'm not necessarily, I might suggest the main reason for not supporting it is because they realize that it would require massive cuts to the small ticket items (i.e. in future years) without requiring cuts to the big ticket items that will be the biggest parts of our fiscal problem. This plan is more about political expediency than good (and needed) governance - the people passing it are trying to get political credit for making big cuts in general, without facing the political ire that might come from identifying big cuts and especially those cuts which really need to be made. It's easy to throw out some numbers about the size of cuts that will be made, it's a little tougher to actually explain how those numbers are going to be achieved. Think this: I'm going to fix our oil problem by having us produce an additional 12 million barrels a day within 6 years. How am I going to do that? Never mind that, I'm going to do it - I just said I was. Vote for me, I've proved I'm willing to make the tough decisions to fix the problem - see, 12 million more barrels a day.
This bill leaves the main systemic problems be, yet would require large amounts of cuts in future years (still not enough, btw, in my opinion) - so it would lead to completely gutting some aspects of the federal government, while allowing the real problems to persist. Now, gutting a lot of the federal government's operations is fine with me - if I had my way, we'd cut the size of the federal budget by 70 or 80% - but this 'plan' still wouldn't fix the problem. It doesn't tackle that which must be tackled - entitlements. Further, the severity of cuts to other things that it would end up requiring would alienate quite a few voters - that's why these people won't identify specific cuts (when we're talking about cuts this big, that is). Again, this isn't about doing the tough work of getting our fiscal house in order, this is about getting people to believe that you are.
It's show. It's distraction. And the Colosseum crowd goes wild!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Couple of observations;
A, It is IMPOSSIBLE to humiliate someone with no dignity.
B, If that is the best Joe Walsh can do, he really ought to consider rejoining the Eagles and at least do something he is good at.
As Tilted said, Mathews asked a legit question that Walsh just danced around like any other douche politician who suckered people into voting for him by, apparently, being able to bull#### them that he has a clue and is all about the boutique issue of the day and, more importantly, specific goals and intentions other than vague flag waving bullet points like 'war on terror' and cut '$100 billion' in the budget.
If this is Joe Walsh's game, just another opportunist regurgitating what he thinks actually sounds good, that ain't gonna get it done. And if he can't handle Chris Mathews one on one, well, like the songs says, maybe we can check out any time we like but, we can never leave.
What a nightmare.
:shrug:
A, It is IMPOSSIBLE to humiliate someone with no dignity.
B, If that is the best Joe Walsh can do, he really ought to consider rejoining the Eagles and at least do something he is good at.
As Tilted said, Mathews asked a legit question that Walsh just danced around like any other douche politician who suckered people into voting for him by, apparently, being able to bull#### them that he has a clue and is all about the boutique issue of the day and, more importantly, specific goals and intentions other than vague flag waving bullet points like 'war on terror' and cut '$100 billion' in the budget.
If this is Joe Walsh's game, just another opportunist regurgitating what he thinks actually sounds good, that ain't gonna get it done. And if he can't handle Chris Mathews one on one, well, like the songs says, maybe we can check out any time we like but, we can never leave.
What a nightmare.
:shrug:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
I am not voting for these people ...........
ID10T's should not be allowed to VOTE ........ (or anyone on the public dole - if you are getting welfare you are not allowed to vote in the next election following your reception of benefits)
of course that would have kept me from voting in 2006
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Tilted
..
Couple of observations;
A, It is IMPOSSIBLE to humiliate someone with no dignity.
B, If that is the best Joe Walsh can do, he really ought to consider rejoining the Eagles and at least do something he is good at.
As Tilted said, Mathews asked a legit question that Walsh just danced around like any other douche politician who suckered people into voting for him by, apparently, being able to bull#### them that he has a clue and is all about the boutique issue of the day and, more importantly, specific goals and intentions other than vague flag waving bullet points like 'war on terror' and cut '$100 billion' in the budget.
If this is Joe Walsh's game, just another opportunist regurgitating what he thinks actually sounds good, that ain't gonna get it done. And if he can't handle Chris Mathews one on one, well, like the songs says, maybe we can check out any time we like but, we can never leave.
What a nightmare.
:shrug:
Please tell me we aren't talking about THAT Joe Walsh.
More importantly, this provides a good excuse to post an Eagles song. Seriously, what doesn't?
Tilted
..
The RINO label isn't apt anymore. It isn't that these people are Republicans in name only, it's that this is what Republicans are now - fiscal conservatives in name only, typical poli-spin-iticians by vocation. They're FCINOs, not RINOs. And, I mean that not only with regard to most elected Republican officials, but also with regard to most Republican voters.
We claim to be fiscal conservatives and perhaps we are, to some degree, in the abstract. But, when it comes down to the details in the real world, the Republican party is fiscally very liberal. Spend, spend, spend... oh yeah, and we need to stop all this spending... we should cut that stuff over there that doesn't really amount to much, that'll prove we're real fiscal conservatives so we can leave all this stuff over here that represents the biggest part of the problems... spend, spend, spend. The electorate is hypocritical and it elects leaders that are as well. No sense electing people who are, first and foremost, fiscal conservatives rather than typical spinmaster politicians - if we did that, we might have to deal with them pointing out to us how hypocritical we are.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Please tell me we aren't talking about THAT Joe Walsh.
More importantly, this provides a good excuse to post an Eagles song. Seriously, what doesn't?
No, not that Joe. Just trying to keep myself entertained.
If we're gonna do Eagles songs, let's do a good one;
BTW, written by the REAL Joe Walsh!
Tilted
..
No, not that Joe. Just trying to keep myself entertained.
If we're gonna do Eagles songs, let's do a good one;
BTW, written by the REAL Joe Walsh!
I was going to post that one at first, but I decided to pick a different one because I thought it might too easily seem that it was chosen as commenting on the issues at hand. I was trying to get completely away from political issues and on to pure musical enjoyment (though, now that I listen to my selection again, I don't think I succeeded).
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No, no, Already Gone is a great song and is there anything better, really, than the first hours of a vacation and hearing that tewn?
It's just that Walsh didn't write it. :shrug:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Tilted
..
Okay, I was gonna try to phony-up a fight between us over which song is better, but I decided just to post some more Eagles.