United States of Entropy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are seeing more and more of the split within the GOP.

Notably, Karl Rove is openly funding Mitch McConnell's re-election efforts and will be tossing a lot of $ into that primary (vs. a rabid Tea Party challenger). This won't be the last such standoff we'll see.
 
thoughts from Krugman:

The Dixiecrat Solution
By PAUL KRUGMAN

So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume.

Not much of an offer, is it? But here’s the kicker: Your neighbor’s relatives, who have been egging him on, are furious that he didn’t also demand that you kill your dog.

And now you understand the current state of budget negotiations.


Stocks surged last Friday in the belief that House Republicans were getting ready to back down on their ransom demands over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. But what Republicans were actually offering, it seems, was the “compromise” Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, laid out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article: rolling back some of the “sequester” budget cuts — which both parties dislike; cuts in Medicare, but with no quid pro quo in the form of higher revenue; and only a temporary fix on the debt ceiling, so that we would soon find ourselves in crisis again.

I do not think that word “compromise” means what Mr. Ryan thinks it means. Above all, he failed to offer the one thing the White House won’t, can’t bend on: an end to extortion over the debt ceiling. Yet even this ludicrously unbalanced offer was too much for conservative activists, who lambasted Mr. Ryan for basically leaving health reform intact.

Does this mean that we’re going to hit the debt ceiling? Quite possibly; nobody really knows, but careful observers are giving no better than even odds that any kind of deal will be reached before the money runs out. Beyond that, however, our current state of dysfunction looks like a chronic condition, not a one-time event. Even if the debt ceiling is raised enough to avoid immediate default, even if the government shutdown is somehow brought to an end, it will only be a temporary reprieve. Conservative activists are simply not willing to give up on the idea of ruling through extortion, and the Obama administration has decided, wisely, that it will not give in to extortion.

So how does this end? How does America become governable again?

One answer might be that we somehow stumble through the next 13 months, and voters punish Republican tactics by returning the House to Democratic control. Recent polls do show a large Democratic advantage on the generic House ballot. But remember, Democratic House candidates already “won” in 2012, in the sense that they received more votes in total than Republicans. Yet the vagaries of district boundaries — partly, but not entirely, the result of gerrymandering — meant that the Republican majority in seats remained, and it would probably take a really huge Democratic sweep to dislodge G.O.P. control.

There is, however, another solution, and everyone knows what it is. Call it Dixiecrats in reverse.

Here’s the precedent: For a long time, starting as early as 1938, Democrats generally controlled Congress on paper, but actual control often rested with an alliance between Republicans and conservative Southerners who were Democrats in name only. You may not like what this alliance did — among other things, it killed universal health insurance, which we might otherwise have had 65 years ago. But at least America had a functioning government, untroubled by the kind of craziness that now afflicts us.

And right now we have all the necessary ingredients for a comparable alliance, with roles reversed. Despite denials from Republican leaders, everyone I talk to believes that it would be easy to pass both a continuing resolution, reopening the government, and an increase in the debt ceiling, averting default, if only such measures were brought to the House floor. How? The answer is, they would get support from just about all Democrats plus some Republicans, mainly relatively moderate non-Southerners. As I said, Dixiecrats in reverse.


The problem is that John Boehner, the speaker of the House, won’t allow such votes, because he’s afraid of the backlash from his party’s radicals. Which points to a broader conclusion: The biggest problem we as a nation face right now is not the extremism of Republican radicals, which is a given, but the cowardice of Republican non-extremists (it would be stretching to call them moderates).

The question for the next few days is whether plunging markets and urgent appeals from big business will stiffen the non-extremists’ spines. For as far as I can tell, the reverse-Dixiecrat solution is the only way out of this mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/krugman-the-dixiecrat-solution.html?_r=0
 
but the cowardice of Republican non-extremists (it would be stretching to call them moderates).

That sums all this up well
 
So...the scheduled House vote on the recent Senate agreement to re-open the government and raise the debt ceiling for several more months has been cancelled, because Speaker Boehner can't get the Tea Partiers to vote for it, and passing the bill without them would threaten his Speakership.

So, I see this ending in one of three ways:

1. Boehner falls on his sword and eventually brings the Senate bill to a vote in the house.

2. The Democrats cave into whatever ridiculous demands the Tea Partiers want in a new bill that gets sent to the House(I really hope this doesn't happen).

3. We breach the debt ceiling.
 
The US does not negotiate with terrorists. I do not want to see the Dems cave on this. I know what is at stake if they don't, but this type of governing cannot continue.
 
#3 is the best option, and I'm worried it won't happen.

I just keep shaking my head over how Tea Party types keep saying the liberals will ruin America, bring about a sort of apocalypse, create a dictatorship, etc., yet they are the ones doing this. Its like they put the focus on the liberals to divert attention from what they were doing.
 
it's part of the plan for economic sabotage on the part of the GOP.

these are not conservatives, these are radicals who are willing to wreck the global economy.

The global economy managed to wreck itself just fine in 2008 prior to GOP "radicals" and Ted Cruz coming to Washington.
 
Pearl said:
#3 is the best option, and I'm worried it won't happen.

I just keep shaking my head over how Tea Party types keep saying the liberals will ruin America, bring about a sort of apocalypse, create a dictatorship, etc., yet they are the ones doing this. Its like they put the focus on the liberals to divert attention from what they were doing.

Why do you say #3 is the best option?
 
The global economy managed to wreck itself just fine in 2008 prior to GOP "radicals" and Ted Cruz coming to Washington.

And you want to do it again? Why? Is that all republicans can do? Start wars and wreck economies? It wrecked itself?

I don't pray. But I sure as heck am hoping that the potty-trained Republicans are going to take the keys back from the idiots in the driver's seat.
 
Why do you say #3 is the best option?

That's based on what I've read, that it may be the best solution.

Although as I reread #1 again, that sounds better. But again, will that happen?

I might be overreacting to all of this, but I still freshly remember struggling during the few years after the 2008 downturn. I'm concerned that as I finally get my life back on track, things may fall apart again. How, I don't know and that is what worries me, and if I'll survive it, financially.
 
Pearl said:
That's based on what I've read, that it may be the best solution.

Although as I reread #1 again, that sounds better. But again, will that happen?

I might be overreacting to all of this, but I still freshly remember struggling during the few years after the 2008 downturn. I'm concerned that as I finally get my life back on track, things may fall apart again. How, I don't know and that is what worries me, and if I'll survive it, financially.

You understand that breaching the debt ceiling means not raising it, that it means defaulting on our debt?
 
You understand that breaching the debt ceiling means not raising it, that it means defaulting on our debt?

Oh crap, you're right.

You know, I think I'll just stay away from this topic since I keep letting my worries get the best of me here. I'll come back when my head is cleared.
 
Wow. Just read the most retarded article ever thanks to someone on my Facebook who is a good ole boy super right wing guns freak. I mean really, Cruz has now said Obama is worse than Hitler. Yeah, because Obama started a world war and created Holocaust. I mean seriously, what cornucopia of drugs are these retarded reps of our nation taking to not only believe this garbage, but to say it in interview?
House Republicans Schedule Obama Impeachment Hearings - The Daily Currant
 
open_letter.png
 
Wow. Just read the most retarded article ever thanks to someone on my Facebook who is a good ole boy super right wing guns freak. I mean really, Cruz has now said Obama is worse than Hitler. Yeah, because Obama started a world war and created Holocaust. I mean seriously, what cornucopia of drugs are these retarded reps of our nation taking to not only believe this garbage, but to say it in interview?
House Republicans Schedule Obama Impeachment Hearings - The Daily Currant

"All this clown needs to do is repeal the most important law he ever passed, and then this will all be over. Why is that so hard? The Tea Party represents almost 22 percent of Americans. Only a dictator would refuse to give us everything we want. Obama should be more than impeached -- he should be in jail."

:lmao: I loved this part!

But you should know the Currant is satire.
 
Wow. Just read the most retarded article ever thanks to someone on my Facebook who is a good ole boy super right wing guns freak. I mean really, Cruz has now said Obama is worse than Hitler. Yeah, because Obama started a world war and created Holocaust. I mean seriously, what cornucopia of drugs are these retarded reps of our nation taking to not only believe this garbage, but to say it in interview? House Republicans Schedule Obama Impeachment Hearings - The Daily Currant



This is a satirical article from a satirical website.

I noticed that it has fooled a lot of people, left and right.

Also, I don't like that use of the word "retarded."
 
Also, I don't like that use of the word "retarded."

re·tard: to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.

Which is exactly what is happening. But okay. I won't use it.
 
:lmao: I loved this part!

But you should know the Currant is satire.

Thank goodness.

Which means that Tourist's right-wing friend didn't realize it was satire either.

I'm sure he didn't. He's a guy I went to school with, never had any classes with, and rarely if ever talked to. I didn't have the heart to not accept his friend request.

I'm not sure if they ever grasp satire...

Not likely.
 
Looks like it's all over.

Total and embarrassing failure by the GOP. They shut down the government for what? A clean bill?

Good luck with the Tea Party caucus guys. God willing, you'll elect even more of them next time. Country loves 'em!
 
Looks like it's all over.

Total and embarrassing failure by the GOP. They shut down the government for what? A clean bill?

Good luck with the Tea Party caucus guys. God willing, you'll elect even more of them next time. Country loves 'em!

All over? The Senate agreed to a deal, but would you really be shocked if the Tea Partiers refuse once again to vote for it, and if Boehner refuses to bring it to a vote without them?
 
Boehner has already publicly stated that he'll bring it to a vote regardless.

ETA: Take a look at the markets as well - Wall Street knows it's over.
 
(CNN) -- Damn those extreme Republicans. President Obama and White House press secretary Jay Carney have found Republicans guilty of extortion and blackmail. Joe Biden, per a report in Politico, once christened Republicans as terrorists.

Liberals have led a media assault, calling the GOP anarchists, jihadists, "gun to head" hostage takers, and the political equivalent of the Taliban. White House advisor Dan Pfeiffer has likened Republicans to suicide bombers "with a bomb strapped to their chest."

What could be more extreme?

The Democratic Party.

True, the Ted Cruz wing in the House of Representatives is relentless, uncompromising and unmoved by practicality. As we all know, there are perhaps 40 or so "bullet-proof Republicans" in the House, in safe GOP districts, invulnerable except to Kryptonite. They fear a fellow Republican getting to their right in a primary more than a long-shot Democratic opponent who would paint their district blue in a general election.

No doubt, the GOP is a party divided, but there are a lot of Democrats in safe districts, too. Why don't they fear a fellow Democrat getting to their left in a primary? Why aren't the Democrats a party divided between a centrist mainstream and a more extreme, radicalized left?

Let us count the reasons: Barack Obama has taken the Democratic Party left of Clinton. He left blue-dog, centrist Democrats to be punished for his sins and they were wiped out in the GOP's 2010 Congressional landslide. All the while, the Internet has empowered and organized the party's remaining and most extreme elements. The Democratic Party can't go left. It is left, in entirety. They already occupy America's left fringe.
Nixon: De Blasio 'a real game changer'

Bill Clinton's New Democrats are dead. This is not Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party. Today's Democratic Party belongs to Elizabeth Warren. It is the party that just nominated a Sandinista trainee who returned from Nicaragua with "a vision of unfettered leftist government" for mayor of New York City, according to the New York Times.

And today's Democrats think this is a good thing.

They dream audaciously, as Ruy Teixeira wrote in the Atlantic, of a new "Emerging Democratic Majority." As Peter Beinart noted in a Daily Beast piece, "The Rise of the New New Left," "Bill de Blasio's win in New York's Democratic primary isn't a local story. It's part of a vast shift that could upend three decades of American political thinking."

The Democratic Party is now animated by the "mobilized left," Beinart writes, emboldened by Internet activism. Their cause was galvanized by President Obama's seemingly impossible re-election.

Once, Obama may have campaigned as a centrist, but that was long ago. He has since governed as an old school economic liberal from the '60s. As Fred Thompson has noted, Barack Obama has been "George McGovern without the experience." Obama's answer to every economic challenge has been top-down. Our governing class knows best, he believes, especially since Washington's elite now includes him.

If the world has changed in eight decades, our President hasn't noticed. His view of government is cast from the bronze of Franklin Roosevelt and the '30s. He puts our big, dumb, inflexible public sector at the top of American life, to mandate redistribution and prosperity.

At every opportunity, he has grown the public sector's archaic program-and-policy factory. This empty presidency tries only to cure too much old government with even more of it. Though little of what he has tried has worked, it has not seemed to deter his party. It hasn't deterred him.

His government doesn't govern education: The U.S. educational system barely edges out nations such as Slovakia, in international rankings. His government doesn't govern retirement: Our public-sector retirement system is akin to an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. His government doesn't govern health care: The Affordable Care Act is making health care more unaffordable for many seniors. His old government doesn't govern our economy: A record high 89 million Americans don't participate in the workforce and 300,000 more dropped out this August. Barack Obama is building the largest public sector since World War II and, yet, our government governs nothing.

Still, an intellectually exhausted Democratic Party proposes nothing new. If at first you don't succeed, keep trying until you are $20 trillion in debt and failure litters your streets.

The rollout of the Obamacare website is but another symptom of an old, hierarchical bureaucracy incapable of keeping pace with the complexities of a modern, adaptive America. Healthcare.gov is the best old Washington can do, not the worst.

While our world transforms itself through revolutions in energy, technology and communication, the ideologists of the left stagnate. Barack Obama's Democratic Party is intellectually exhausted. Their old Democratic Party has nothing up its sleeves but more of the same.

How our young President could only offer such dated ideas will be studied for decades. For now, we can mark candidate Obama's transformation from agent of hope and change to defender of liberal calcification as one of the great sleight-of-hand tricks in political history.

With any luck, he will be the last President who tried to teach our dinosauric public sector to dance to the music of a new and adaptive era. Others, beyond Obama, will not expand but instead transform what we now pretend "governs" us. As for his legacy, today's tweeters and texters will remember Barack Obama as the last President of the Industrial Age and once he is gone, there will be no cover for his party's intellectual barrenness.

Obama will leave a Democratic Party epitomized by ancient ideas, radically positioned left of our political center. The political trouble Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush is nothing compared to what Obama has teed up for a future contender such as Hillary Clinton.

Our former secretary of state has had no choice but to campaign for president earlier than she would have chosen. Clinton can see that this radicalized Democratic Party could easily leave her behind and find another champion. It did so before, to her distress, in 2008.

No other member of the old Democratic elite can possibly hold its left-sliding legions together, yet Hillary Clinton has only one credential that appeals to her party: She could be our first female president. Elizabeth Warren's growing followers, more in tune with today's radicalized, populist Democrats, are likely to find that distinction unimpressive. If Clinton's rationale begins to fray, all hands on deck: The Democratic Party's 2016 nomination process is going to look like the casting call for "One-Flew-Over-The Cuckoo's Nest."

Howard Dean may have screamed his way past the Democratic nomination in 2004, but the revolution he started has borne fruit. The 2016 nomination battle may be a fight between Elizabeth Warren, Governors Martin O'Malley and Deval Patrick, an unpolished pack of ideological duds and even a reinvigorated Dean, all vying to out-crazy each other and take the Democratic Party over a precipice. They'll make the troupe that sought the 2012 GOP nomination look like the committee awarding the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Which party is more extreme?

A Republican Party divided between 180 mainstream House members and 40 Ted Cruz mini-me's? Or a Democratic Party united to preserve our fossilized, ineffective public sector?

A Republican Party advocating a path to fresh, natural, economic growth? Or a Democratic Party offering young voters the outdated economics of conformity, artificially imposed by Washington's elites?

A Republican Party being driven to offer change? Or a Democratic Party united against it?

Entrepreneurs, start printing tie-died shirts now. They will be hot sellers at the next Democratic Convention. Both sides are in for an interesting ride, but for Democrats, it's going to be an extreme 2016.

Are Democrats more extreme than GOP?

I couldn't help but think of where this thread has gone after reading this op-ed piece.
 
The idea that the Democrats -- pushing a health care plan that came from right wing think tanks in the 1990s and recently implemented by a Republican governor who was the party's 2012 presidential nominee -- occupy some sort of left wing fringe is nonsense. There is no left wing fringe in the US. Further, Warren Buffet has talked about these "political weapons of mass destruction." Calling these people "terrorists" is an accurate description after what they've put the nation through these past 2 weeks.

The author of the piece is a GOP strategist. I assume this op-ed is a strategy piece designed to map out a possible political narrative for the GOP "moderates" to begin to explain their way out of yet another debacle and crushing defeat by Obama. And good luck to them -- washing off the stink of the Tea Party will be no easy task.

It'd a smart editorial in that sense. What the GOP has done is inexcusable. They are unfit to govern by any measure. He's wisely trying to shift the focus back on Obama.
 
The 2016 nomination battle may be a fight between Elizabeth Warren, Governors Martin O'Malley and Deval Patrick, an unpolished pack of ideological duds and even a reinvigorated Dean, all vying to out-crazy each other and take the Democratic Party over a precipice. They'll make the troupe that sought the 2012 GOP nomination look like the committee awarding the Nobel Prize for Physics.

I'm sorry, but how can you take this seriously after reading this paragraph?

A Republican strategist is insulting the intelligence of somebody like Elizabeth Warren? This coming from the party of Michele Bachmann (MARANATHA LORD!!), Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin? To say nothing of other wackjobs who think that raped women can't get pregnant, that there is something called legitimate rape, and so on.

nbc, I expected better of you.
 
The idea that the Democrats -- pushing a health care plan that came from right wing think tanks in the 1990s and recently implemented by a Republican governor who was the party's 2012 presidential nominee -- occupy some sort of left wing fringe is nonsense. There is no left wing fringe in the US. Further, Warren Buffet has talked about these "political weapons of mass destruction." Calling these people "terrorists" is an accurate description after what they've put the nation through these past 2 weeks.

The author of the piece is a GOP strategist. I assume this op-ed is a strategy piece designed to map out a possible political narrative for the GOP "moderates" to begin to explain their way out of yet another debacle and crushing defeat by Obama. And good luck to them -- washing off the stink of the Tea Party will be no easy task.

It'd a smart editorial in that sense. What the GOP has done is inexcusable. They are unfit to govern by any measure. He's wisely trying to shift the focus back on Obama.

There are left wing fringe elements in the United States. They just aren't in Congress. Not enough gerrymandering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom