Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How do you explain that the whole Republican Party has moved so far towards Austria that they write off Milton Friedman's views as socialist?

What was Japan's debt load in 2000?

[sgtclub]

Here we go again . . . Senate rejects earmark ban with 8 Republicans voting with DEMs. Bi-partisanship indeed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This, plus the fact that the first time the minority leader of either house was invited to the white house for a private meeting was after the mid-terms. Yea, that's a real effort to move to the middle.

It's not surprising that you say things that are so wrong, it's that you say things that are so wrong and that are so easily disproved by spending about 20 seconds with Google.

January 28, 2009, 11:23 AM

Obama Holds Reception for Congressional Leaders
By JEFF ZELENY
Invitations are out: A presidential cocktail reception – for Congressional leaders only – is taking place on Wednesday evening at the White House.

One day after President Obama visited Capitol Hill, he is returning the favor by being host to about two dozen Democrats and Republicans on his turf. The event, scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m., is the first-of-a-kind gathering in the new administration and the latest sign that Mr. Obama is attempting to build relationships with Congress.

The bipartisan affair is set to come shortly after the House considers the president’s economic stimulus bill. The roll call vote could make for some interesting conversation, particularly if the bulk of Republicans oppose the proposal as planned.

The reception will take place in the Red, Blue and Green rooms of the executive mansion.

So who’s on the guest list?

There are six House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader; and six House Republicans, including Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the whip.

On the Senate side, there are five leading Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. On the Republican side, five senators also are invited, including: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, along with Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Jon Kyl of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota and John Cornyn of Texas.

And yes, mingling is encouraged between Republicans and Democrats, as well as senators and representatives. They will, of course, have plenty to discuss, considering the economic stimulus plan has several hurdles to cross before the president can sign the bill.

What’s on the menu? The invitees were told to expect drinks – and, perhaps, a snack or two.

NYT

Inauguration Day was January 20, so it took about eight days for Obama to invite minority leaders to the White House.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

What was Japan's debt load in 2000?

1. What do you think that has to do with [this] macroeconomic policy? [eta: When the government creates money and buys real assets with them and holds those assets, rather then spending the money, what does that have to do with the debt load? As Hank would say, think about it.]

2. High:

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by tyrone slothrop

it's not surprising that you say things that are so wrong, it's that you say things that are so wrong and that are so easily disproved by spending about 20 seconds with google.



nyt

inauguration day was january 20, so it took about eight days for obama to invite minority leaders to the white house.

nwor

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

1. What do you think that has to do with [this] macroeconomic policy? [eta: When the government creates money and buys real assets with them and holds those assets, rather then spending the money, what does that have to do with the debt load? As Hank would say, think about it.]

2. High:

I was curious, because I do not think QE would be a political issue if (1) the economy was better, and (2) our debt wasn't so high.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I was curious, because I do not think QE would be a political issue if (1) the economy was better, and (2) our debt wasn't so high.

Are you saying that Republicans are stupid because they think it makes the national debt worse, or are you saying they're mendacious because they're taking advantage of fears about debt to oppose something that might help the economy and has nothing to do with debt?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

nwor

I suppose that's one way to stop from digging the hole deeper.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, what could Obama have offered to get that 1 vote that wasn't on the table?

Not Obama, but Reid could have allowed amendments and got one vote (Snowe) for DREAM.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I suppose that's one way to stop from digging the hole deeper.

Feel free to believe that.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Are you saying that Republicans are stupid because they think it makes the national debt worse, or are you saying they're mendacious because they're taking advantage of fears about debt to oppose something that might help the economy and has nothing to do with debt?

Are you saying you beat your wife on Tuesdays or Wednesdays?

Do you not see how objections to the devaluation of our currency and the potential inflationary effects are legitimate concerns? Frankly, although I understand the arguments on both sides, I do not have enough knowledge to form a real opinion on the issue. Nor does 99.999999% of the world's population, and the remaining % are merely guessing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I suppose that's one way to stop from digging the hole deeper.

He said private meeting.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Do you not see how objections to the devaluation of our currency and the potential inflationary effects are legitimate concerns?

What do they have to do with debt levels?

But on the substance of you question, one of these cocncerns is the goal and the other is a helpful side effect. As Friedman of all people argued.

But honestly, why do you think devaluing the dollar would be bad?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

your "intelligent substantive" argument is that Obama could not give any 1 R anything he would have wanted because then Obama would not have gotten exactly his plan? and that means the Rs were bad, each and every one?

I know that facts are much harder to understand than your preferred simple syllogisms, but they spent an entire summer trying to get 1 R to vote with them. Neither of us know what might have been offered to Snowe, Grassley, et al, but we do know that they eventually toed the R party line, which was a blanket "no" to any and every concrete proposal.

he gave a Dem congressman a promise that no gov funds would go to abortions. was that part of his plan or an accommodation?

And you think this (and what Nelson briefly got) is evidence that Obama wasn't open to offering similar inducements to the 1 R who was willing to blink??

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yes. 40 votes and you can't move 1 means objectively you didn't try.

I think you are actually delusional. And that makes anyone legitimately arguing with you on the substance of any topic, insane.

TM