Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's a very special post for Hank and Penske. It appears that the Republicans are willing to side with teachers unions if that's what it will take to deny Obama a political victory:

How Republicans Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Teachers Unions

Seyward Darby wrote a great article a few months ago arguing that, despite Obama's embrace of a historically Republican-friendly approach to education reform, Republicans were bound to oppose his reform agenda. I concurred, "Obama's willingness to take on the teachers unions takes all the fun out of being in favor of education reform for conservatives." And, sure enough, here is Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin urging his Congressional party not to quickly cooperate with Obama on education reform.

Holtz-Eakin offers four reasons to withhold cooperation. Try to follow the logic:

The classic dodge. We can't address this issue because there are other issues out there that we care about more. Non way to work on two issue at once! Next:

This is a generic, policy-is-hard argument that could be used to justify obstruction on any issue at all. Let's move on:

Ah, keep students, parents, and teachers first. That's been the teachers union platform -- they oppose reforms to hiring practices they've managed to impose. Amazing to see a conservative endorse it. And last:

As I suspected, Republicans are forgetting everything they believed about driving reform and adopting the rump paleocon opposition to national standards. Anything to deny handing Obama a bipartisan victory before 2012. Now, I'm sure Holtz-Eakin isn't walking around consciously thinking that he's tailoring his education policy views to fit the needs of the 2012 race. I'm sure he's persuaded himself of some kind of principle. But that is exactly what's going on.

Chait/TNR

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The word "realistic" is a undeserved caveat. There is no way they can get there. No way at all. No device, no accounting gimmick. The Big Three have to be cut. Which in what amounts, who knows. But they do need to be cut.

No, there is enough revenue, w/o additional taxes, to fund defense, SS and medicare. Even include debt service. 2010 Revenue was ~$2.4T, Defense was .728, SS .695, MC .453. Interest, even in 2019, is only projected to reach ~.7. So, that all fits under current revenue, but we have to eliminate *everything* else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's a very special post for Hank and Penske. It appears that the Republicans are willing to side with teachers unions if that's what it will take to deny Obama a political victory:



Chait/TNR

was the blogger in your labor law class, or did he teach it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Give the establishment round 1 in the rules just adopted.

I think that gives the tea partiers too much credit. They like the rules too, because they like tax cuts more than they like deficit reduction. Afterall, deficit isn't in the name.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The word "realistic" is a undeserved caveat. There is no way they can get there. No way at all. No device, no accounting gimmick. The Big Three have to be cut. Which in what amounts, who knows. But they do need to be cut.

Let's not forget the revenue side.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's not forget the revenue side.

The party which controls the house has forbidden any tax increase. So, again, "realistic" it is not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

was the blogger in your labor law class, or did he teach it?

Ha! That's funny.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

The party which controls the house has forbidden any tax increase. So, again, "realistic" it is not.

There are ways for them to reach a compromise that they can lable a tax decrease when it's actually an increase (ala the budget commission).

Club's apocolyptic visions aside, it's going to come down to whether the House leadership and the White House can reach a historic compromise that can get enough bipartisan votes in both houses to pass. It's possible, but a punt seems more likely.

A punt with some trivial spending cuts that the Rs can use to proclaim their fiscal responsibility, while blaming Dems for the ongoing budget issues, of course.

ETA: Btw, to be clear, I agree with your inclusion of "realistic" in the original post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ha! That's funny.

there is nothing funny in what this board has become. I asked a simple question about the background to the 14th amendment and was attacked. It turns out my hunch was correct (which I kind of knew once notbob seconded me), but the no-nothings didn't apologize, or even seem ashamed.

I think several people on this board wish they had tea party guys to argue with, but they don't, so they try to invent them. of course, if we didn't have actual DU'ers (hi Sidd! Hi GGG!) I might feel the same.

Still, until you clean up the mess that your friends dump here no one will have any reason to engage for real. read the shit storm I mention. unfucking believable.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Vogue) on Jon Stewart tonight. Will she talk about being the first lactating Senator?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think several people on this board wish they had tea party guys to argue with, but they don't, so they try to invent them.

This is wrong. You consistently repeat the Tea Party-line. If you didn't exist, perhaps we would invent you, but I would sooner invent genital fungus. Or Pomplamoose (sp?)

of course, if we didn't have actual DU'ers (hi Sidd! Hi GGG!) I might feel the same.

I've still never read DU. Have you? If so, maybe you can point out where I have parroted DU lines the way you do tea party lines.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I've still never read DU. Have you? If so, maybe you can point out where I have parroted DU lines the way you do tea party lines.

There's less message control on DU (afaik), so I think you have the thousand monkeys problem with that challenge.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there is nothing funny in what this board has become. I asked a simple question about the background to the 14th amendment and was attacked. It turns out my hunch was correct (which I kind of knew once notbob seconded me), but the no-nothings didn't apologize, or even seem ashamed.

I think several people on this board wish they had tea party guys to argue with, but they don't, so they try to invent them. of course, if we didn't have actual DU'ers (hi Sidd! Hi GGG!) I might feel the same.

Still, until you clean up the mess that your friends dump here no one will have any reason to engage for real. read the shit storm I mention. unfucking believable.

If you want to be a moderator, show us some moderation?

I didn't get why you all were talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't really see a political cost to the GOP to reading the Constitution aloud, and it seems like just the sort of foolish gesture that would appeal to the Tea Party crowd.

eta: If by "clean up the mess" you mean I should delete posts that you don't like, I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there is nothing funny in what this board has become. I asked a simple question about the background to the 14th amendment and was attacked. It turns out my hunch was correct (which I kind of knew once notbob seconded me), but the no-nothings didn't apologize, or even seem ashamed.

If you want friends, you have to be friendly.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: If by "clean up the mess" you mean I should delete posts that you don't like, I'm sorry, but that's not how I roll.

What if he emails you about it?


(sorry.. not sure why I felt the need to make his "joke" for him)