Tea Party Caucus Destroying the Job Market

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 12:42 PM GMT
    Kind of speaks for itself...

    blog_employment_tea_party.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:11 PM GMT
    This has to do with the gridlock from both parties being apparently unwilling to yield their positions, to blame it on the the tea party is just too obviously one-sided and juvenile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:19 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidKind of speaks for itself...

    blog_employment_tea_party.jpg


    Speaks for itself or speaks about you? Curious - when did the tea party movement start? [2009]

    Who controls the Presidency and the Senate? [Democrats]

    Though what it does speak of is the level of stupidity that some partisans will buy into in order to deflect responsibility for falling job prospects while harassing businesses, regulating them and threatening to increase taxes on them as if it will help.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidSpeaks for itself or speaks about you? Curious - when did the tea party movement start? [2009]

    Who controls the Presidency and the Senate? [Democrats]

    Though what it does speak of is the level of stupidity that some partisans will buy into in order to deflect responsibility for falling job prospects while harassing businesses, regulating them and threatening to increase taxes on them as if it will help.

    That ranks among one of your most illogical comments yet. First, Christian wasn't referring to when the Teabagger movement began, as engineered by Dick Armey. Rather, he was talking about the economic impact of their caucus statements from Congress this year, as they attempt to influence the budget process.

    Second, you continue to have (deliberately, perhaps) a fundamental lack of understanding about how the US government operates. But a primer for you and others here:

    Creating the US budget is the role of the House of Representatives, per the Constitution. The House is controlled by the Republicans, including the Teabaggers in caucus.

    The Senate must then concur on the budget, after the House has approved one. Finally the President either signs or vetoes it. It's true that the President PROPOSES a budget, at his option, but he cannot formally submit one to the Republican House - the job of crafting a budget is theirs alone.

    So please tell us the relevance in drafting a US Federal budget that the Senate and the President are from the Democratic Party? When that job belongs to the Republicans in the House? Or rather, all the members of the House, but the Party of No has effectively excluded Democrats from the process. So that you are factually wrong on every point.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 22, 2011 2:48 PM GMT
    rid OWNED by AD!



    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:49 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    riddler78 saidSpeaks for itself or speaks about you? Curious - when did the tea party movement start? [2009]

    Who controls the Presidency and the Senate? [Democrats]

    Though what it does speak of is the level of stupidity that some partisans will buy into in order to deflect responsibility for falling job prospects while harassing businesses, regulating them and threatening to increase taxes on them as if it will help.

    That ranks among one of your most illogical comments yet. First, Christian wasn't referring to when the Teabagger movement began, as engineered by Dick Armey. Rather, he was talking about the economic impact of their caucus statements from Congress this year, as they attempt to influence the budget process.

    Second, you continue to have (deliberately, perhaps) a fundamental lack of understanding about how the US government operates. But a primer for you and others here:

    Creating the US budget is the role of the House of Representatives, per the Constitution. The House is controlled by the Republicans, including the Teabaggers in caucus.

    The Senate must then concur on the budget, after the House has approved one. Finally the President either signs or vetoes it. It's true that the President PROPOSES a budget, at his option, but he cannot formally submit one to the Republican House - the job of crafting a budget is theirs alone.

    So please tell us the relevance in drafting a US Federal budget that the Senate and the President are from the Democratic Party? When that job belongs to the Republicans in the House? Or rather, all the members of the House, but the Party of No has effectively excluded Democrats from the process. So that you are factually wrong on every point.


    If that's the argument you're going for, then it's remarkable that a caucus could have that much impact which is so immediate considering that they are unable to actually do anything on their own - but that is likely due to your lacking in a basic understanding of governments and economics.

    I have to wonder how knowledgeable you are of how the US government operates which is sort of ironic given that I'm Canadian. "When a House plan fails in the Senate, the Senate passes its own budget plan in response. The two chambers then form a conference committee to reach a compromise that produces a budget. However, this process requires that the Senate actually approve a budget on its own." The US Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days in any form. You say Party of No as if that's a bad thing - as opposed to the Party that can't say No to any form of social spending / bureaucracy / regulation?

    Incidentally, for me to be factually wrong I'm willing admit to - but shouldn't you at least try to be factually right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:49 PM GMT
    rnch saidrid OWNED by AD!



    icon_lol.gif


    Or not icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 2:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidI have to wonder how knowledgeable you are of how the US government operates which is sort of ironic given that I'm Canadian. "When a House plan fails in the Senate, the Senate passes its own budget plan in response. The two chambers then form a conference committee to reach a compromise that produces a budget. However, this process requires that the Senate actually approve a budget on its own." The US Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days in any form. You say Party of No as if that's a bad thing - as opposed to the Party that can't say No to any form of social spending / bureaucracy / regulation?

    Incidentally, for me to be factually wrong I'm willing admit to - but shouldn't you at least try to be factually right?

    I used to teach both US History and Political Science. I doubt your own credentials to spout US Constitutional law as a Canadian. The US Senate is not Constitutionally required to pass any budget on its own, merely approve or reject what the House passes. The budget initiative starts with the House. You are parroting misleading & erroneous propaganda from the US Right, I must presume.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:06 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    riddler78 saidI have to wonder how knowledgeable you are of how the US government operates which is sort of ironic given that I'm Canadian. "When a House plan fails in the Senate, the Senate passes its own budget plan in response. The two chambers then form a conference committee to reach a compromise that produces a budget. However, this process requires that the Senate actually approve a budget on its own." The US Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days in any form. You say Party of No as if that's a bad thing - as opposed to the Party that can't say No to any form of social spending / bureaucracy / regulation?

    Incidentally, for me to be factually wrong I'm willing admit to - but shouldn't you at least try to be factually right?

    I used to teach both US History and Political Science. I doubt your credentials to spout US Constitutional law as a Canadian. The US Senate is not Constitutionally required to pass any budget on its own. The budget initiative starts with the House. You are parroting misleading & erroneous propaganda from the US Right, I must presume.


    I don't claim any expertise in US Constitutional law, but given that the US Senate has not attempted to negotiate or propose any alternatives with which to discuss as has historically been the case, to make the argument that the tea party caucus is responsible for the decline in job growth requires a breathtakingly significant leap in reason - or even the claim that it is the Republicans who are "the party of NO". The irony is that you need to create strawmen in order to even make the claim that what I've posted is misleading or erroneous - it is no wonder that the state of education is the way it is in the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:43 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]riddler78 said[/cite]
    Art_Deco said
    riddler78 saidI have to wonder how knowledgeable you are of how the US government operates which is sort of ironic given that I'm Canadian. "When a House plan fails in the Senate, the Senate passes its own budget plan in response. The two chambers then form a conference committee to reach a compromise that produces a budget. However, this process requires that the Senate actually approve a budget on its own." The US Senate has not passed a budget in over 800 days in any form. You say Party of No as if that's a bad thing - as opposed to the Party that can't say No to any form of social spending / bureaucracy / regulation?

    Incidentally, for me to be factually wrong I'm willing admit to - but shouldn't you at least try to be factually right?

    I used to teach both US History and Political Science. I doubt your credentials to spout US Constitutional law as a Canadian. The US Senate is not Constitutionally required to pass any budget on its own. The budget initiative starts with the House. You are parroting misleading & erroneous propaganda from the US Right, I must presume.


    I don't claim any expertise in US Constitutional law, but given that the US Senate has not attempted to negotiate or propose any alternatives with which to discuss as has historically been the case, to make the argument that the tea party caucus is responsible for the decline in job growth requires a breathtakingly significant leap in reason - or even the claim that it is the Republicans who are "the party of NO". The irony is that you need to create strawmen in order to even make the claim that what I've posted is misleading or erroneous - it is no w

    Art is correct on the technical aspects of how a federal budget is produced and approved. To assert otherwise is a function of ignorance or willful propaganda. I suspect in your case it's the latter since that claim is being advanced by several right wing actors.

    The American right has been engaged in a forty-year project to bring the country to the brink of bankruptcy in order to force the privatization or dissolution of SS, Medicare and Medicaid. The recent tactics by the Tea Party Caucus, which at 40+ members is large enough to prevent the more moderate members of the Republican House membership working with the Democrats to find an actual solution.

    Despite the constant ravings from the right-wing (or perhaps enabled by them), the US political class has been shifting rightward since the 1970s. At the same time, the Republican Party has become increasingly ideological and dogmatic. Democrats and liberals are by their own philosophy more inclined to understanding and compromise than those who are right-wing. So there are ways to move forward with the budget adn the (non-issue) of the debt ceiling but that would require a Republican Party interested in governing and not further damaging the economy in the hopes of hurting Obama's reelection chances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:44 PM GMT
    The thread title suggests a need to understand correlation versus causation. Appears to be lacking here.

    Here is an article addressing this, which is non-political, so those of you who despise George Mason University can still read it.
    http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

    For those needing a more simple explanation, 14 slides shouldn't prove over-taxing to some of you:
    http://www.slideshare.net/carmean/correlation-vs-causation
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 22, 2011 3:49 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]riddler78 said
    I don't claim any expertise in US Constitutional law... [/quote]



    but you did stay at a "holiday inn express" hotel the night before posting your political puditry?





    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:57 PM GMT
    Christian73 said...Democrats and liberals are by their own philosophy more inclined to understanding and compromise than those who are right-wing. So there are ways to move forward with the budget adn the (non-issue) of the debt ceiling but that would require a Republican Party interested in governing and not further damaging the economy in the hopes of hurting Obama's reelection chances.

    Republicans/House:
    1. Proposed a budget (Ryan) - can be debated, but at least put on the table
    2. Passed Cut, Cap and Balance bill

    Democrats/White House/Senate
    1. Obama budget ignored his own Debt Commission - thoroughly rejected by both parties
    2. Senate failed to propose a budget in over two years (refer to Congressional Budget Act of 1974).
    3. Senate kills Cut, Cap, and Balance bill without having another to suggest
    4. Democrats (Senate and White House) provide no tangible plan, only speeches.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 3:59 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe thread title suggests a need to understand correlation versus causation. Appears to be lacking here.

    Here is an article addressing this, which is non-political, so those of you who despise George Mason University can still read it.
    http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

    For those needing a more simple explanation, 14 slides shouldn't prove over-taxing to some of you:
    http://www.slideshare.net/carmean/correlation-vs-causation


    Actually, we understand it perfectly. You might want to provide that link to SouthBeach who seems to think that Obama and the 2006 Democratic congress are responsible for financial malfeasance undertaken years before they were ever in office.

    Beyond that, most right-wing arguments rely heavily on correlation. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidThe thread title suggests a need to understand correlation versus causation. Appears to be lacking here.

    Here is an article addressing this, which is non-political, so those of you who despise George Mason University can still read it.
    http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

    For those needing a more simple explanation, 14 slides shouldn't prove over-taxing to some of you:
    http://www.slideshare.net/carmean/correlation-vs-causation


    Actually, we understand it perfectly. You might want to provide that link to SouthBeach who seems to think that Obama and the 2006 Democratic congress are responsible for financial malfeasance undertaken years before they were ever in office.

    Beyond that, most right-wing arguments rely heavily on correlation. icon_lol.gif

    If you understood it perfectly, then your thread title was a deliberate misstatement. As far as others, feel free to point them out when they occur. "But officer, I wasn't the only one speeding."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Democrats and liberals are by their own philosophy more inclined to understanding and compromise than those who are right-wing. So there are ways to move forward with the budget adn the (non-issue) of the debt ceiling but that would require a Republican Party interested in governing and not further damaging the economy in the hopes of hurting Obama's reelection chances.

    Republicans/House:
    1. Proposed a budget (Ryan) - can be debated, but at least put on the table
    2. Passed Cut, Cap and Balance bill

    Democrats/White House/Senate
    1. Obama budget ignored his own Debt Commission - thoroughly rejected by both parties
    2. Senate failed to propose a budget in over two years (refer to Congressional Budget Act of 1974).
    3. Senate kills Cut, Cap, and Balance bill without having another to suggest
    4. Democrats (Senate and White House) provide no tangible plan, only speeches.


    Neither the Ryan plan nor Cut, Cap and feed grandma cat food are serious proposals. Ryan's failed the basic test of arithmetic and the cat food proposal was absurd on its face as it ignores minor details like inflation and population growth.

    And the 1974 Act does not change the basic process of developing and passing a budget.

    The Democratic Progressive caucus has proposed a budget, but cannot get it up for a vote since Bohener won't allow it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidThe thread title suggests a need to understand correlation versus causation. Appears to be lacking here.

    Here is an article addressing this, which is non-political, so those of you who despise George Mason University can still read it.
    http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

    For those needing a more simple explanation, 14 slides shouldn't prove over-taxing to some of you:
    http://www.slideshare.net/carmean/correlation-vs-causation


    Actually, we understand it perfectly. You might want to provide that link to SouthBeach who seems to think that Obama and the 2006 Democratic congress are responsible for financial malfeasance undertaken years before they were ever in office.

    Beyond that, most right-wing arguments rely heavily on correlation. icon_lol.gif

    If you understood it perfectly, then your thread title was a deliberate misrepresentation. As far as others, feel free to point them out when they occur. "But officer, I wasn't the only one speeding."


    No. The Tea Party Caucus but threatening to implode the economy are actually directly responsible for the downturn in hiring. By your own philosophy, businesses won't hire during periods of uncertainty and what could cause more uncertainty than a potential economic apocalypse? icon_rolleyes.gif