Christine O'Donnell: A New Low

[maxx]

in conservative politics...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42141.html

[Detroitej72]

She should help guarantee that Repub's fail to gain control of the Senate.

[gibran]

72... I been hoping that ...but with the way Americans sometimes follows the trends and this one is playing to the simplest denominator ..it worries me... these folks are not thinking through the ramifications of division and anger...what is the vision for working class Americans and the poor... I know what they say is America needs to return to Leave to Beaver...but if one was of color back then it was more like Nightmare on elm street... with the one exception...minorities had a higher graduation rate and the communities had to take care of themselves... this Tea party express hides behind values and patriotism....the problem is they are only limiting to those whose values are their own and who looks just like them... if these guys get control...we will be in Iran, we will continue to falter in the Muddled East, we will see higher unemployment here and monies abroad...the social nets will be cut and the poor will suffer, health-care will be destroyed and industry deregulated again...environmental issues shelved ...the list goes on...this will resemble the hypocrisy of the Church's that want to burn the Koran...yes that is the tea party's hidden values...cleverly disguised behind the cross and the flag...and of course spending...but does one ever wonder what programs are going to be cut?

[MCP-001]

72... I been hoping that ...but with the way Americans sometimes follows the trends and this one is playing to the simplest denominator ..it worries me... these folks are not thinking through the ramifications of division and anger...what is the vision for working class Americans and the poor... I know what they say is America needs to return to Leave to Beaver...but if one was of color back then it was more like Nightmare on elm street... with the one exception...minorities had a higher graduation rate and the communities had to take care of themselves... this Tea party express hides behind values and patriotism....the problem is they are only limiting to those whose values are their own and who looks just like them... if these guys get control...we will be in Iran, we will continue to falter in the Muddled East, we will see higher unemployment here and monies abroad...the social nets will be cut and the poor will suffer, health-care will be destroyed and industry deregulated again...environmental issues shelved ...the list goes on...this will resemble the hypocrisy of the Church's that want to burn the Koran...yes that is the tea party's hidden values...cleverly disguised behind the cross and the flag...and of course spending...but does one ever wonder what programs are going to be cut?

Wow! This is amazing.

I have spoken to a lot of Tea Party people over the past several months.

With the exception of supporting a smaller government, none of them have gone off on a tangent as you have described above.

[maxx]

Wow! This is amazing.

I have spoken to a lot of Tea Party people over the past several months.

With the exception of supporting a smaller government, none of them have gone off on a tangent as you have described above.

And what do they want to cut ? Soc. Sec.? Medicare? Infrastructure repair? Public schools? Public hospitals? Somehow I don't think they want to cut prisons. Do any of them talk about cutting back our military bases around the world? I think a lot of the tea partiers are just angry but don't really have any idea of the consequences of what they are advocating. Some moron who was supposedly the representative of the people who went to Beck's event said for TV that the Obama administration was not upholding the Constitution or words to that effect. I presume a follow-up question would have been why, then, weren't they being prosecuted? And the answer would probably be about some conspiracy, no doubt, if she could have come up with any answer at all.

[Mikeg]

Wow! This is amazing.

Yep, amazing stuff from some of the same folks who 20 months ago were trying to convince us that the US electorate had finally come to their senses and formed “a new liberal order” and that conservatism was dead. Conclusion: they still don't know what they are talking about.

[MCP-001]

And what do they want to cut ? Soc. Sec.? Medicare? Infrastructure repair? Public schools? Public hospitals? Somehow I don't think they want to cut prisons. Do any of them talk about cutting back our military bases around the world? I think a lot of the tea partiers are just angry but don't really have any idea of the consequences of what they are advocating. Some moron who was supposedly the representative of the people who went to Beck's event said for TV that the Obama administration was not upholding the Constitution or words to that effect. I presume a follow-up question would have been why, then, weren't they being prosecuted? And the answer would probably be about some conspiracy, no doubt, if she could have come up with any answer at all.

Okay, this is jumping all over the map, but here goes.

Their basic complaint is that the federal government has gotten involved into too many areas that it doesn't belong in, which is a major cause of the exploding debt that we are now experiencing [[over $13.4 trillion or $110.4 trillion, depending on which number you want to use).

That debt must be scaled back, and can be by having the federal government concentrate only on those tasks that it is tasked to perform. This includes no longer playing the role of Global-cop.

Many of those other functions can be handled on the state and local level. Some of them, due to the complexity of the issue, will have to be phased out over time [[i.e. SS).

As to why people aren't being prosecuted, it's not a "conspiracy" per se, but it does bring us back to the main problem: government going beyond its duty, while entrenching/enriching itself by taking care of one segment of society at the expense of another.

"Democrats" do it. "Republicans" do it.

It's a vicious cycle that is unsustainable in the long run.

[gazhekwe]

I see this Tea Party surge as being a referendum on the Republican Party more than anything. They had the option of voting for traditional GOP and overwhelmingly stampeded in the other direction. We shall have to see what happens in the general election. Will those who crossed lines to vote in the Republican primaries continue in that vein?

[gibran]

obviously you haven seen the southern version and talked to the Beck parrots heads..these are the answers to the questions and emails that I have received from their supporters...why do you think that Dixie MAfia is so supportive?

[maxx]

Even Carl Rove has no enthusiasm for Christine.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42205.html

[Gyro]

Their [Teabaggers] basic complaint is that the federal government has gotten involved into too many areas that it doesn't belong in, which is a major cause of the exploding debt that we are now experiencing [[over $13.4 trillion or $110.4 trillion, depending on which number you want to use).

That debt must be scaled back, and can be by having the federal government concentrate only on those tasks that it is tasked to perform. This includes no longer playing the role of Global-cop.

Many of those other functions can be handled on the state and local level. Some of them, due to the complexity of the issue, will have to be phased out over time [[i.e. SS).

First of all, the debt was nearly doubled during the Bush administration. Where were the Teabaggers then? Secondly, the biggest driver of the deficit, by far, is still the Bush tax cuts and his Medicare part D. http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/radmacher/wb/235691

Bush took us from Clinton's "Surpluses as far as the eye can see" to the situation we're in today. Bush cut taxes during good economic times when he should have been paying down the debt, but the Republicans claimed that the tax cuts would promote economic growth and create more jobs. Just the opposite happened. http://www.alternet.org/story/144145...obref=obinsite

Now we're suffering through the worst economic times since the great depression, millions of jobs have been lost and trillions of dollars of middle-class wealth has been lost, and what are the Republicans calling for? More tax cuts!!! Why would anyone want more of the medicine that made us so sick? Here's what Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has to say about it: http://www.daytondailynews.com/opini...up-562032.html

So now that Obama has inherited the Bush mess, the Teabaggers are angry that he hasn't already dug us out of the hole Republican policies put us into. Talk about wanting instant gratification!

Social Security is actually in pretty good shape. What small problems it has could be mostly solved by lifting the income cap on contributions. SS is a combination of a retirement savings and insurance plan for all of us and should not be used to pay down the debt from bad Republican economic policies and two "off-budget" wars.

Meanwhile, we have 500,000 troops around the world and we spend around a trillion dollars a year to support the Pentagon. That's nearly as much as the rest of the world COMBINED! We could cut our spending in half and still be spending more than all of Europe combined. http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4199

So here's my message for the Teabaggers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU

[rb336]

And what do they want to cut ? Soc. Sec.? Medicare? Infrastructure repair? Public schools? Public hospitals? Somehow I don't think they want to cut prisons. Do any of them talk about cutting back our military bases around the world? I think a lot of the tea partiers are just angry but don't really have any idea of the consequences of what they are advocating. Some moron who was supposedly the representative of the people who went to Beck's event said for TV that the Obama administration was not upholding the Constitution or words to that effect. I presume a follow-up question would have been why, then, weren't they being prosecuted? And the answer would probably be about some conspiracy, no doubt, if she could have come up with any answer at all.

Actually, I have heard Tea Party folk talk about cutting US bases overseas. However, having attended a couple of events [[and talking to an organizer of one event) there is a very strong undercurrent of racism and hate bubbling under there, as well as a very weak understanding of any kind of economics, conservative OR liberal. it is mostly the mindless anti-tax group in another form.

[MCP-001]

First of all, the debt was nearly doubled during the Bush administration. Where were the Teabaggers then? Secondly, the biggest driver of the deficit, by far, is still the Bush tax cuts and his Medicare part D. http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/radmacher/wb/235691

Bush took us from Clinton's "Surpluses as far as the eye can see" to the situation we're in today. Bush cut taxes during good economic times when he should have been paying down the debt, but the Republicans claimed that the tax cuts would promote economic growth and create more jobs. Just the opposite happened. http://www.alternet.org/story/144145...obref=obinsite

Now we're suffering through the worst economic times since the great depression, millions of jobs have been lost and trillions of dollars of middle-class wealth has been lost, and what are the Republicans calling for? More tax cuts!!! Why would anyone want more of the medicine that made us so sick? Here's what Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has to say about it: http://www.daytondailynews.com/opini...up-562032.html

So now that Obama has inherited the Bush mess, the Teabaggers are angry that he hasn't already dug us out of the hole Republican policies put us into. Talk about wanting instant gratification!

Social Security is actually in pretty good shape. What small problems it has could be mostly solved by lifting the income cap on contributions. SS is a combination of a retirement savings and insurance plan for all of us and should not be used to pay down the debt from bad Republican economic policies and two "off-budget" wars.

Meanwhile, we have 500,000 troops around the world and we spend around a trillion dollars a year to support the Pentagon. That's nearly as much as the rest of the world COMBINED! We could cut our spending in half and still be spending more than all of Europe combined. http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4199

So here's my message for the Teabaggers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU

You keep forgetting, Obama's deficits will make Bush's look like amateur night when everything is said and done.

And don't forget, Congress has yet to pass a budget for FY 10-11. So the skies the limit.

Paul Krugman is an avowed Keynesian Economist, which means that his theories don't work.

If they did, then why is Pres. B.O. hesitating about the "Bush" tax cuts?

I'll tell you why. It's because people are warning him that if he wants the economy to improve, he will need those people who "don't need that extra cash", to start investing that into the economy, once they get over their jitters.

Unless you are trying to tell me that poor people somehow create jobs?

And that pyramid scheme known as social security?

"The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report."


Yeah, there's something that I can depend on.

[Bearinabox]

Paul Krugman is an avowed Keynesian Economist, which means that his theories don't work.

Oh, is that what "Keynesian" means? I wondered.

[Gyro]

You keep forgetting, Obama's deficits will make Bush's look like amateur night when everything is said and done.

It may be Obama's deficit, but it will still be mostly caused by Bush's ongoing tax cuts and Medicare part D.

And don't forget, Congress has yet to pass a budget for FY 10-11. So the skies the limit.

The vast majority of economists claim that the Bush depression would be much worse except for what Obama has done, and that deficit spending is exactly what's needed at a time like this. We had a larger debt as a percentage of GDP after WWII, and we pulled out of it because the post-war economy boomed, back when the marginal income tax rate was north of 90%. We can do it again if we can free ourselves of Republican fiscal policies. We can tighten our belt when we can afford one.

Paul Krugman is an avowed Keynesian Economist, which means that his theories don't work.

When you win a Nobel Prize for economics I'll listen to you.

Unless you are trying to tell me that poor people somehow create jobs?

They do! Trickle-down economics is an abject failure, but trickle-up works every time. Poor and middle-class people run right out and SPEND any money they get, thereby stimulating the LOCAL economy. Wealthy people are more likely to just bank the money, or use it to move jobs overseas.

And that pyramid scheme known as social security?

No problem! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...curity_in.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-Way...14004.html?x=0

The only thing standing in the way of fixing SS is Republican obstinance.

Yeah, there's something that I can depend on.

Yes you can, because it's going to be fixed, and you will be glad it was when you hit your 60's. We can easily afford health care and SS. What we can't afford is the Pentagon. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[Jimaz]

I see this Tea Party surge as being a referendum on the Republican Party more than anything. They had the option of voting for traditional GOP and overwhelmingly stampeded in the other direction. We shall have to see what happens in the general election. Will those who crossed lines to vote in the Republican primaries continue in that vein?

My theory is that the Republican Party expected an exodus of their membership [[who wouldn't considering their recent record) and so created the Tea Party as a place for their disaffected members to run.

It would be like building a new corral around a weakened corral. Stampeding horses might calm down after they feel they've escaped their familiar confines but in the end they're still corralled. Consider the possibility that the new "corral" was deliberately designed to select only former Republicans with the specific characteristics that teabaggers exhibit. Now ask why one would do that.

In short, it's basically a rebranding effort.

[Patrick]

Here in DC everyone is laughing their asses off at her. Most Republicans are pissed and the Teabaggers seem delighted, yet uncertain. Did you see the look on Karl Rove's face last night though? Hilarious...

[Mikeg]

In short, it's basically a rebranding effort.

Speaking of a "rebranding effort", the DNC spared no expense and pulled out all the stops with their new logo,
Attachment 7411
slogan [["Democrats - Change that Matters") and web site.

I'm sure this rebranding going to really excite the Democrat base and make a difference come November 2nd.

[oladub]

It looks like a schism within the Republican Party between the Tea Partiers and the neo-cons. The neo-cons are losing ground. After Rove insulted O'Donnell, Rush attacked Rove for doing so. Maybe we should have a vote to see whether posters on this board would prefer neo-con Republicans like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Giuliani or tea partiers.

Rush attacking Rove video This is from a neo-con site which seems to have it out for O'Donnell.

Patrick, Out here in fly-over country, we would be laughing at Washington D.C. if you weren't causing us so much damage.

[jiminnm]

My theory is that the Republican Party expected an exodus of their membership [[who wouldn't considering their recent record) and so created the Tea Party as a place for their disaffected members to run.

It would be like building a new corral around a weakened corral. Stampeding horses might calm down after they feel they've escaped their familiar confines but in the end they're still corralled. Consider the possibility that the new "corral" was deliberately designed to select only former Republicans with the specific characteristics that teabaggers exhibit. Now ask why one would do that.

In short, it's basically a rebranding effort.

In short, you couldn't be more wrong.

When the Tea Party movement began gathering some steam here in NM, the state Republican party attempted to get involved and take a major role in their activities. The folks who started the Tea Party movement here told them no thanks, we don't need you because the Republican Party is part of the problem. As a result, most Republican candidates have sought Tea Party support, same have received it.

[jiminnm]

Paul Krugman is an avowed Keynesian Economist, which means that his theories don't work.

When you win a Nobel Prize for economics I'll listen to you.

Krugman's Nobel Prize was for his work on international trade. That is about the only area where his economic work is respected. Few other economists respect his work and comments in other areas because he lets his political beliefs dictate his economic opinions.

[Gistok]

I wonder what effect the Tea Party will have on New England republicans, such as Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine? Rather than wait for a re-election primary fight... I wonder if any of those moderate republicans decide to jump ship early and either join the Democratic Party, or become independents?

[Mikeg]

I wonder if any of those moderate republicans decide to jump ship early and either join the Democratic Party......

I'm sure that that Olympia Snowe been paying more attention than you've apparently been to how the Democrats treated Arlen Specter after he jumped ship to the Dems. Despite promises from the soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader that Snarlin' Arlen would be allowed to retain his Senate seniority after he switched, he ended up at the bottom of the seniority list on all but one of his committees.

[MCP-001]

It may be Obama's deficit, but it will still be mostly caused by Bush's ongoing tax cuts and Medicare part D.

The vast majority of economists claim that the Bush depression would be much worse except for what Obama has done, and that deficit spending is exactly what's needed at a time like this. We had a larger debt as a percentage of GDP after WWII, and we pulled out of it because the post-war economy boomed, back when the marginal income tax rate was north of 90%. We can do it again if we can free ourselves of Republican fiscal policies. We can tighten our belt when we can afford one.

Again with the blaming of Bush. Bush is no longer in office. and last time I checked, Obama was a US Senator from Illinois who voted on a lot of that spending [[when he bothered to show up for work). Are you trying to tell me that not once did Pres. B.O. ever bother to read a budget while he was campaigning?

I do agree with you that the deficits can be paid down when the economy improves.

The problem here is that people are using the 1950's analogy, when the 1930's is more appropriate.

Gov't spending and ill-thought out programs didn't bring us out of that depression, in fact, it actually worsened it.

When you win a Nobel Prize for economics I'll listen to you.

And these people gave Pres. B.O. and award for doing...what?

They do! Trickle-down economics is an abject failure, but trickle-up works every time. Poor and middle-class people run right out and SPEND any money they get, thereby stimulating the LOCAL economy. Wealthy people are more likely to just bank the money, or use it to move jobs overseas.

Why does this surprise you that when the government is banging the drum claiming the the "rich" are bad, and that they will "balance" things [["From each according to their ability...), the rich move their money offshore?

Drop the party dogma and encourage that money be kept and spent here.

No problem! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...curity_in.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-Way...14004.html?x=0

The only thing standing in the way of fixing SS is Republican obstinance.

Yes, going after the money of people who have already demonstrated they will move their money offshore is a sure-fire solution.

Yes you can, because it's going to be fixed, and you will be glad it was when you hit your 60's. We can easily afford health care and SS. What we can't afford is the Pentagon. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Actually, I agree with you on most of what is in that link. Washington does cook the books, and spends money on many things [[undeclared wars, for example) that it has no business getting involved in.

But I want a better return on my retirement than SS can ever hope to offer, including flexibility.

There are other options out there, such as the Galveston Plan. But the government is deathly afraid of the loss of control it has over its citizens, when they are no longer dependent on their government.

[Mikeg]

The libs are always trying to blame the size of the Federal Budget deficits on the "Bush Tax Cuts", but the facts are that by any measure, at least 90% of the real cause has been entirely on the spending side of the equation, not the revenue side.

Federal tax revenue facts:

• In the two immediate years after the last of the "Bush Tax Cuts" kicked in [[2004 to 2006), tax revenues increased by 20%, a revenue increase not seen since 1965-1967. [source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 [[Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006), pp. 25–26, Table 1.3, at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf [[January 16, 2007), with final 2006 revenue figures added in.]
• Federal tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product [[GDP), as compared to 18.4 percent of GDP in 1987 and 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995. Those three years were all the fourth fiscal year after the end of a recession. The historical annual averages of Federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP range between 17.9 and 18.3 percent. ["US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions," at www.nber.org/cycles.html [[January 16, 2007).]

Federal spending facts:

• Federal spending rose from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006. ["Federal Spending: By the Numbers," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 989, February 6, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm989.cfm]
• In January 2000, the Congressional Budget Office [[CBO) projected a baseline 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion. The final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit, which was a net drop of $572 billion from their earlier prediction. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below [[even after $188 billion in tax cuts). By this measure, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues. [Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001-2010," January 2000, p. xvi, Summary Table 2, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/18xx/doc1820/e&b0100.pdf [[January 16, 2007). The January 2000 baseline pro.jected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,465 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. The same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,140 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.]
• Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated. By this measure, 125 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending. [Congressional Budget Office, "An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004," March 2003, p. 36, Table 4, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4129/03-31-AnalysisPresidentBudget-Final.pdf [[January 16, 2007). The March 2003 baseline projected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,360 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. That same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,417 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion.]

More information debunking the myths surrounding the Bush Tax Cuts can be found here.