The thing that I’ve been most perplexed about during the debt ceiling debate is that the Republicans in the Tea Party have to live in the same country as the rest of us. They’ll suffer the consequences of a default the same as the rest of us. It’s not as if they and their constituents are going to be shielded from the horror show if we hit the debt ceiling. If anything, it’ll be Republican constituents hit harder. After all, the money spent goes (in general) from Democratic urban areas to Republican rural ones. If we stop sending out Social Security checks, every state will suffer, but Republican Arizona and Florida will suffer worse. If we have to stop farm support all states will suffer, but rural Republican states (and here in Washington, Republican Congressional districts) will suffer worse than urban Democratic ones.
Additionally, the liberal cities and counties aren’t the ones teetering on the edge in danger of default if their credit rating worsens. While Seattle will surely suffer through a default, Jefferson County, Alabama will suffer worse (h/t). In short, the pain isn’t distributed evenly.
Of course, I don’t want anyone to experience the pain that will come from unnecessarily defaulting (I don’t think it’ll be awful, but I do think it’ll be bad, and totally unnecessary, if it happens). The point is that on the policy alone, Republicans should want a clean bill. Nobody benefits from hitting our heads on the debt ceiling, but Republicans stand be hit harder.
I’d change that to Republican suburban areas. Most of those folks in AZ and FL don’t live in rural areas (a rural area being a place that has a very low population) they live in sprawlvilles like Phoenix.
Also, very little of our national budget goes to agricultural subsides and most of that money goes to large corporations (and then to their shareholders) or to wealthly land owners. Killing off those subsides would probably help my relatives that own small farms in IA and WI, not hurt them.
You should checkout dailyonder.com.
First let’s get the banksters!
When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, one of the first thing they did was burn the land titles. Revolutions destroy the old order — the old social structure, the old distribution of wealth, everything. Teahadists are revolutionaries. Most of them don’t have much, so they’re not interested in preserving existing wealth or property ownership. What they want is a new social order.
When I started selling stocks, and explained to my stockbroker that I was hoarding cash to buy dirt-cheap stocks in the market crash after the default, he tried to convince me the politicians would never let a default happen. I told him that I thought it was 50-50. He pooh-poohed this; he assured me a default won’t happen. I retorted that I’ve been around politics all my life and I know politics better than he does, and then told him to execute me sell orders, which he did. It now looks I’ll come out of this smelling like a rose. The GOPers are about to make me look like a flaming genius.
The minute I saw what their bargaining position is — carve up Medicare and Social Security, don’t touch defense or tax the rich, and if you give us what we want we’ll vote against the debt ceiling anyway — I knew this was going into default.
Carl,
Harrisburg PA’s population density is 4,344.6/sq mile or a little less than half that of Seattle’s and it’s going tits up.
Vallejo CA with a population density of 2,340 went bankrupt. Westchester County NY has a population density of 2,193 people and its somewhere along the line of going bankrupt. These are your Tea Party places. The suburbs. The bankrupt suburbs. The Tea-burbs.
It doesn’t take a lot of cash to keep a rural county running, there’s not enough people in them for them to cost a lot. Rural counties also produce real wealth, food, timber, coal, hydro and wind power. Suburban places tend not to produce much in the way of real wealth. They do much better at producing fat people that want other people to pay their bills for them.
Ever go to the Ballard Farmers Market? Those farmers that show up every week? They’re on our side. Plus, they’re farmers, they grow food. You want farmers on your side. Not starving to death is a good thing.
There are some cool elected folks from fairly rural states like Jay Nixon and Claire Mccaskill from Missouri that run and win on an urban/rural coalition platforms. It’s the suburbs that trip up people like Nixon and Mccaskill and tripped up Robin Carnahan when she ran for the US senate against Roy (I’m a big fucking theif with a dildo up my ass ) Blunt.
Rural places are, or at least should be our friends, and lefties should be promoting that. Don’t forget Jay Inslee represented the 4th CD before before he represented the 1st!
Can’t remember where Inslee represented in Oly.
Seriously, look at the picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ngress.jpg
If that doesn’t scream “I’ll take a five gallon bucket of lard and the biggest dildo you’ve got” I don’t know what does.
@7 Have you ever seen a skinny Republican? I haven’t.
Carl,
How can you be “perplexed” by anything the House GOP might do? The evidence is solid, beyond a reasonable doubt–those folks are truly nutcases. How did we get to this point in our nation, after all the advances in thinking that humankind experienced in the 20th Century, that we have these fruitcakes befuddling the world’s greatest democracy? They are, simply, the American Taliban. The rearguard against progress. Fearful of lightbulbs.
@8
There’s a reason they’re called fat cats.
Huh?
Jesus Fucking Christ Carl, Jefferson County isn’t even rural! 600 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE IS NOT RURAL!
Spokane County is not rural, Spokane County has 267 people per sq mile. Adams County is rural, Adams County has 10 people per square mile. Ferry County WA is rural, Ferry County has 3 people per square mile.*
*At that low of density and with not much in real wealth coming out of it, it might make sense to pull out of Ferry County. Buy the folks that live there out, pull out anything of value, torch the rest, then work on pulling out the roads and replanting native vegetation. It would put a lot of folks to work. But it wouldn’t save any money in the short run, if ever. Look what I found at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/
STATE COLLECTED REVENUES DISTRIBUTED TO COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Fiscal Year 2009 Ferry County: $3,844,467
Please don’t confuse #12 that with the total amount the state spent on the folks in Ferry County. The total expenditures were much higher, that 3M is just what the county got. For example schools in Ferry County got somewhere in the neighborhood of $8.5 million in 2009.
There’s really 4 points to my rambling.
1. If you’re going to make a case you have to use real data. Calling a suburban place like Jefferson County AL rural is just stupid and self defeating. Doing it in a blog post entitled Shooting Themselves is even more so.
2. Rural places create real wealth. They often need urban money and smarts like genetic and electrical engineering to do so, but the end results are real wealth.
3. Rural places can and do elect cool progressive people. They elected Jay Inslee and Jay Nixon!
4. Suburbs are the real problem. Environmentally, economically, culturally*, and politically. It’s the suburbs.
*http://www.406writersworkshop.com/
http://www.uiowa.edu/~iww/
Versus, whatever passes for culture in the burbs.
Well, 5 points really.
5. Rural places are pretty fucking cheap to run.
The thing that I’ve been most perplexed about during the debt ceiling debate is that the Republicans in the Tea Party have to live in the same country as the rest of us. They’ll suffer the consequences of a default the same as the rest of us. It’s not as if they and their constituents are going to be shielded from the horror show if we hit the debt ceiling. If anything, it’ll be Republican constituents hit harder. After all, the money spent goes (in general) from Democratic urban areas to Republican rural ones. If we stop sending out Social Security checks, every state will suffer, but Republican Arizona and Florida will suffer worse. If we have to stop farm support all states will suffer, but rural Republican states (and here in Washington, Republican Congressional districts) will suffer worse than urban Democratic ones.
————————————
There will be no default even if there is no debt deal. Your nitwit lib hand wringing about Social Security checks not going out is either a deliberate lie designed to scare seniors or complete ignorance, and you don’t strike me as a deliberate liar yet. Either way it’s a piece of trash.
@7; Thanks, now I need brain bleach. It’s amazing the weird things that genetics come up with.
The teabaggers seem incapable of understanding basic truths, so I doubt most of them will understand that their checks aren’t coming because of their own actions.
They will be blaming ‘liberals’ and calling them names like usual. It’s sad how juvenile they tend to be.
@16
It’s not just basic truths. These are people who believe in Social Darwinism, but don’t believe in Darwin.
Michael,
This is not an anti-rural piece. While I take the point of 1, it was meant to be an example that I admit in the post was overly general. I probably should have put rural aid next, and then transitioned out of that better.
AmericaFirst @ # 15 Seems to be in favor of a Presidential line-item veto. Of course, he does not have such power in the Constitution. But somehow everyone from Bachman to the trolls here are now crying that the President can pick and choose which bills he should pay, and which ones he can ignore.
Congress authorized each expenditure in a vote at one time or another. Now that the polls are showing them that their debt-ceiling strategy is a big dud with the American public, they are trying to back away from it by somehow arguing that the President can make things right, regardless, saving them from the public backlash of their idiocy.
In the meantime, Moody’s is about to downgrade U.S. credit worthiness for the first time in it’s history. This process began once it became clear that the Republicans were willing to put America into default for their own personal political gain. Now that the process has been put in motion, it may be too late to stop it, even if an agreement is reached.
So in order to cut the budget, the Republicans have virtually assured that we will pay billions of dollars in additional interest on debt we’ve already incurred.
Why in the world would anybody trust a Republican to run the country? Why would they even give them the smallest opportunity to have a voice in the process? They just screw it up for everybody.
Carl,
You can’t consider the tea party loyalists as rational, sane actors in this scenario. When you start considering them as the lunatic, foaming at the mouth crazy, corporate owned zombies that they are, then you start to understand.
There was once a gal in my office who managed to do the bare minimum amount of required work, shunned responsibility, didn’t take steps to avoid predictable problems in advance, and passed off all her problems (and blame) to others around her. Everyone avoided giving her work, because it was far more trouble to tell her how to do it, and make sure she did it right, than to do it yourself. She eventually was working about half-time on the work in the office, and spent the other half of her day working on her various outside money-making projects.
Somehow she managed to stay in the job for over fifteen years, getting regular promotions because H.R. couldn’t find anything she did wrong in her file – the blame for her mistakes always got passed to others. Eventually she moved on to another job, paying more money.
Yes, she was a Republican. She said she was afraid the Communists were going to come in and take everything she had “worked hard for” and give it to the lazy welfare cheats. We all thought that was hilarious, coming from her.
the thing I love about the idiot republicans and tea-party fools is how they rationlize their BS.
Case in point: @15 America Last
What a total idiot. Congress voted to make certain expenditures. Now some right-wing mad-hatters are saying that somehow the President can “prioritize” who gets paid and who doesn’t. That is like saying we can ask the credit card company to pay off “some” of our bills when we deliberately don’t pay the.
Ain’t gonna happen. And then when we (the US) don’t pay our vbills, our rate will go up and that will cost us additional billions of dollars.
Basically, the tea-party idiots are bankrupting our country with their obstinancy.
If they don’t get “their” way, they will destroy the credit of the US. What a bunch of irresponsible children.
http://news.firedoglake.com/20.....ax-pledge/
Hah.
@18
Please start going after the suburbs, they’re the real problem.
Carly proves again that he is a fucking idiot.
Yikes!
Hartmann is on fire about this rethuglican debt kabuki this morning…
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/#listen-live
Looks like Rick Perry’s going to throw his hat in the ring. Wasn’t all that long ago that the guy wanted to succeed from the union. Wow, that’s some change of heart.
“the pary’s establishment center and right-wing activists”
Or as I call them, the unhinged and the insane.
I don’t think Perry entering the race changes much. Perry will knock out a few folks that would have been knocked out anyway and Mittens will still be the front runner.
@24 The suburbs will take care of themselves. When it costs about a million to buy a crappy tract home “all made of ticky-tacky” and $12 a gallon for the gas to drive from there to work and back (not to mention the tolls because Uncle Sam isn’t picking up as much of the tab for the roads), people are going to to learn, albeit grudgingly, that living a great distance from where one makes a living isn’t worth it.
A suburb basically contributes to the economy only once, when it’s developed and the houses are sold. From then on it becomes a giant drain for services and maintenance of infrastructure. Granted, some ‘burbs like Blah-Vue do manage to morph over time into cities, but that requires additional space for industrial development. That’s not likely to happen at Snoqualmie Ridge.
Do we need another Republican from Texas who brags about his pro-business credentials? Last time we found out, a bit too late, that it was all fabrication. They don’t call them “Texas Tall Tales” for nothing.
Are you willing to bet on this since you’re so confident you are right? Let’s say every bit of your wealth and future earnings if you are wrong and your side tanks the economy. If it turns out you are right I’ll give you a dollar.
re 15: Thanks for the information!
The same guy who is going to have a prayer event next month, which he claims is not going to be political.
Quick game. Find the Endorsers page on their web site. It use to be to from the nav bar at the top of the page but now the link is hidden. (credit to Rachel Maddow)
It seems that there were a few wacky endorsers who were drawing unwanted attention. Including:
John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, whose controversial statements prompted GOP presidential candidate John McCain to reject his endorsement in 2008. McCain took exception to Hagee saying that God sent Adolph Hitler to persecute the Jews so Israel could be created. Hagee also compared the Catholic Church to the anti-Christ and said Hurricane Katrina was punishment for New Orleans’ sinful ways.
John Benefiel of the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network in Oklahoma City, who has called the Statue of Liberty a demonic idol.
C. Peter Wagner of Global Spheres Inc. in Colorado, who said Japan was decimated by an earthquake and tsunami because its emperor engages in ritualistic sexual intercourse with the pagan Sun Goddess.
I’ve never been able to understand most Republican voters.
The tea-party types vote for the interests of those who keep them in low-paying jobs, without benefits, while taking home obscene bonuses and stock options.
They vote for cutting taxes even though it’s primarily services they, themselves, expect to receive.
They vote for candidates promising to be faithful to right-to-life issues, even though Republicans have NEVER done anything effective regarding abortion since Roe vs. Wade – except to say that they need to be kept in office so they can fight against Roe vs. Wade.
They vote against industrial regulation and environmental laws, even though they live in the same environment we all do, and camp, hunt, and fish in the threatened wilderness areas just as much as the most rabid Sierra-club environmentalist.
It’s puzzled me beyond all measure. Perhaps it’s a genetic deformation in their reasoning ability?
Hey, a new minnow just jumped into the presidential race. Buddy Roemer, who used to be the Louisianna governor (he hasn’t held public office since 1992), announced his candidacy. He pledges to fight unfair trade practices and corrupt campaign financing, and promises to not accept donations about $100.
Good luck with that. At least he will have an excuse for not raising much money.
Anybody else want to jump into the pool? Pam Roach? Barney Fife?
With so many Republicans running, the Iowa caucus vote count might show each candidate with one vote (voting for themselves), and everyone trying to fight over the one Republican voter left who isn’t a declared candidate. Images of Republican candidates chasing that lone non-candidate voter reminds me of the “Benny Hill” chase scenes at the close of the show.
Tea Baggers are just angry that they don’t qualify for public assistance – so they are willing to be stupid fools.
@34
Yeah, cause Tony Perkins & James Dobson are never political…
David Barton sure doesn’t look political….
http://www.wallbuilders.com/
What a crock. Perry’s done and he hasn’t even announced yet.
Good old Wikipedia!
Liberals groups such as MoveOn.org are alarmed by rumors that President Cave-In will sell out the middle class and senior citizens to avoid default.
Backpedaling From A Backpedal
The Silly Season has arrived in D.C. The WAshington Post reported that tax-opponent Grover Norquist said letting the Bush tax cuts expire wouldn’t violate his no-tax-increase pledge. Then he told MSNBC that “while allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire may not technically violate the pledge, he would still oppose such a move.”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITI.....?hpt=hp_t2
GOP presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman’s campaign manager has resigned.
I imagine the conversation between Huntsman and his former campaign manager went something like this:
Huntsman: It’s my own money I’m spending, so we’re going to do things my way!
Susie Wiles: You don’t need me for that.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
@34 “ritualistic sexual intercourse with the pagan Sun Goddess”
Being Emperor should have its perks.
I bet that fascist that goes by “americafirst” is unwilling to takr my bet at 32 above. What does he have to loose since he must think it is a sure thing.
RR @40
President Cave-In, I like it.
That’s a name that says it all.
@44, The Rethugs already have cornered the market on toe tapping in the men’s room, banging the Congressional pages and goat parties for trolls. The Emperor has to be creative to not infringe the Rethug prerogatives.
@24,
I don’t think I’m “going after” rural areas qua rural areas. I don’t mind if people live in cities, suburbs, or rural areas (I’ve lived in all 3), and I don’t mind paying a bit extra to Washington State or the Federal government to empower local people to make that possible (in fact, I’d like to pay more in some instances to deal with the externalities, etc.).
What gets to me is that rural (and quite right as you say suburban, although I think there’s more gray area between all 3 than people realize) legislators and voters refuse to pay cities the same curtsey, and often go so far as to poison the well of public policy. Most obviously in recent years, demanding how Highway 99 is going to look as it runs through Seattle and then that we pay more for it to look that way.
And on top of that Seattle/King County gets to pay for those idiot’s budget shortfalls in their own counties. Republican Welfare Slugs.
@19. rhp6033 spews:
AmericaFirst @ # 15 Seems to be in favor of a Presidential line-item veto. Of course, he does not have such power in the Constitution. But somehow everyone from Bachman to the trolls here are now crying that the President can pick and choose which bills he should pay, and which ones he can ignore.
—————————-
As a matter of fact a line-item veto on spending bills would be a great improvement but it has nothing to do with a line item veto. Checks don’t write themselves, after legislative authorization it is in general the executive branch that decides who gets paid and when they get paid. Do you think than in the event there was not enough money to pay all bills Obama is stupid enough to just sit there and pay no bills at all, or to pay them randomly? Further, as a practical matter it would take congress a few hours to legislate priorities if social security checks didn’t go out, and as a final point the money would simply be created if it came down to it. The chances of social security checks not going out is zero, as events will demonstrate, anything else is nonsense.
Well, I supposed I was bound to agree with you on something sooner or later…
“…it is in general the executive branch that decides who gets paid and when they get paid….
Nope. Congress may delegate certain decisions on who gets paid under specific legislation (i.e., allowing the Social Security Administration the authority to decide who is entitled to benefits and who is not). But this is all done under an administrative regulation process, which takes months to implement (comment periods, etc.).
Social Security checks may get sent out despite a default, but only because both the President and Congress agree (implicitely or explicity) to ignore the lack of Constitutional or legal authority for the President to prioritize the bills.
Just out of curiosity – what if the President decides that welfare checks come first, and social security or defense appropriations come last? I’m sure that you, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. would all be screaming to impeach the President for an unconstitutional abuse of power if that were to happen.
The problem is, constitutional principles shouldn’t depend upon who’s ox is being gored – they apply regardless of who is in office, and whether or not you like the person or rights being violated.
I would think you “strict constructionists” would appreciate that fact.
@52. rhp6033 spews:
“…it is in general the executive branch that decides who gets paid and when they get paid….
Nope. Congress may delegate certain decisions on who gets paid under specific legislation (i.e., allowing the Social Security Administration the authority to decide who is entitled to benefits and who is not). But this is all done under an administrative regulation process, which takes months to implement (comment periods, etc.).
——————————————–
you have a naive view of the executive branch, which more or less interprets and enforces regulations as it likes until forced to do otherwise, and you further fail to identify any specific regulation implicated.
Social Security checks may get sent out despite a default, but only because both the President and Congress agree (implicitely or explicity) to ignore the lack of Constitutional or legal authority for the President to prioritize the bills.
—————————————-
this is an odd argument for a liberal, but what “lack of Constitutional or legal authority for the President to prioritize the bills” are you talking about?
Just out of curiosity – what if the President decides that welfare checks come first, and social security or defense appropriations come last? I’m sure that you, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. would all be screaming to impeach the President for an unconstitutional abuse of power if that were to happen.
————————————
I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly wouldn’t, and as I said before;
“ as a practical matter it would take congress a few hours to legislate priorities if social security checks didn’t go out …”