The GOP eats itself on fiscal mattersFollow

You're arguing with a guy who still bolds everything so I wouldn't sweat the quotes bit.

I love this quote from the Politico update I got last night.


Sounds like their whip isn't leaving lovely red marks on the backs of Tea Party members.

If Jon Stewart says it, it must be true.

They're all racists, too, MIRITE?

I haven't been to many tea party rallies, but those that I have attended have been great family environments that I was happy to have my sons at. There was no "down with darkies", no "F'uck old people!" or "Let the poor eat their welfare babies!". Maybe it's different some other places, but all of the coverage I've ever seen (that wasn't a congressman with no evidence to back up his claim) has been the same way.

So, perhaps it seems that way to people across a big-assed body of water, or to people here in this country who have never bothered to attend, but reality paints a slightly different picture.

Balderdash. Fox says they're Fair and Balanced.

Sorry, it couldn't be avoided. I threw up a little in my mouth when I typed that.

You've personally said you'd rather see the economy fall apart and Congress frozen in order to get Obama out of office.

When I worked at the country club, there were a few members there that were just a hoot to hang out with. Funny, articulate, intelligent... we used to have a blast. They also identified with the Tea Party. So we were cool as long as we kept politics out of the conversation.

So I don't trust them to be any smarter than you are.

Rhetoric aside, we didn't suffer any negative economic effects resulting from the cost of our military operations in Iraq. I showed you the raw data proving this the last time you asked for it.



Debt in excess of 60% of GDP and growing would seem to qualify as an "extreme scenario", wouldn't you agree?



Yes. Do I need to draw a map for you in crayon?



Apparently, I do. I'll go really slow so you can understand:

High debt must be paid in some way. You either have to print money and thus increase inflation, or raise taxes, or dramatically decrease spending. When there are Democrats in control of both houses of congress and the white house, it's a good bet that numbers 1 and 2 will happen and *not* much of number 3. Absent the other effects of inflation, both of those first two options produce negative effects for private businesses and their investors.

As long as those options are on the table, less money will be invested into things which result in employment. Ergo, we wont create new jobs quickly enough to keep unemployment at a relatively low rate. What's funny is that the folks on your side know this. They talk about it all the time, blaming "big business" for failing to invest in ways which create jobs. But they don't manage to see how the very policies they support are the reason for this.


And that's how a high debt level causes unemployment. Maybe we should approach it from the other direction: What the hell do you think causes employment in the first place? Answer that question honestly, and you should be able to see how the current situation reduces the rate at which new jobs are created.

Yes. But it can act in ways which reduce the rate at which the private market creates jobs. I suppose if you want to really twist your viewpoint, you could say that by *not* ******** around with things like taxes, inflation, and increased employment costs via health care mandates, the government can encourage job growth, but that's like saying that a bank robber helps give banks money when he chooses not to rob them. And in any case, the government chose to do exactly those things which will hurt employment and now stands around acting confused about why unemployment is so high.


For some of us, it's not confusing at all.