So we hit the debt limit...

[KRonn]

Yeah, we seem to go in  cycles like that. The Dems took heavy political losses last election for going too far perhaps, and next election it may be the Repubs taking the losses for the same thing.

I'm not sure how that will happen, unless voters can be led to believe that the GOP controls both houses.

Hmmm, maybe so, since the Tea Party faction is just a smaller part of the Repubs. But my thinking is if they become seen as over reaching, and the cause of problems by many voters, there could be a back lash against the Repubs. Although, if they're seen as bringing some needed ideas on restraining govt spending then maybe it'll help the Repubs instead.     Remains to be seen how this budget deal and deals going forward are seen by Independent voters, apart from the left and right of each party who have their agendas anyway.

[Berkut]

I don't think there is any question that the TP will be able to lay claim to having forced some restraint on Congress. Whether that is able to counter the perception that they took the country to the brink of disaster doing so remains to be seen. I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

What I find rather fucked up is that the Republicans are trying really hard to sell the idea that the out of control person was the President. When from where I was sitting, it seemed to me like Obama was the most sane of all the major Dems when it came to the budget. But hurting the President is almost certainly more politically valuable than hurting Congress - after all, could approval ratings for Congress in general get any lower anyway? So this is going to be sold as the TP vs. Obama.

[garbon]

They chose Alabama.

You wouldn't last 10 minutes there, Pinky LaRue.

Why would I want to?

[grumbler]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

[Berkut]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

Fallacy of the middle!

But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.

[Berkut]

I suspect that the story that "Hey, we had to take drastic action to force an out of control Congress and President to show some restraint" will resonate rather well. And in respects to the Congress, it has the advantage of actually being true.

I find your tribal narrative to be as amusing as DG's.

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

[crazy canuck]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.

[Berkut]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I get the impression that you think the "gravy train" is a recent phenomenon.

Not at all. The gravy train is about as old as politics.

The real question for my hypothesis, is what would the Blue Dogs be doing? They've been pretty quiet lately, but that is mostly because (I think) they are no longer what is holding the liberal Dems back, so there is no need for them to be there pissing off their fellow Democrats like they did prior to the rise of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party does a fine job pissing everyone off, and the Blue Dogs aren't even notices.

Hell, we haven't heard the Truly Faithful rail against the evil of the Blue Dogs in months and months!

[Neil]

Why wouldn't they address spending (albeit in an entirely cosmetic and ineffective way)?  They'd just do it in a way that took effect in a few years, so that another Congress could refute it.

[grumbler]

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary.  While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

[DGuller]

Fallacy of the middle!

But wait! I am sure that I am a "conservative" and I just said something about the economy, so you know that I am lying anyway.

To be clear, I was not trying to say that every time a conservative says something about economics, they're lying.  I'm just saying that the economic arguments that are often repeated and passed around were almost always created by a liar or a moron, and are thus based on falsehoods.  The argument about the growth of government over the last several decades was one such argument, and it is designed to create an urgency among the population to slash and burn spending.

Repeating the talking point that was invented with the intent to mislead does not make one a liar, although it may make someone an uncritical participant in the political debate.

[derspiess]

I get the impression that Obama may have tried something, but Pelosi and Co would pretty much just laugh at him and blow him off and keep the gravy train rolling like it did for the last couple of years.

I doubt Obama would've done anything on the spending side.  He came out with guns blazing just yesterday talking about all the new spending we need to do.  I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

[DGuller]

I heard him mention "infrastructure" a few times-- I thought that was supposed to be taken care of last year.

Yeah, isn't infrastructure in a country like US supposed to be a one year project?

[Berkut]

On a more serious note however, do you think that absent the Tea Party, Congress would have even made an attempt to address spending at all?

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary.  While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

You have more faith in the Dems than I do. I suspect Congress would be talking about "holding the line" on spending...at the 25% of GDP level. Or maybe even talking about "incremental" increases, say to just the 26% of GDP level...you know, purely temporary, I am sure.

[derspiess]

Yes.  I cannot recall anyone who has ever talked about the stimulus spending as anything other than temporary. 

Yeah, but lots of "temporary" expansions of the size & cost of government have become permanent. 

While Congress does many things I dislike, I believe that those measures are motivated by the congressmen's desire to get re-elected, rather than by Congress being "out of control."

But very often out of control spending helps them get re-elected.