Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[hblask 1]

You're just not understanding that election fraud is no big deal. That's why you've never heard any complaints from the right about ACORN.

Oh, you mean that thing that never happened even though it was on videotape? And therefore the left ignored it. OK, just checking.

Also, anything the left has ever not liked about the right falls under race-baiting or class warfare.

No, both sides have many ways to avoid discussions. The main three for the left are the race card, class warfare, and now, Koch.The right has the patriot card and the tax-and-spend card.

And when over 60% of the country thinks that modest tax increases for the wealthy should be part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan, insisting on them is "pandering to the lowest common denominator". We have a lot of "low" people.

Is that the same 60% that thinks the sun goes around the earth?

[brvheart 1,752]

And when over 60% of the country thinks that modest tax increases for the wealthy should be part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan, insisting on them is "pandering to the lowest common denominator". We have a lot of "low" people.

So democrats aren't happy with the bill written by democrats and signed into law by a democrat? I's confused.

[mrdannyg 274]

I was (hopefully) pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue. The Black Panthers voter intimidation thing is well known, but the left won't even look at that. I was also pointing out the stupidity of using the Koch meme for everything the left disagrees with as some giant boogeyman that is behind all the evil in the world. It's so retarded I feel embarrassed for people who have to resort to it.Having said that, yeah, voter fraud is bad, both sides go to great lengths to do it, and it is rarely (if ever) punished.But hey, if pick a target, freeze it, personalize it. It's easier than thinking.

Ugh, that whole discussion was so annoyingly partisan. Your last two sentences are ridiculous. This is an actual thing that happened and people questioned the motives of the people behind it. Your exaggerated accusation is actually a lower level of discourse than those you question.

So democrats aren't happy with the bill written by democrats and signed into law by a democrat? I's confused.

Come on. Signed by democrats at the point of a republican sword. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me I have to stab a puppy, who's fault is it the puppy got stabbed?This is the same logic that Romney and others used to suggest Obama shouldn't be re-elected because of the downgrade. The downgrade is a republican creation. If you can't see that, then you might as well turn off everything but Fox news and just be happy voting republican the rest of your life.I'm not saying what they did was wrong. Nor am I going to go all SS on everyone and assign PERFECTLY FACTUAL random grades to everything. But even though it happened without an actual default, a downgrade isn't even whispered about without the R's holding the sword to the process.

[hblask 1]

Ugh, that whole discussion was so annoyingly partisan. Your last two sentences are ridiculous. This is an actual thing that happened and people questioned the motives of the people behind it. Your exaggerated accusation is actually a lower level of discourse than those you question.

Is there some evidence that the Koch's knew about this and approved it? No? Then it's just nonsense to try to tie it to them.

I'm not saying what they did was wrong. Nor am I going to go all SS on everyone and assign PERFECTLY FACTUAL random grades to everything. But even though it happened without an actual default, a downgrade isn't even whispered about without the R's holding the sword to the process.

See, I disagree with that. People had been predicting a downgrade a year ago, long before the debt ceiling became an issue. The downgrade is a result of long-term problems. The R's reluctance in this is finally -- finally -- an attempt to draw a line in the sand (after 8 years of blowing through debt like there's no tomorrow). So, the debt due to Bush and the R's (which is a big part of it) is their contribution to this; the Obama and the Dems debt is their contribution. The people who are finally saying "enough is enough" are the only people who did anything to prevent the downgrade. I think without someone saying "stop" the downgrade would've happened a month or two ago.

[mrdannyg 274]

Is there some evidence that the Koch's knew about this and approved it? No? Then it's just nonsense to try to tie it to them.See, I disagree with that. People had been predicting a downgrade a year ago, long before the debt ceiling became an issue. The downgrade is a result of long-term problems. The R's reluctance in this is finally -- finally -- an attempt to draw a line in the sand (after 8 years of blowing through debt like there's no tomorrow). So, the debt due to Bush and the R's (which is a big part of it) is their contribution to this; the Obama and the Dems debt is their contribution. The people who are finally saying "enough is enough" are the only people who did anything to prevent the downgrade. I think without someone saying "stop" the downgrade would've happened a month or two ago.

Yes. If it is their organization, they are responsible. I don't care whether the individuals themselves knew. They're not elected figures. This does not appear to be an innocent mistake or typo. Whatever the chain of command in their organization is, their organization is responsible. The individuals? Don't care. They get one vote just like everyone else.As for the second part...I dunno, you're just wrong. Of course the downgrade is a result of long-term problems, but any kind of debt deal getting done a month or two ago removes all impetus for any downgrades. Maybe it wouldn't happened 2 or 5 years from now with some other manufactured excuse. I think you are overthinking it, and ignoring the simple progression that the agencies would actually have to follow. Those agencies are not able to act on information unknown to me and you. If they were going to downgrade based on the actual state of things, they could've done so years ago.I do agree that a real, strong plan would have avoided the downgrade, regardless of any Repub threats. But none of us really ever expected that, right?I really hope the US sees little to no change in borrowing rates - the rating agencies are such a load of crap, it would be great to see such a public shot in the teeth. And as annoying as it can be, it is fun to watch America gets in way sometimes. I'd love to see politicians on both sides taking credit for the lack of increased rates.

[85suited 0]

The downgrade is the TEa Parties fault - just ask axelrod & John Kerry

[mrdannyg 274]

John Mauldin's impression on the downgrade - mirrors my thoughts pretty well:"So, if the Fed, which doesn’t issue credit and can print money, can be downgraded because it holds AA+ debt, then why and how in hell can the ECB, which holds hundreds of billions of euros of the junk debt of Greece and Ireland and insolvent banks not be downgraded on Monday? And the Bank of Japan? REALLY? What are these guys smoking? Do we now downgrade GNMA? Of course. And the FDIC? What the hell will repos do on market open? The NY Fed says it won’t affect anything. Don’t ask me, I just work here. And how can you rate France AAA? And still give AA or more to Italy when the market is saying they are getting close to junk?"

[CaneBrain 95]

Is that the same 60% that thinks the sun goes around the earth?

Now look who is playing the part of the elitist liberal. Nice! High five! I'll try and find you a t-shirt.Brv, I know you would never watch Bill Maher's show but if you did you would understand that yes Democrats are very much upset over a law signed by a Democrat President. I think that is what makes the Obama presidency so fascinating. The right think he is Karl Marx reborn and the left thinks he is a centrist wimp. I can barely reconcile that and it depresses me.This happens sometimes...like how Republicans now pretend they never liked Bush's domestic spending agenda even though they waited until 2009 to say so. Mdg,I agree the S&P's ratings are wildly inconsistent.85,And the Tea Party is blaming the President. Each side is blaming the other. Wow, how new!

[hblask 1]

Yes. If it is their organization, they are responsible. I don't care whether the individuals themselves knew. They're not elected figures. This does not appear to be an innocent mistake or typo. Whatever the chain of command in their organization is, their organization is responsible. The individuals? Don't care. They get one vote just like everyone else.

It wasn't "their organization", it's just an organization they gave money to. It is no more their organization that Doctors Without Borders is *my* organization. Am I responsible for everything they do?

As for the second part...I dunno, you're just wrong. Of course the downgrade is a result of long-term problems, but any kind of debt deal getting done a month or two ago removes all impetus for any downgrades. Maybe it wouldn't happened 2 or 5 years from now with some other manufactured excuse. I think you are overthinking it, and ignoring the simple progression that the agencies would actually have to follow. Those agencies are not able to act on information unknown to me and you. If they were going to downgrade based on the actual state of things, they could've done so years ago.I do agree that a real, strong plan would have avoided the downgrade, regardless of any Repub threats. But none of us really ever expected that, right?I really hope the US sees little to no change in borrowing rates - the rating agencies are such a load of crap, it would be great to see such a public shot in the teeth. And as annoying as it can be, it is fun to watch America gets in way sometimes. I'd love to see politicians on both sides taking credit for the lack of increased rates.

It makes no sense to say that doing this horrible deal two months ago would NOT have resulted in a downgrade. They aren't rating the past, they are rating the result, which is unsustainable debt levels. They had talked about a downgrade a long time ago, they waited to see what deal got done. The looked at it, it sucks, so they downgraded. It wouldn't have made any difference what day it happened.

[CaneBrain 95]

It makes no sense to say that doing this horrible deal two months ago would NOT have resulted in a downgrade. They aren't rating the past, they are rating the result, which is unsustainable debt levels. They had talked about a downgrade a long time ago, they waited to see what deal got done. The looked at it, it sucks, so they downgraded. It wouldn't have made any difference what day it happened.

Except this is not at all what S&P said. They said the downgrade reflects the perception that Washington does not have what it takes to work together. It's more a commentary on the hostile atmosphere of "no compromise" in Washington than a commentary on the actual deal. Officials from S&P have said this multiple times now. The "how" of this deal influenced them far more than the end result if you believe what they say. Given their complicity in the 2008 financial collapse, I would not blame anyone for giving them zero credibility especially when you look at some of the countries which still have a AAA rating (hello, France).

[El Guapo 8]

So U.S. treasuries were down graded on Friday afternoon, Monday in fear and panic people sell stocks and put money in....Treasuries

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So U.S. treasuries were down graded on Friday afternoon, Monday in fear and panic people sell stocks and put money in....Treasuries

Hopefully they're French treasuries, because those are much more reliable than US treasuries, amiright S&P?

[mrdannyg 274]

It wasn't "their organization", it's just an organization they gave money to. It is no more their organization that Doctors Without Borders is *my* organization. Am I responsible for everything they do?

Assuming they are not the main/sole benefactors of the organization, it appears I should have read the article more carefully. Pretend that they are the sole benefactors of the organization and go back and read what I said. It makes more sense that way, I promise.

So U.S. treasuries were down graded on Friday afternoon, Monday in fear and panic people sell stocks and put money in....Treasuries

Love it. But yeah, they're super unsafe and stuff.

[hblask 1]

Assuming they are not the main/sole benefactors of the organization, it appears I should have read the article more carefully. Pretend that they are the sole benefactors of the organization and go back and read what I said. It makes more sense that way, I promise.

Yeah, if they had any day-to-day operational duties, it would make sense. But they give to millions of dollars to thousands of charities each year, and are not responsible for the behavior of every person in every one of them.Which is why I pointed out that this is just the latest incarnation of the race card -- the Koch card. If any dollar from them touched any part of the economy, and the left doesn't like that thing, then play the Koch card and end discussion.

[mrdannyg 274]

Yeah, if they had any day-to-day operational duties, it would make sense. But they give to millions of dollars to thousands of charities each year, and are not responsible for the behavior of every person in every one of them.Which is why I pointed out that this is just the latest incarnation of the race card -- the Koch card. If any dollar from them touched any part of the economy, and the left doesn't like that thing, then play the Koch card and end discussion.

Except...that is the exact opposite of what happened here, right? A very obviously bad thing happened, which was then noted to be related to the Koch's. In your scenario, someone would have seen the Koch money, and assumed whatever was happening was bad, or worse because of them. In this case, take the Koch part out of it, and you still have an organization doing something bad.

[hblask 1]

Except...that is the exact opposite of what happened here, right? A very obviously bad thing happened, which was then noted to be related to the Koch's. In your scenario, someone would have seen the Koch money, and assumed whatever was happening was bad, or worse because of them. In this case, take the Koch part out of it, and you still have an organization doing something bad.

Opposite... wait? There is no tie to the Koch's except that they happened to have given money to the organization. I'm not sure why that is "related to the Koch's" any more than Doctors Without Borders is "related to hblask". I have no problem investigating unethical behavior by anyone; what I object to is randomly tying it to innocent people because it's easier than thinking.

[CaneBrain 95]

Opposite... wait? There is no tie to the Koch's except that they happened to have given money to the organization. I'm not sure why that is "related to the Koch's" any more than Doctors Without Borders is "related to hblask".

Probably because hblask was never the chairman of Doctors without Borders? I mean...you are accusing others of "not thinking" and then you foist some absurd comparison between the 50 bucks you gave Doctors w/o Borders and the Koch's chairing a PAC organization and feeding it millions of dollars? Seriously? Just the parallel between an actual charitable organization and a political PAC is ridiculous.

[hblask 1]

Probably because hblask was never the chairman of Doctors without Borders? I mean...you are accusing others of "not thinking" and then you foist some absurd comparison between the 50 bucks you gave Doctors w/o Borders and the Koch's chairing a PAC organization and feeding it millions of dollars? Seriously? Just the parallel between an actual charitable organization and a political PAC is ridiculous.

So you believe that they have day-to-day duties with this organization? Because running their many for-profit companies doesn't keep them busy, they are also deeply involved in every other organization they gave money to? Should we blame them for the bad dance for the arts organizations they gave money to? I'm sure they were named honorary chairman of a few of those, too.

[vbnautilus 48]

So you believe that they have day-to-day duties with this organization? Because running their many for-profit companies doesn't keep them busy, they are also deeply involved in every other organization they gave money to? Should we blame them for the bad dance for the arts organizations they gave money to? I'm sure they were named honorary chairman of a few of those, too.

I mean... really? The Koch brothers founded, chaired, and gave millions of dollars to this organization for the purpose of furthering their political agenda. For all intents and purposes is is theirs. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to hold them responsible for what it does. The doctors without borders analogy is preposterous. If their organization has run amok without their supervision then perhaps they need to supervise more closely.

[El Guapo 8]

Henry, you can be an honorary board member, not honorary chairman. I have no idea if they had anything directly to do with this, but they should be held accountable, just like a CEO would be held accountable if a VP went and did something stupid.

[brvheart 1,752]

Brv, I know you would never watch Bill Maher's show but if you did you would understand that yes Democrats are very much upset over a law signed by a Democrat President. I think that is what makes the Obama presidency so fascinating. The right think he is Karl Marx reborn and the left thinks he is a centrist wimp. I can barely reconcile that and it depresses me.

You don't know me very well if you think I don't like Bill Maher. If I had HBO, I would watch it all the time, but when I switched to Dish Network they only gave me Showtime.

[hblask 1]

I mean... really? The Koch brothers founded, chaired, and gave millions of dollars to this organization for the purpose of furthering their political agenda. For all intents and purposes is is theirs. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to hold them responsible for what it does. The doctors without borders analogy is preposterous. If their organization has run amok without their supervision then perhaps they need to supervise more closely.

So.... you were equally hard on Obama for the ACORN scandal? His ties were closer to ACORN, since he actually worked with them on a personal level rather than saying "here's a million bucks, go spread the word". As to your last line, I would certainly hope that they would look into these allegations and punish the people who were responsible. I mean, convincing stupid people not to vote is not the worst thing in the world, but when you give so much money to so many good causes, you don't need to give money to the ones doing shady stuff. I'm sure we'll never hear if they bail on this organization or punish anyone, because that wasn't really the point of the story, was it? The point was to paint some of America's premier philanthropists in a bad light because some of their causes don't fit leftist ideology. That having been accomplished, the media has moved on.

[hblask 1]

Henry, you can be an honorary board member, not honorary chairman. I have no idea if they had anything directly to do with this, but they should be held accountable, just like a CEO would be held accountable if a VP went and did something stupid.

I never meant that as a formal title, but they are involved with dozens of organizations and run one of the largest private companies in the country. If they attend a meeting with these people more than once per year I'd be surprised. They also give huge amounts to Reason Foundation and hold some sort of position with them, and the people who work there said they haven't ever met any of the Koch's, so I don't think they are really hands on with their charitable causes.But yes, now that this has come out, they need to figure out if they should be giving any more money to this organization, and who needs to be fired/reprimanded. Or, they can pull an ACORN and change the organization's name and pretend none of it happened. (I suspect this last one is not a real possibility, but they've got a precedent thanks to the Obama/ACORN thing.)

[CaneBrain 95]

So.... you were equally hard on Obama for the ACORN scandal? His ties were closer to ACORN, since he actually worked with them on a personal level rather than saying "here's a million bucks, go spread the word".

Are you serious?'Uh, yes your honor, I did found Americans for Prosperity and I give it tens of millions of dollars and I was the chairman but saying I was involved with the organization on a personal level seems like a stretch.'By the way, good point that the Kochs are involved with many organizations and run a large private company. That's good proof that they were uninvolved in this. I wonder if there is any job Obama holds that also might monopolize his time. No, he's got nothing on his plate but all those ACORN meetings.

[mrdannyg 274]

Opposite... wait? There is no tie to the Koch's except that they happened to have given money to the organization. I'm not sure why that is "related to the Koch's" any more than Doctors Without Borders is "related to hblask". I have no problem investigating unethical behavior by anyone; what I object to is randomly tying it to innocent people because it's easier than thinking.

Opposite in that you acted as if the whole thing was a non-issue and people playing the "Koch card" to make it seem like there was one. This is the opposite of that - it was an issue with or without the Koch's. No one played the Koch card to invent an issue.The others cover the other aspects nicely. I'll only add this - you give your money to Doctors Without Borders. Good stuff. They are largely known as a good-doing organization. Let's pretend you are a public figure, and your donation is a big big amount of money. And let's pretend that tomorrow, it turns out Doctors Without Borders actually dumps the medicine in a river, then just pricks the needy and sick with empty needles and kicks them in the shins for fun. Jerks. If you give them money tomorrow, it is sure going to look like you are a fan of kicking sick Africans in the shins, no?