The Rise and Fall of the Tea Party?

[lpetrich]

The day the tea party died - CNNPolitics

The first date was when CNBC analyst Rick Santelli went on a rant -- from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange -- about government spending and the dangerous resultant debt it was creating for the country.

The second date was, well, Monday, when the Trump White House and key Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress agreed to a two-year budget deal that further unraveled the spending strictures put in place by tea party Republicans in 2011 and suspended the debt ceiling through July 2021 -- and, in practical terms, well into 2022.

About the pResident himself,

Unlike many of his rivals for the 2016 presidential nomination -- Jeb(!) Bush, Ted Cruz -- Trump never expressed any real concern about the rising deficits (and debt) in the country, nor did he seem terribly concerned about its potential impacts on the economy either now or in the future.

That was in keeping with how Trump had conducted his own personal business prior to running for office -- the self-proclaimed "King of Debt," Trump regularly borrowed heavily to finance his various projects. As Trump told CBS News' Norah O'Donnell during the 2016 campaign: "I've made a fortune by using debt, and if things don't work out, I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing."

Not surprising that he has gone broke several times, to the point that only Russian oligarchs were willing to bail him out.

Why Trump swallowed a budget deal that bleeds red ink - POLITICO - "Trump looked to his friend and Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin to work with Pelosi and McConnell to strike a budget deal that avoids another risky spending fight until after the 2020 election."

President Donald Trump chose the pragmatist over the rabble-rousers.

In deciding who would lead the White House in budget and debt-ceiling negotiations with Capitol Hill, the president learned a lesson from his embarrassing government shutdown earlier this year: Brush aside the budget hawks in his own party, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and focus on minimizing any drama heading into an election year.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I eagerly await the hue and cry of all those 'fiscal conservatives'.

Once these crickets shut up.....

 

[dismal]

I eagerly await the hue and cry of all those 'fiscal conservatives'.

Once these crickets shut up.....

Well, I hope you recall your response to the US fiscal situation was partisan bullshit like this when the shit hits the fan.

Democrat politics these days is basically a contest to promise people as much free stuff as possible while calling everyone who disagrees with it "racist"

Republican politics is acting as speedbump along the way to the brick wall.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run for President arguing for holding spending growth down to a level of GDP growth or inflation growth, let alone cutting it.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run advocating more broadbased taxes on the lower and middle class incomes like they have in European welfare states.

Pretty safe predictions based on the last few decades of experience.

 

[Arctish]

I eagerly await the hue and cry of all those 'fiscal conservatives'.

Once these crickets shut up.....

Well, I hope you recall your response to the US fiscal situation was partisan bullshit like this when the shit hits the fan.

Democrat politics these days is basically a contest to promise people as much free stuff as possible while calling everyone who disagrees with it "racist"

Republican politics is acting as speedbump along the way to the brick wall.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run for President arguing for holding spending growth down to a level of GDP growth or inflation growth, let alone cutting it.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run advocating more broadbased taxes on the lower and middle class incomes like they have in European welfare states.

Pretty safe predictions based on the last few decades of experience.

The last few decades of experience should have taught you that deficits shrink under Democrat Presidents (Clinton, Obama) and balloon under Republican ones (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Trump), and that this happens while Democrats increase spending on social programs and Republicans cut them.

 

[dismal]

I eagerly await the hue and cry of all those 'fiscal conservatives'.

Once these crickets shut up.....

Well, I hope you recall your response to the US fiscal situation was partisan bullshit like this when the shit hits the fan.

Democrat politics these days is basically a contest to promise people as much free stuff as possible while calling everyone who disagrees with it "racist"

Republican politics is acting as speedbump along the way to the brick wall.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run for President arguing for holding spending growth down to a level of GDP growth or inflation growth, let alone cutting it.

I predict exactly zero politicians will run advocating more broadbased taxes on the lower and middle class incomes like they have in European welfare states.

Pretty safe predictions based on the last few decades of experience.

The last few decades of experience should have taught you that deficits shrink under Democrat Presidents (Clinton, Obama) and balloon under Republican ones (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Trump), and that this happens while Democrats increase spending on social programs and Republicans cut them.

Yeah, well, I'm not a mindless innumerate partisan idiot who is completely ignorant of how the US system of government works so I didn't "learn" that.

 

[Ford]

The last few decades of experience should have taught you that deficits shrink under Democrat Presidents (Clinton, Obama) and balloon under Republican ones (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Trump), and that this happens while Democrats increase spending on social programs and Republicans cut them.

Yeah, well, I'm not a mindless innumerate partisan idiot who is completely ignorant of how the US system of government works so I didn't "learn" that.

Yeah, well, since you're such an objective observer, perhaps you can explain why Republicans were dedicated deficit hawks right up until January 20th of 2017, and then enthusiastically supported a tax cut that blew a trillion dollar hole in the budget while simultaneously cheering on rising defense spending.

And while we're at it, how's that whole "a corporate tax cut will cause companies to repatriate all that overseas cash" thing coming along? (Hint: It's not.)

 

[dismal]

The last few decades of experience should have taught you that deficits shrink under Democrat Presidents (Clinton, Obama) and balloon under Republican ones (Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush, Trump), and that this happens while Democrats increase spending on social programs and Republicans cut them.

Yeah, well, I'm not a mindless innumerate partisan idiot who is completely ignorant of how the US system of government works so I didn't "learn" that.

Yeah, well, since you're such an objective observer, perhaps you can explain why Republicans were dedicated deficit hawks right up until January 20th of 2017, and then enthusiastically supported a tax cut that blew a trillion dollar hole in the budget while simultaneously cheering on rising defense spending.

And while we're at it, how's that whole "a corporate tax cut will cause companies to repatriate all that overseas cash" thing coming along? (Hint: It's not.)

When did I ever say "the Republicans were deficit hawks". I view both parties as responsible for the state of the government.

However, the Democrat rhetoric suggests that unchecked they would be even worse. If you like, you can go look up the $trillions of free goodies the 57 announced Democrats presidential candidates are currently jockeying to hand out. And you can ask yourself why most of it will probably never happen.

 

[Ford]

Yeah, well, since you're such an objective observer, perhaps you can explain why Republicans were dedicated deficit hawks right up until January 20th of 2017, and then enthusiastically supported a tax cut that blew a trillion dollar hole in the budget while simultaneously cheering on rising defense spending.

And while we're at it, how's that whole "a corporate tax cut will cause companies to repatriate all that overseas cash" thing coming along? (Hint: It's not.)

When did I ever say "the Republicans were deficit hawks". I view both parties as responsible for the state of the government.

Oh that's right. I missed all your posts during the Bush administration railing against the drunken sailor spending by the Republican controlled Congress and your rants against Bush not vetoing a single spending bill (or any other bill for that matter) until the Democrats took over in 2007.

And I'm sure you can reference all your complaints about the Trump tax cuts and how it's not done a thing to rein in the deficit.

 

[Arctish]

Yeah, well, since you're such an objective observer, perhaps you can explain why Republicans were dedicated deficit hawks right up until January 20th of 2017, and then enthusiastically supported a tax cut that blew a trillion dollar hole in the budget while simultaneously cheering on rising defense spending.

And while we're at it, how's that whole "a corporate tax cut will cause companies to repatriate all that overseas cash" thing coming along? (Hint: It's not.)

When did I ever say "the Republicans were deficit hawks". I view both parties as responsible for the state of the government.

However, the Democrat rhetoric suggests that unchecked they would be even worse. If you like, you can go look up the $trillions of free goodies the 57 announced Democrats presidential candidates are currently jockeying to hand out. And you can ask yourself why most of it will probably never happen.

It will probably never happen because it would require an end to endless war and a significant cut in military spending which would cause Republicans in Congress to sabotage the government in order to protect their interests.

Let's not forget that when the country was mired in two wars and plummeting into the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Mitch McConnell called the Republicans together and told them that their single most important goal was to ensure Obama was a one term President.

Both parties like to spend money on their favorite projects. Only one of them has been somewhat fiscally responsible about it lately, and it's not the Republicans.

 

[dismal]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

Conservative dems tend to tie increased spending with increased revenue (paygo). Republicans tend to tie increased spending with magic (lower taxes will offset higher spending {yea right}).

 

[Arctish]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

It isn't partisan ass-hackery to know what Republican and Democrat Administrations can be expected to prioritize, how much of discretionary spending they want Congress to devote to their pet projects, and how free spending and deficit-tolerant they've been over the past 35 years.

If past performance is indicative of future behavior, a Democrat Administration will be a tolerable burden and a Republican one will be a shit show with the King of Bankruptcy himself in the White House for 4 more years.

 

[dismal]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

Conservative dems tend to tie increased spending with increased revenue (paygo). Republicans tend to tie increased spending with magic (lower taxes will offset higher spending {yea right}).

LOL @ "conservative dems".

Can you name one?

 

[dismal]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

It isn't partisan ass-hackery to know what Republican and Democrat Administrations can be expected to prioritize, how much of discretionary spending they want Congress to devote to their pet projects, and how free spending and deficit-tolerant they've been over the past 35 years.

If past performance is indicative of future behavior, a Democrat Administration will be a tolerable burden and a Republican one will be a shit show with the King of Bankruptcy himself in the White House for 4 more years.

If there is a Democrat president and a Republican congress you may be right. Republicans tend to rediscover spending restraint when it means shooting down Democrats.

Why I would credit this form of spending restraint to a Democrat Administration that wants to spend but can't I'm not sure.

 

[Arctish]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery. I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better. But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

It isn't partisan ass-hackery to know what Republican and Democrat Administrations can be expected to prioritize, how much of discretionary spending they want Congress to devote to their pet projects, and how free spending and deficit-tolerant they've been over the past 35 years.

If past performance is indicative of future behavior, a Democrat Administration will be a tolerable burden and a Republican one will be a shit show with the King of Bankruptcy himself in the White House for 4 more years.

If there is a Democrat president and a Republican congress you may be right. Republicans tend to rediscover spending restraint when it means shooting down Democrats.

Why I would credit this form of spending restraint to a Democrat Administration that wants to spend but can't I'm not sure.

Assume there aren't any spending restraints for either one. Now imagine what Republicans would spend the nation's wealth on, and what Democrats would spend it on.

If you don't see a difference in their priorities and spending habits, you really don't know the party platforms or how they go about the business of governance.

Getting back to the OP, I think the Tea Party has been largely co-opted although Ted Cruz is still throwing the occasional monkey wrench into the works. Turns out, it wasn't fiscal responsibility they cared about most after all. It was Israel, Christian conservatism, and white nationalism.

 

[Ford]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery.

That's some funny shit right there.

 

[dismal]

If there is a Democrat president and a Republican congress you may be right. Republicans tend to rediscover spending restraint when it means shooting down Democrats.

Why I would credit this form of spending restraint to a Democrat Administration that wants to spend but can't I'm not sure.

Assume there aren't any spending restraints for either one. Now imagine what Republicans would spend the nation's wealth on, and what Democrats would spend it on.

If you don't see a difference in their priorities and spending habits, you really don't know the party platforms or how they go about the business of governance.

Getting back to the OP, I think the Tea Party has been largely co-opted although Ted Cruz is still throwing the occasional monkey wrench into the works. Turns out, it wasn't fiscal responsibility they cared about most after all. It was Israel, Christian conservatism, and white nationalism.

I really don't give much of a crap about what they want to spend money on. I want them to tax less and spend less. Spend less, prioritize. We didn't cross the $1 trillion mark until the mid 1980s, and now we can't get by without $4 trillion? As I mentioned in a recent thread, if we cut to 2007 spending levels adjusted for inflation we'd cut about $800 billion of spending *and* cut taxes.

$800 billion! What are we getting for that $800 billion that we didn't get in 2007?

When you show me a candidate that runs on wanting to cut spending (or taxes) to Bill Clinton levels, I'll start not laughing when people cite Bill Clinton as a reason Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is going to be good on spending.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I have exactly zero interest in partisan ass-hackery.

Bullshit. All you got is partisan (dumb)ass-hackery

I can see the proposals of Democrat candidates. Anyone who thinks they are going to rein in spending is delusional. Anyone who thinks they are going to broaden the tax base the way European welfare states have is delusional. This is not to say the Republicans will be better.

Even more bullshit. Most of the Dem plans involve increasing taxes on the higher earners (some even have quite ambitious proposals to tax wealth, but that will probably never happen). Those additional taxes pay for the programs that support the lower and middle class.
And regardless of how much smoke you blow, study after study show that when you give a break to the lower classes, it helps the economy disproportionately, generally on the order of 1.2 - 1.5 dollars back in the economy for every tax dollar spend. The exact opposite of what happens when the rich get a tax cut.

But seriously attributing everything that happens while someone is President to the letter after the Presidents name is silly. Bill Clinton did not have spending increase less when he was President because Democrats are super awesome at not spending. Bill Clinton didn’t spend because Democrats got tossed out in huge numbers in his first midterm.

Obama did spend like a drunken sailor in spite of the fact he got Democrats tossed out too.

Nobody's buying your fake 'both sides' bullshit, you know.

Obama used the federal money to bail out banks and other major industries that drive the US economy because, (and this part's important, so pay attention), his predecessor spent a shit ton of money on utterly wasted wars with almost no fiscal oversight.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Tea Party? Well there's a blast from the past. They ceased to be a thing years ago, long before Trump.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If there is a Democrat president and a Republican congress you may be right. Republicans tend to rediscover spending restraint when it means shooting down Democrats.

Why I would credit this form of spending restraint to a Democrat Administration that wants to spend but can't I'm not sure.

Assume there aren't any spending restraints for either one. Now imagine what Republicans would spend the nation's wealth on, and what Democrats would spend it on.

If you don't see a difference in their priorities and spending habits, you really don't know the party platforms or how they go about the business of governance.

Getting back to the OP, I think the Tea Party has been largely co-opted although Ted Cruz is still throwing the occasional monkey wrench into the works. Turns out, it wasn't fiscal responsibility they cared about most after all. It was Israel, Christian conservatism, and white nationalism.

I really don't give much of a crap about what they want to spend money on. I want them to tax less and spend less. Spend less, prioritize. We didn't cross the $1 trillion mark until the mid 1980s, and now we can't get by without $4 trillion? As I mentioned in a recent thread, if we cut to 2007 spending levels adjusted for inflation we'd cut about $800 billion of spending *and* cut taxes.

ROFL. And you call other people's grasp of economics bad.