Excuse me while I go puke: Tea Party Democrats??!?!?!?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Tea Party Democrats

Some senators are coming around to the Tea Party's position on the deficit.

Since being re-elected to the Senate and re-elected as majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made a couple of things clear. There will be no cuts to Social Security. A ban on earmarks, or even a moratorium, would "take away power from the legislative branch," and it would be the "wrong thing to do."

He has not been able to convince his fellow Democrats. President Obama's State of the Union speech included a pledge to veto any legislation that "comes to my desk with earmarks inside," and some soft language about entitlements that, nonetheless, feinted at Social Security reform.
These comments got less attention last week than Obama's ballast about a "Sputnik moment" or ways to "win the future." Unlike the buzzwords, these comments stuck. Last week, members of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus pointed to the State of the Union to argue, in the words of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that the president had been "co-opted" by the Tea Party. On Tuesday, Democrats finished the job.

First, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced a package of spending cuts more draconian than anything Reid, or Democrats, had agreed to. The "Commitment to American Prosperity Act," co-sponsored by eight Republicans, would mandate that spending be driven down from 24.7 percent to 20.6 percent of GDP by 2021. To do so, it would authorize the Office of Management and Budget to "make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget." Social Security, said McCaskill, would be "on the table," ready for the kind of means testing that Democrats had rejected for decades. This was literally the opposite of what Reid had promised.

more . . . http://www.slate.com/id/2283591/

[defendandprotect]

1. Just another in the many assaults to bring down the Democratic Party ...

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

2. End the WARS, end the Bush tax cuts, end the deficit.

[toddwv]

29. Don't forget bailouts to multinats.

Personally, "bailout" should mean "seize assets", chop apart and transition them into more stable companies.

[Indydem]

32. Now thats just patently false.

I don't like the wars or the tax cuts for the wealthy, but let's get some perspective:

The annual cost for Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2010 is 170.1 Billion.

The annual cost of the Bush tax cuts extended for those families making under $250k is 231.5 Billion.

The annual cost of the extension for those families making over $250k is 40.75 Billion.

THE DEFICIT FOR FY 2010 is 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Ending the wars and ending the tax cuts for EVERYONE would cover just over one-third of the annual deficit.

Ending the wars and ending the tax cuts only for those making over $250k would cover only 16% of the deficit.

We have bigger problems than just wars and tax cuts.

Even if you didn't spend ONE DIME at the pentagon for FY 2010, ended the wars, and retracted ALL of the tax cuts, we would STILL HAVE A DEFICIT OF OVER $300 BILLION.

[Enthusiast]

38. So they shouldn't have squandered

the social security trust fund. So the wealthy and the MIC should pay the price because that is where the money went. Down a rat hole.

300 billion would be manageable.

So let's get to slashing that pentagon budget. Budget hell, they don't need no stinkin' budget.

[NuclearDem]

42. Did the surplus just magically transform into a deficit then?

When all of those Bush-era policies went into effect?

That 1.3 trillion came over 10 years. Keeping the Bush tax cuts would raise the deficit to almost 4 trillion. Hell, keeping them only for the families making over $250K for only two years would STILL raise it by $550 billion over ten years.

The Pentagon's been sucking taxpayer money away and 1) laying waste to two countries 2) destroying our young people's lives and 3) NOT GETTING RESULTS. It's the biggest money vampire in the US. Slash its budget to pay salaries for about half of the force we have now, take the rest of the money saved by that and create jobs to help the returning veterans get jobs, housing, and education, and take us out of our bases overseas.

[krabigirl]

40. Sounds good to me.

[Newest Reality]

3. Manufactured movements and

manufactured consent based on manufactured propaganda that serves power and profit.

Who says we don't make anything in America anymore?

[abelenkpe]

7. +1 nt.

[leftstreet]

11. +1

True dat

[Poboy]

21. True post. It is all a front to serve as cover for the real agenda. They are traitors.

Obama does this too.

[Enthusiast]

39. The Tea Party has served

their corporate masters perfectly.

[kctim]

4. To late Claire

You made your bed with the HCR vote and you are going to have to live with it.
Good-bye to you in 2012.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Stick a fork in her. She's done.

The right wingers DESPISE Claire. She could hand each of them money and they still wouldn't vote for her. If she loses the left (and I believe she has) she's toast.

[kctim]

33. I know many Dems

who voted for her the first time and they guarantee they will not vote for her in 2012 because of her HCR vote. They are very serious too, voted Blunt over Carnahan.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Same here.

I also know a lot who stayed home and didn't vote at all this past November.

[Brewman_Jax]

5. Really?

Why is it that these tools didn't have a problem with the deficit as long as the gov't is buying bombs, bullets, and shit that goes boom--but now there's a problem with the deficit when it comes to health care reform, education reform, and other social spending...or am I just seeing this wrong?

[kctim]

36. Because with some people

the issue is about rights, not money.

[bullwinkle428]

6. "Commitment to American Prosperity Act", as in "Americans for Prosperity"

as in "Koch brothers-funded group"!

They've completely thrown subtlety out the window!

[Newest Reality]

10. and that resolves as:

"America for the Prosperous" in an exclusive way.

[Erose999]

20. Koch-suckers, in addition to being teabaggers

[maxrandb]

8. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to blame the Democrats

When the American voters (at least those that showed up in 2010) allowed the Tea-baggers to "steamroll" into power.

What message do you think was sent by that?

Makes me wonder why there aren't thousands of us in the streets screaming "I Want My Country Back", or getting into shoving and screaming matches at TEA-publican Town Hall meetings.

We may not like it, but we have elections in this country that set the course of our government. Sorry, but WE, the voters, are responsible for this, and WE have the power to change that course once again, but don't blame the Dems because the TEA-baggers got into power.

If we truly are a representative Democracy that honors the votes of the people, we ARE GETTING WHAT WE DESERVE.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. The American voters didn't allow that to happen.

Citizens United allowed it by legalizing unlimited campaign donations from corporations. They bought this election just like they bought themselves a tea party. And the American Idol watching American people don't yet fully understand what is happening.

[maxrandb]

23. And

there should be such a wave of outraged opposition to the Citizens United ruling to ONCE AND FOR ALL change the obscene graft and outright bribery in our politics.

If there isn't, then we only have ourselves to blame.

I'm not naive, but I still believe that in our country, the people have the power to change this.

Of course, that might take the kind of courage and sacrifice that was displayed in the Civil Rights movement, and I'm not holding my breath.

[jtown1123]

16. I think people were pissed Dems weren't aggressive in job creation

or the public option. If anything, Dems weren't strong from a messaging perspective and lost the huge momentum we took in 08.

[maxrandb]

18. So we threw out the baby with the bathwater

and now have Issa in charge of "oversight" and people like Rand Paul making budget decisions.

Again, if we want to change course, we'd better get as motivated as the screaming banshees on the right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Amen. They should be our role models.

Not in what we believe but in how we choose to act.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. ITA with you

But I think there is a general 'fog' on the left. And we would need a Soros type Money Guy behind it like they have the Koch's.

[maxrandb]

27. I would argue that it wasn't the Dems that lost the "huge momentum"

It was us.

We thought that since we had won a great victory, the war was over and we had won. The TEA-publicans started planning a counter-offensive right around 8PM on election night 2008.

[okieinpain]

26. totally agree with this post. n/t.

[WillyT]

12. McCaskill Is Up For Re-Election In 2012, So She's Gonna Move To The Right...

Wonder if the rest of the party will follow suit.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. She's our guest speaker at the KS State Democratic convention

at the end of February.

Do I really want to spend $125 to hear her speak???

[bobbolink]

19. If you have the $$$$, it would be an opportunity to practice throwing veggies.

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Trying to decide what to do

I'll take that idea into consideration :)

[bobbolink]

25. Under advisement,, eh? ^_^

If there are others you can protest with, it might actually be worth it.

Take it from one who knows... a lone voice is usually ignored or spat upon.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Yep. My email has been buzzing all day.

Lots of outraged Kansas Democrats today. I won't be alone.

[bobbolink]

31. Well, then..... you are *VERY* fortunate, and it might be a good opportunity

to "walk like an Egyptian".

I envy you.... I wish I had that kind of support.

Keep us informed of what you decide to do..... this is interesting.

Good luck!

[maxrandb]

17. The only way to stop that

is to very LOUDLY and FORCEFULLY demand that they don't.

Where's our outrage?

Why aren't we marching by the thousands demanding "Our Country Back"?

Why aren't we screaming like banshees at TEA-publican Town Halls?

I'm sorry, but nothing would make me happier than to see McConnel, in a panic, running from a mob to the safety of his car and speeding away...BUT NO...we'd rather harrass and intimidate the people that have a "D" after their name in some gradiose dream of "purification".

[Dawson Leery]

14. Claire (I married a nursing home slumlord to finance my political ambitions) McCaskill

will have a very difficult time being re-elected in 2012. I do not plan on sending this hag one cent.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. The name "Democrat" doesn't really mean anything anymore, does it?

This is what's wrong with loyalty to a party rather than to principles.

Eventually you find out that you've been supporting evil and stupidity simply because you fell in love with a name instead of an ideal.

[Enthusiast]

37. I will support McCaskill's

primary opponent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. I'd love to see that

But I doubt anyone will run against her.