Teabaggers beware: Majority of Republicans vote against deficit commission

Then we vote all these bums out.

Good in theory, doesn't work so well on paper. Congress has terrible approval ratings no matter who is in power; everybody hates Congress. And yet everyone loves their own Senator/Representative. It's why nothing ever changes.

You are seeing the rise of real third parties in this country.

So where are they? The march on D.C. only saw 75,000-100,000 teabaggers show up. That's only roughly double the number of people living my extremely rural southern county.

This country will never have a third party because political parties are the result of a person's underlying political ideology. Most everyone is one or the other, liberal or conservative. In order for there to be a third party, there'd have to be a third ideology.

None exists.

No. There just has to be a SECOND ideology, since there seems to be no appreciable difference between that of the two parties.

Oh come on. Abortion. Gun control. Tax cuts. Religion in government. Social welfare. Are you really going to claim that one ideology covers both sides of tall of those issues?

That's absurd.

Look, I'm not going to argue that the President hasn't embraced and extended many of Bush's policies, because he has. So has the Congress. But a few instances of bi-partisan agreement (usually on issues where both parties are wrong, naturally) does not make liberal and conservative ideology the same thing.

If they were, you'd see 9-0 Supreme Court rulings constantly, instead of 5-4. Even though political ideology isn't supposed to factor into court rulings, they are often the perfect example of ideology differences.

As are campaigns.

From the minimum wage hike last year to abortion and gun rights, those things have been solidified in actions, not rhetoric, and they are just the tip of the ice berg.

Bush knew how to end a recession and create jobs.

Oh give me a @!$%#ing break. Bush's recession was a baby, the same kind most president's experience. He didn't end it, it was never a force to begin with. That kind of revisionism is pathetic.

If there not U.S. citezens then why should they recieve the same rights and Protections as U.S. citizens and be treated as criminals..

David,

Because they are criminals. Moreover, the concept of the Constitution is that the rights it gives are necessary for human dignity. They are our highest laws that can never be violated precisely because they are so basic and important. To just throw them away because you happen to hate terrorists a little more than you hate, say, an American serial killer, is to miss the point of the Constitution entirely.

The founders worked very hard to construct a set of rights that the government couldn't selectively ignore, like happens in other countries. Because given that option, the government will do precisely that: selectively ignore the rights of the accused until it gets what it wants.

And amazingly you seem to want to want that to happen.

Yes we need health care reform, not a govenment take over of the Health insurance industry..

That inane garbage has been so thoroughly debunked that it's hardly worth bothering with anymore. Under HCR, you can buy any plan you want. Visit any hospital you want. See any doctor you want (assuming your health insurance company allows you to do that, which they probably won't.) In that system the health insurance companies will all still be privately owned. All hospitals will be privately owned and operated.

Does that sound like a take over of the industry?

No, and you don't know what you're talking about.

..without any real legislative reform to control the costs

And whose fault is that? Oh yes, Republicans. The public option would have controlled costs, has the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, and your party made it a deal breaker. You can't complain about a lack of cost controls without at least acknowledging that your party is the reason this legislation doesn't have any.

Wheres the Tort Reform

Doesn't control costs and has nothing to do with health care reform.

So why didn't the Democrats and Obama start dealing with the defecit and economy right away instead of waiting until the publics outrage became so High that they were forced to face the music?

Um, Democrats did try to deal with the economy right away. It was called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Every Republican voted against it, and it was stuffed with nearly 30% tax cuts that didn't create any jobs because that's not what tax cuts do, thanks to...wait for it...Republicans/.

As for the deficit, it doesn't matter during a recession. Every economist in the country has been screaming at the top of their lungs that deficits don't matter during recessions. We can fix that later. Our debt as a percentage of GDP is not catastrophically high, it's not fatal. We can cut spending when the economy has recovered, until then managing the deficit is economic suicide.

The President is playing deficit games now because he's a @!$%#ty leader who doesn't know what he's doing. The right has him running scared, which I'm sure has them amused to no end, but it's crippling our recovery. Republicans always find a way to @!$%# over America.

They always do.

The Cloward Piven strategy is not a conspiracy theory its a theory developed by Columbia University Professors as a way to cause economic collapse of a capitolist economic system.

Uh, no: "the ultimate objective of this strategy (is) to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income."

Socialistic? Yes, but towards a noble goal of eliminating the poor and homeless through social support in the world's only remaining super power. Not a terribly bright idea and nothing that has been advocated for decades. The ultimate goal was radical welfare reform, not causing economic collapse.

Other observers credit [New York City's] bankruptcy to the mismanagement caused by politics, encouraging "frequently maturing short-term debt that left officials constantly scrambling to pay off loans""

The only difference now is that they are trying to do it on a national scale by mandating that all Americans have to buy health insurance thus overloading and causing the colapse of the health insurance industry..

What the @!$%#? No, David, the difference is that one is a monetary drain (welfare) on the state and the other is a massive influx of revenue from healthy people for insurance that they probably don't need.

The insurance companies are going to see their profit margins explode when millions of healthy people forced to buy insurance. They want the mandate, badly. They just don't want the cost controls that you're bitching about (that your party blocked) because that would trim their profit margins.

You really don't know what you're talking about here.

As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name..

Militant scholars? David, go away. You're lowering the average IQ around here. I want serious debate, not right-wing extremists rhetoric that would be laughed out of grade school.