Have the Republicans hijacked the Tea Party, or is it the other way around?

[pghin08]

Looking for opinions on this. I'm trying to decide who is using who here. With Michelle Bachmann's "win" in Iowa, along with the debt ceiling resolution and the 2010 mid-terms, who is in charge of the Republican party? I honestly can't tell if the Tea Party has grabbed the short ones of the more centrist Republicans, or if the Republicans have just adopted the Tea Party as their core mantra.

I'm leaning towards the opinion that the Republicans are using the Tea Party. At the start, the Tea Party had one united goal: cut spending. Now it's as if the Tea Party has become the party of cutting spending, not raising taxes, abolishing the Fed, outlawing abortions, and countless other extreme right-wing ideals.

I could have gotten on board with the Tea Party at their purest: the re-evaluation of our spending habits, simplification of the tax code, etc. While I've always believed the predominant economist position of how to get out of our massive debt hole (spending cuts/tax hikes...oops, I mean "revenue increases"), spending cuts are probably where we can do the most damage to our debt problem.

But now that the Tea Party has just become this extremist tool of the Republican sect, I just can't align myself with 90% of their goals.

Any thoughts?

[mrveggieman]

Now it's as if the Tea Party has become the party of cutting spending, not raising taxes, abolishing the Fed, outlawing abortions,




Such noble goals it would be nice if the tea party really had the best intrests of our wallets and the unborn at heart but we all know that is not their real agenda. The tea party is hell bent on not just defeating President Obama but to embarass and destroy his legacy and we all know why the tea party wants to do that.

[AUTaxMan]

Looking for opinions on this. I'm trying to decide who is using who here. With Michelle Bachmann's "win" in Iowa, along with the debt ceiling resolution and the 2010 mid-terms, who is in charge of the Republican party? I honestly can't tell if the Tea Party has grabbed the short ones of the more centrist Republicans, or if the Republicans have just adopted the Tea Party as their core mantra.

I'm leaning towards the opinion that the Republicans are using the Tea Party. At the start, the Tea Party had one united goal: cut spending. Now it's as if the Tea Party has become the party of cutting spending, not raising taxes, abolishing the Fed, outlawing abortions, and countless other extreme right-wing ideals.

I could have gotten on board with the Tea Party at their purest: the re-evaluation of our spending habits, simplification of the tax code, etc. While I've always believed the predominant economist position of how to get out of our massive debt hole (spending cuts/tax hikes...oops, I mean "revenue increases"), spending cuts are probably where we can do the most damage to our debt problem.

But now that the Tea Party has just become this extremist tool of the Republican sect, I just can't align myself with 90% of their goals.

Any thoughts?

The Tea Party is much more representative of the Republican base as the media would have us believe. Most republicans are tired of the old boy network and the irresponsible and out of control spending that it generated under Bush.

I don't think our founders would have regarded not raising taxes as an extreme right wing idea.

Where is the list of their goals, and what 90% do you have a problem with?

[AUTaxMan]

Such noble goals it would be nice if the tea party really had the best intrests of our wallets and the unborn at heart but we all know that is not their real agenda. The tea party is hell bent on not just defeating President Obama but to embarass and destroy his legacy and we all know why the tea party wants to do that.

That has nothing to do with it. You need to shed that giant chip from your shoulder.

[mrveggieman]

That has nothing to do with it. You need to shed that giant chip from your shoulder.


Don't be mad at me. I'm just calling it as I see it. :winking0071:

[AUTaxMan]

Don't be mad at me. I'm just calling it as I see it. :winking0071:

You are seeing what you want to see as opposed to seeing the truth.

[mrveggieman]

You are seeing what you want to see as opposed to seeing the truth.

It's amazing how gwb had 8 years to set the country back to the 18th century and we didn't hear 1 word from the tea party then all of the sudden President Obama gets elected if he uses the wrong fork at the dinner table on his first day in office some people are ready to have him arrested for treason. Things that make you go hmmm......:confused0024:

[AUTaxMan]

It's amazing how gwb had 8 years to set the country back to the 18th century and we didn't hear 1 word from the tea party then all of the sudden President Obama gets elected if he uses the wrong fork at the dinner table on his first day in office some people are ready to have him arrested for treason. Things that make you go hmmm......:confused0024:

Obama has more than doubled down on Bush's spending. He has done plenty to warrant the boot from the WH.

Since we all apparently agree that Bush's spending was out of control, shouldn't we also say the same about Obama, who has done 10x the damage that Bush did?

Or is it acceptable to simply say that because people weren't complaining when Bush did it, then we shouldn't complain about Obama being Bush on steroids?

[mrveggieman]

Obama has more than doubled down on Bush's spending. He has done plenty to warrant the boot from the WH.

Since we all apparently agree that Bush's spending was out of control, shouldn't we also say the same about Obama, who has done 10x the damage that Bush did?

Or is it acceptable to simply say that because people weren't complaining when Bush did it, then we shouldn't complain about Obama being Bush on steroids?


I think that we can both agree that there is/was too much gov't spending on both sides. However this is were we are going to disagree. Bush bought us into this mess. Obama is doing everything he can think of to clean the mess up. However no matter what he does people will complain and his political foes will sabatoge whatever he does even if it is for the betterment of our country.

[pghin08]

The Tea Party is much more representative of the Republican base as the media would have us believe. Most republicans are tired of the old boy network and the irresponsible and out of control spending that it generated under Bush.

I don't think our founders would have regarded not raising taxes as an extreme right wing idea.

Where is the list of their goals, and what 90% do you have a problem with?


Remember the "Contract with America"?

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Issues with the 10 proposed bills:

1. "Fiscal Responsibility Act"- Gives the President the power of a line-item veto on the matter of ousting what he/she deems as "wasteful spending". WAY too much power to the executive branch.

2. "Taking Back our Streets Act"- This whole thing is a crock of crap. More money and more people in prisons. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate by FAR, and this will only make things worse. Just an awful idea. You want wasteful spending? How about keeping someone who had an ounce of weed on them in jail for five years using taxpayer money? No thanks.

3. "Personal Responsibility Act"- This is their welfare reform program, and there are a few decent ideas in here (consolidating, more welfare to work training programs), but the attack on the AFDC program is harsh, and will likely do nothing to combat illegitimate pregnancies (teenagers will ALWAYS have sex)

4. "Family Reinforcement Act"- It's kind of difficult to dislike child protection laws. I don't really have issues with this.

5. "American Dream Restoration Act"- People pay more in taxes than food, clothing and shelter combined? Where the heck did they get those numbers? Apparently Congressional Tea Partiers don't have mortgages. Sheesh. Plus, the reinforcement of pretty much the Roth IRA idea (they call it the American Dream Savings Account, because Roth IRA just isn't patriotic enough). It's a bad tax deal for the government. Government collects short term money (you're taxed on your contributions upon making them), but picks up zero long term revenue (you aren't taxed on your withdrawals, therefore are able to grow tax-free). Really nothing different from what already exists.

6. "National Security Restoration Act"- We continue to spend obscene amounts of money on national defense, mostly in preparation for the type of ground war that was prevalent 50 years ago, but not now. War has changed, but the way we spend our money on it hasn't. Total crap.

7. "Senior Citizens Fairness Act"- If we lower the Social Security tax, everything will just fix itself, right? Our government is so in the pocket of AARP it's pathetic. Both parties.

8. "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act"- More deregulation. As if the energy crisis of the 70s and early 2000s and the banking collapse in 2008/09 wasn't sign enough of the dangers of deregulation.

9. "Common Sense Legal Reform Act"- It is exactly what it says it is, common sense. I think most people would agree that our society has become a bit too litigious.

10. "Citizen Legislator Act"- Senate and House term limits. I don't see this as important in the slightest. You can do as much damage in the House in 2 years as you can in 20.


Just a few opinions on the 10 provisions.

[AUTaxMan]

I think that we can both agree that there is/was too much gov't spending on both sides. However this is were we are going to disagree. Bush bought us into this mess. Obama is doing everything he can think of to clean the mess up. However no matter what he does people will complain and his political foes will sabatoge whatever he does even if it is for the betterment of our country.

Obama's policies have done enough to do him in. Stop talking about Bush. He had control of the WH and both houses of Congress for two years and couldn't right the economic ship. He ought to be brought down for his failed policies. Obama blamed the economy on Bush's out of control spending, and instead of reining in the congress, he decides we need to spend even more.

[AUTaxMan]

Remember the "Contract with America"?

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Issues with the 10 proposed bills:

1. "Fiscal Responsibility Act"- Gives the President the power of a line-item veto on the matter of ousting what he/she deems as "wasteful spending". WAY too much power to the executive branch.

2. "Taking Back our Streets Act"- This whole thing is a crock of crap. More money and more people in prisons. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate by FAR, and this will only make things worse. Just an awful idea. You want wasteful spending? How about keeping someone who had an ounce of weed on them in jail for five years using taxpayer money? No thanks.

3. "Personal Responsibility Act"- This is their welfare reform program, and there are a few decent ideas in here (consolidating, more welfare to work training programs), but the attack on the AFDC program is harsh, and will likely do nothing to combat illegitimate pregnancies (teenagers will ALWAYS have sex)

4. "Family Reinforcement Act"- It's kind of difficult to dislike child protection laws. I don't really have issues with this.

5. "American Dream Restoration Act"- People pay more in taxes than food, clothing and shelter combined? Where the heck did they get those numbers? Apparently Congressional Tea Partiers don't have mortgages. Sheesh. Plus, the reinforcement of pretty much the Roth IRA idea (they call it the American Dream Savings Account, because Roth IRA just isn't patriotic enough). It's a bad tax deal for the government. Government collects short term money (you're taxed on your contributions upon making them), but picks up zero long term revenue (you aren't taxed on your withdrawals, therefore are able to grow tax-free). Really nothing different from what already exists.

6. "National Security Restoration Act"- We continue to spend obscene amounts of money on national defense, mostly in preparation for the type of ground war that was prevalent 50 years ago, but not now. War has changed, but the way we spend our money on it hasn't. Total crap.

7. "Senior Citizens Fairness Act"- If we lower the Social Security tax, everything will just fix itself, right? Our government is so in the pocket of AARP it's pathetic. Both parties.

8. "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act"- More deregulation. As if the energy crisis of the 70s and early 2000s and the banking collapse in 2008/09 wasn't sign enough of the dangers of deregulation.

9. "Common Sense Legal Reform Act"- It is exactly what it says it is, common sense. I think most people would agree that our society has become a bit too litigious.

10. "Citizen Legislator Act"- Senate and House term limits. I don't see this as important in the slightest. You can do as much damage in the House in 2 years as you can in 20.


Just a few opinions on the 10 provisions.

What does that have to do with the Tea Party? It's almost 20 years old.

[pghin08]

What does that have to do with the Tea Party? It's almost 20 years old.

my bad, meant the "Contract FROM America". Darn patriotic name confusion.

[mrveggieman]

Obama's policies have done enough to do him in. Stop talking about Bush. He had control of the WH and both houses of Congress for two years and couldn't right the economic ship. He ought to be brought down for his failed policies. Obama blamed the economy on Bush's out of control spending, and instead of reining in the congress, he decides we need to spend even more.


I wouldn't have to blame bush if he didn't steal 2 elections.

[AUTaxMan]

I wouldn't have to blame bush if he didn't steal 2 elections.

False and irrelevant to Obama.

[sanfran22]

I wouldn't have to blame bush if he didn't steal 2 elections.
:sign0020:
All that needs to be said.

[mrveggieman]

:sign0020:
All that needs to be said.


Is that the best you can do? Obama was legally elected to the seat and all you can do is make up rumors of him not being in the united states. Bush clearly stole the election and you turn a blind eye. :confused0024:

[Star_Cards]

I wouldn't have to blame bush if he didn't steal 2 elections.

bush didn't steal either election. The one against gore, yes he lost the popular vote but that's not what the system looks at when they calculate who has won. He won the electoral vote and that's what matters. I'm not familiar with any sort of question about the second election. I think the fact that the Dems put Kerry against him was why he won. That was a huge mistake.

[Star_Cards]

Back on topic, I will say that it looks as if the tea party and the GOP have definite close ties.

[mrveggieman]

bush didn't steal either election. The one against gore, yes he lost the popular vote but that's not what the system looks at when they calculate who has won. He won the electoral vote and that's what matters. I'm not familiar with any sort of question about the second election. I think the fact that the Dems put Kerry against him was why he won. That was a huge mistake.


Normally you and I agree on most of the issues but I have to differ with you on this one. Yes I am aware of how the electorial collage process works. That wasn't what is was referring to. What I am referring to is the republican's massive voter fraud and intidation in both the 2000 and 2004 election. If you don't believe me ask any black person who tried to vote in florida in 2000 or ohio in 2004.

[sanfran22]

Normally you and I agree on most of the issues but I have to differ with you on this one. Yes I am aware of how the electorial collage process works. That wasn't what is was referring to. What I am referring to is the republican's massive voter fraud and intidation in both the 2000 and 2004 election. If you don't believe me ask any black person who tried to vote in florida in 2000 or ohio in 2004.
Or ask any white person who tried to vote in Philly...come on man, get a grip in reality...seriously.

[mrveggieman]

Or ask any white person who tried to vote in Philly...come on man, get a grip in reality...seriously.


Dude are you serious? What sense would it make to stop white people in Philly or anywhere else since you have no idea how they are going to vote. Come at me again with a better comeback.

[sanfran22]

Dude are you serious? What sense would it make to stop white people in Philly or anywhere else since you have no idea how they are going to vote. Come at me again with a better comeback.
Oh, I don't know....maybe this??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

You really have a lot to learn in your small circle.......

[Star_Cards]

Normally you and I agree on most of the issues but I have to differ with you on this one. Yes I am aware of how the electorial collage process works. That wasn't what is was referring to. What I am referring to is the republican's massive voter fraud and intidation in both the 2000 and 2004 election. If you don't believe me ask any black person who tried to vote in florida in 2000 or ohio in 2004.

I can't speak to any sort of issues with anyone keeping or being kept from voting.

[pghin08]

Voter intimidation happens during every national election. It sucks, but it goes both ways. Bush probably would have lost in 2004 if we hadn't nominated Kerry. I remember standing in that booth, realizing that I'd almost rather write in Captain Crunch than vote for either of those two (I didn't).

[mrveggieman]

Oh, I don't know....maybe this??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

You really have a lot to learn in your small circle.......


Dude come at me with something better than that. That could have been anywhere. He could have been doing security at an apartment. There's no proof that had anything to do with an election. If that really would have happened it would have been all over the news. Let's just say for the sake of argument that did happened as you said it did (even though it didn't) then you are trying to make the comparision of one isolated incident in a run down apartment complex over a rampant state wide voter intimidation ordered by the governor of florida. You really need to get a grip my friend.

[sanfran22]

Dude come at me with something better than that. That could have been anywhere. He could have been doing security at an apartment. There's no proof that had anything to do with an election. If that really would have happened it would have been all over the news. Let's just say for the sake of argument that did happened as you said it did (even though it didn't) then you are trying to make the comparision of one isolated incident in a run down apartment complex over a rampant state wide voter intimidation ordered by the governor of florida. You really need to get a grip my friend.
You really have no clue...thanks for playing though.........

[Star_Cards]

Voter intimidation happens during every national election. It sucks, but it goes both ways. Bush probably would have lost in 2004 if we hadn't nominated Kerry. I remember standing in that booth, realizing that I'd almost rather write in Captain Crunch than vote for either of those two (I didn't).

I don't disagree that it doesn't happen. I would hope that if it ever happened to me I wouldn't let it effect me.

yes, captain crunch would have had my vote over kerry. lol

[AUTaxMan]

Dude come at me with something better than that. That could have been anywhere. He could have been doing security at an apartment. There's no proof that had anything to do with an election. If that really would have happened it would have been all over the news. Let's just say for the sake of argument that did happened as you said it did (even though it didn't) then you are trying to make the comparision of one isolated incident in a run down apartment complex over a rampant state wide voter intimidation ordered by the governor of florida. You really need to get a grip my friend.

Not sure if serious, since this was a national news story.

There's this: http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010/07/09/new-black-panther-party-president-admits-to-philadelphia-voter-intimidation-holders-justice-department-still-silent/

Also this: http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/wsj12.htm

[mrveggieman]

I don't disagree that it doesn't happen. I would hope that if it ever happened to me I wouldn't let it effect me.

yes, captain crunch would have had my vote over kerry. lol

Captain Crunch would have been a better alternative than gwb or any current republican canidate who is running right now.

[sanfran22]

Remember the "Contract with America"?

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Issues with the 10 proposed bills:

1. "Fiscal Responsibility Act"- Gives the President the power of a line-item veto on the matter of ousting what he/she deems as "wasteful spending". WAY too much power to the executive branch.

2. "Taking Back our Streets Act"- This whole thing is a crock of crap. More money and more people in prisons. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate by FAR, and this will only make things worse. Just an awful idea. You want wasteful spending? How about keeping someone who had an ounce of weed on them in jail for five years using taxpayer money? No thanks.

3. "Personal Responsibility Act"- This is their welfare reform program, and there are a few decent ideas in here (consolidating, more welfare to work training programs), but the attack on the AFDC program is harsh, and will likely do nothing to combat illegitimate pregnancies (teenagers will ALWAYS have sex)

4. "Family Reinforcement Act"- It's kind of difficult to dislike child protection laws. I don't really have issues with this.

5. "American Dream Restoration Act"- People pay more in taxes than food, clothing and shelter combined? Where the heck did they get those numbers? Apparently Congressional Tea Partiers don't have mortgages. Sheesh. Plus, the reinforcement of pretty much the Roth IRA idea (they call it the American Dream Savings Account, because Roth IRA just isn't patriotic enough). It's a bad tax deal for the government. Government collects short term money (you're taxed on your contributions upon making them), but picks up zero long term revenue (you aren't taxed on your withdrawals, therefore are able to grow tax-free). Really nothing different from what already exists.

6. "National Security Restoration Act"- We continue to spend obscene amounts of money on national defense, mostly in preparation for the type of ground war that was prevalent 50 years ago, but not now. War has changed, but the way we spend our money on it hasn't. Total crap.

7. "Senior Citizens Fairness Act"- If we lower the Social Security tax, everything will just fix itself, right? Our government is so in the pocket of AARP it's pathetic. Both parties.

8. "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act"- More deregulation. As if the energy crisis of the 70s and early 2000s and the banking collapse in 2008/09 wasn't sign enough of the dangers of deregulation.

9. "Common Sense Legal Reform Act"- It is exactly what it says it is, common sense. I think most people would agree that our society has become a bit too litigious.

10. "Citizen Legislator Act"- Senate and House term limits. I don't see this as important in the slightest. You can do as much damage in the House in 2 years as you can in 20.


Just a few opinions on the 10 provisions.
The power companies were not totally deregulated. That can be a large part of the issue as well.
Here's a decent article I dug up while researching a few other things....
California Electricity Deregulation – One of the most recent and controversial efforts at deregulation occurred in California in 1996. This electricity fiasco is the perfect case for generations of economics and government students to study, and is therefore meaningful to explain to some degree of depth.

There are many villains in this story on both the side of corporate America and the government. California attempted to reduce consumer prices by deregulating electrical utilities. Before deregulation, California had several large privately owned companies and a few municipal utilities that operated as regulated monopolies. Prices were regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. These utilities controlled the market from power generation through local distribution including Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. The deregulation plan was to separate out power generation from local distribution, opening the market for intense competition and, in theory, lower consumer prices. The plan was also intended to provide incentives for cost cutting and to build new generating capacity.

The most amazing part of this story is while researching the facts in this case, I was dumbfounded to find supposed experts commentary on “the real scoop,” ranging from it was caused entirely by greed on the part of the utilities to every major problem was caused by government incompetence. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Here’s what happened:

· The three largest electric utilities, who were tired of having their rates regulated by the 90-year old Public Utility Commission, banded together to propose that the business of generating power and the distribution of that power be separated.
· Under the plan, the utility companies were still allowed to own both generating and distribution divisions.
· California’s state legislature unanimously passed a new law, AB 1890, which only partially deregulated the electricity market.
· The government, in its passion to create new bureaucratic structures, created the Power Exchange or California Independent System Operator, which would be the middlemen in sales of power to local distribution outlets. Unbelievably, the government then demonstrated its wisdom by setting price caps on residential electricity rates but could not set the price for natural gas, the primary fuel used in generating electricity in California.
· The separation of the power and distribution networks was accomplished by requiring the utilities to sell through the Power Exchange.
· With the ultimate goal an increase in competition, it was hoped that this would result in cost cutting moves by the utilities, and a more competitive market introducing new players. As another advantage, the utilities were supposed to purchase “green” power from windmills and solar power to augment the supply.
· In the summer of 2001, sinister factors intervened to strike a blow against this marriage. Hot summer weather and cold winters combined with a drop in the power available from hydroelectric dams in the northwest (because of a lack of rainfall) reducing the supply to satisfy the increased demand.
· High wholesale prices for electricity spiked not just in California but throughout the entire west coast. When the law was passed, both the utilities and the government anticipated the cost of wholesale electricity would remain well below the retail price.
· The utilities therefore were forced to pay much higher prices for their supplies of electricity, and their ability to build new plants was severely constrained by lack of investor confidence to make a buck amid the limitations of the fuel type.
· When wholesale natural gas prices began to rise in the spring of 2000, consumer prices were unchanged because of the retail price cap. Since they weren’t affected by price increases, there was no incentive for the consumers to conserve aggravating the problem.
· The California governor, Grey Davis, could have intervened and loosened the inflexible price controls but this never happened.
· Companies such as Enron took full advantage of the situation and charged outrageous prices to supply electricity, knowing full well that they had California over the proverbial barrel.
· Eventually, brownouts, blackouts and soaring electricity rates were the logical fallout of this twisted interplay.
· The situation resulted in draining the financial resources of the investor-owned utilities, the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric, and the near-bankruptcy of Southern California Edison.
· The municipal owned utilities did not have the same problems, because they were able to raise rates and purchase their supplies on the long-term market. Purchasing through the long-term market protected them from the inevitable spikes.
The causes of this disaster were as follows:
· The initial blow in this fiasco was struck when government only partially deregulated the industry
· Private industry, overtly displaying their own greed, was in cahoots with government, so the blame can be laid on both sides
· Utilities were coerced or forced to sell off much of their generating capacity
· The utilities were forbidden from signing long-term contracts to buy supplies. This inevitably forced the utilities to pay exorbitant prices for their short-term supplies
· Increases in residential rates were forbidden until 2002
· Californians, who are renowned for their environmental-friendly culture demanded that all new power plants burn natural gas. Now natural gas is more expensive than fossil fuel or nuclear plants. Because of this problem, investors were unlikely to contribute the funds to build new plants. Since 1995, Texas has built 22 new power plants while California has built none, even though the drain on the existing power generation system was severely aggravated by the substantial increases demanded by Silicon Valley and the normal population increase
· Since the utilities were forced to buy their electricity from the California Independent System Operator (Power Exchange), they were unable to take advantage of their inherent ability to get their source of electricity from numerous suppliers and at various prices to lower the costs. A substantial argument can be made that if the utilities were permitted to buy from any source and set their own rates, then hopefully the free market could have controlled the crisis
· Supporters of the utilities argue that because of government mandated controls, they were forced to sell their own electric generating capacity, comply with price controls, and unable to buy on the long-term market.
· Another argument can be made that there was MORE regulation with bill AB 1980 than before deregulation.
The final results were that the people of California wound up paying through the nose. California borrowed $10 billion from the general fund incurring a huge debt that will last for about 10 years. School is still out on whether FULL deregulation can ever be achieved in this negative political environment. As a footnote, price controls have been attempted many times in America with dismal results. There are just too many factors that come into play to warrant this authoritarian approach.
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/RegulationDeregulation.htm

[tutall]

Normally you and I agree on most of the issues but I have to differ with you on this one. Yes I am aware of how the electorial collage process works. That wasn't what is was referring to. What I am referring to is the republican's massive voter fraud and intidation in both the 2000 and 2004 election. If you don't believe me ask any black person who tried to vote in florida in 2000 or ohio in 2004.

you really want to talk about voter intimidation and race?????

[tutall]

Dude come at me with something better than that. That could have been anywhere. He could have been doing security at an apartment. There's no proof that had anything to do with an election. If that really would have happened it would have been all over the news. Let's just say for the sake of argument that did happened as you said it did (even though it didn't) then you are trying to make the comparision of one isolated incident in a run down apartment complex over a rampant state wide voter intimidation ordered by the governor of florida. You really need to get a grip my friend.

....It was all over the news... I rarely watch any news or read anything not financial related and I heard about this one so it must have been pretty wide spread... Can you provide something about the governor of florida ordering voter intimidation?

[tutall]

Captain Crunch would have been a better alternative than gwb or any current republican canidate who is running right now.

What specific fiscal policies do you disagree with them on? I dont want an answer invoving the terms George Bush, Iraq, or tea party... Just an idea they have that you disagree with involving economics, spending, taxing.... whatever floats your boat

[duane1969]

Guys lately there has been a serious issue with thread hijacking (going OT). This thread is clearly not about voter intimidation. Keep it on topic or stay out of the discussion.

--------------------------------------

As for the original purpose of this thread, as a conservative I think that the Tea Party and Republican party have unofficially united in a common goal. Right now the movement is to stop spending, reduce taxes and get the control of the government back into the hands of the people. A noble cause regardless of party name IMO.

What remains to be seen is what will happen to the Tea Party after the Republicans win back the WH. My honest opinion is that they will fade away which in essence means that they will have been absorbed back into the party that they came from.

[AUTaxMan]

Captain Crunch would have been a better alternative than gwb or any current republican canidate who is running right now.

Would love for you to expand on this brilliant take with respect to the current republican candidates.

[pghin08]

The power companies were not totally deregulated. That can be a large part of the issue as well.
Here's a decent article I dug up while researching a few other things....
California Electricity Deregulation – One of the most recent and controversial efforts at deregulation occurred in California in 1996. This electricity fiasco is the perfect case for generations of economics and government students to study, and is therefore meaningful to explain to some degree of depth.

There are many villains in this story on both the side of corporate America and the government. California attempted to reduce consumer prices by deregulating electrical utilities. Before deregulation, California had several large privately owned companies and a few municipal utilities that operated as regulated monopolies. Prices were regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. These utilities controlled the market from power generation through local distribution including Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. The deregulation plan was to separate out power generation from local distribution, opening the market for intense competition and, in theory, lower consumer prices. The plan was also intended to provide incentives for cost cutting and to build new generating capacity.

The most amazing part of this story is while researching the facts in this case, I was dumbfounded to find supposed experts commentary on “the real scoop,” ranging from it was caused entirely by greed on the part of the utilities to every major problem was caused by government incompetence. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Here’s what happened:

· The three largest electric utilities, who were tired of having their rates regulated by the 90-year old Public Utility Commission, banded together to propose that the business of generating power and the distribution of that power be separated.
· Under the plan, the utility companies were still allowed to own both generating and distribution divisions.
· California’s state legislature unanimously passed a new law, AB 1890, which only partially deregulated the electricity market.
· The government, in its passion to create new bureaucratic structures, created the Power Exchange or California Independent System Operator, which would be the middlemen in sales of power to local distribution outlets. Unbelievably, the government then demonstrated its wisdom by setting price caps on residential electricity rates but could not set the price for natural gas, the primary fuel used in generating electricity in California.
· The separation of the power and distribution networks was accomplished by requiring the utilities to sell through the Power Exchange.
· With the ultimate goal an increase in competition, it was hoped that this would result in cost cutting moves by the utilities, and a more competitive market introducing new players. As another advantage, the utilities were supposed to purchase “green” power from windmills and solar power to augment the supply.
· In the summer of 2001, sinister factors intervened to strike a blow against this marriage. Hot summer weather and cold winters combined with a drop in the power available from hydroelectric dams in the northwest (because of a lack of rainfall) reducing the supply to satisfy the increased demand.
· High wholesale prices for electricity spiked not just in California but throughout the entire west coast. When the law was passed, both the utilities and the government anticipated the cost of wholesale electricity would remain well below the retail price.
· The utilities therefore were forced to pay much higher prices for their supplies of electricity, and their ability to build new plants was severely constrained by lack of investor confidence to make a buck amid the limitations of the fuel type.
· When wholesale natural gas prices began to rise in the spring of 2000, consumer prices were unchanged because of the retail price cap. Since they weren’t affected by price increases, there was no incentive for the consumers to conserve aggravating the problem.
· The California governor, Grey Davis, could have intervened and loosened the inflexible price controls but this never happened.
· Companies such as Enron took full advantage of the situation and charged outrageous prices to supply electricity, knowing full well that they had California over the proverbial barrel.
· Eventually, brownouts, blackouts and soaring electricity rates were the logical fallout of this twisted interplay.
· The situation resulted in draining the financial resources of the investor-owned utilities, the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric, and the near-bankruptcy of Southern California Edison.
· The municipal owned utilities did not have the same problems, because they were able to raise rates and purchase their supplies on the long-term market. Purchasing through the long-term market protected them from the inevitable spikes.
The causes of this disaster were as follows:
· The initial blow in this fiasco was struck when government only partially deregulated the industry
· Private industry, overtly displaying their own greed, was in cahoots with government, so the blame can be laid on both sides
· Utilities were coerced or forced to sell off much of their generating capacity
· The utilities were forbidden from signing long-term contracts to buy supplies. This inevitably forced the utilities to pay exorbitant prices for their short-term supplies
· Increases in residential rates were forbidden until 2002
· Californians, who are renowned for their environmental-friendly culture demanded that all new power plants burn natural gas. Now natural gas is more expensive than fossil fuel or nuclear plants. Because of this problem, investors were unlikely to contribute the funds to build new plants. Since 1995, Texas has built 22 new power plants while California has built none, even though the drain on the existing power generation system was severely aggravated by the substantial increases demanded by Silicon Valley and the normal population increase
· Since the utilities were forced to buy their electricity from the California Independent System Operator (Power Exchange), they were unable to take advantage of their inherent ability to get their source of electricity from numerous suppliers and at various prices to lower the costs. A substantial argument can be made that if the utilities were permitted to buy from any source and set their own rates, then hopefully the free market could have controlled the crisis
· Supporters of the utilities argue that because of government mandated controls, they were forced to sell their own electric generating capacity, comply with price controls, and unable to buy on the long-term market.
· Another argument can be made that there was MORE regulation with bill AB 1980 than before deregulation.
The final results were that the people of California wound up paying through the nose. California borrowed $10 billion from the general fund incurring a huge debt that will last for about 10 years. School is still out on whether FULL deregulation can ever be achieved in this negative political environment. As a footnote, price controls have been attempted many times in America with dismal results. There are just too many factors that come into play to warrant this authoritarian approach.
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/RegulationDeregulation.htm

Thanks man. Solid info in there.

[mrveggieman]

Guys lately there has been a serious issue with thread hijacking (going OT). This thread is clearly not about voter intimidation. Keep it on topic or stay out of the discussion.

--------------------------------------

As for the original purpose of this thread, as a conservative I think that the Tea Party and Republican party have unofficially united in a common goal. Right now the movement is to stop spending, reduce taxes and get the control of the government back into the hands of the people. A noble cause regardless of party name IMO.

What remains to be seen is what will happen to the Tea Party after the Republicans win back the WH. My honest opinion is that they will fade away which in essence means that they will have been absorbed back into the party that they came from.


Sorry about everyone's hijacking of this thread but you know how everyone gets hot and bothered talking about politics. But answering your post I do think that the tea party and the rest of the republicans are joined at the hip with one goal to try to defeat President Obama by any means necessary despite any good that he accompolishes or tries to accompolish. SMH.

[AUTaxMan]

Sorry about everyone's hijacking of this thread but you know how everyone gets hot and bothered talking about politics. But answering your post I do think that the tea party and the rest of the republicans are joined at the hip with one goal to try to defeat President Obama by any means necessary despite any good that he accompolishes or tries to accompolish. SMH.

What good has he accompolished?

[sanfran22]

What good has he accompolished?
My question as well, but it never gets answered....probably need to start a new thread on that one....

[AUTaxMan]

My question as well, but it never gets answered....probably need to start a new thread on that one....

Done, in the spirit of not hijacking the thread:
http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?p=10253546#post10253546

[mrveggieman]

What good has he accompolished?

If you don't already know what our president has been doing for us during his term in office then nothing I will say on here will convince you. Both you and sanfran22 already had your minds made up against him before he even took office so it's no need wasting anyone's time discussing all that he as done and tried to do but was blocked by YOUR republican party.

[AUTaxMan]

If you don't already know what our president has been doing for us during his term in office then nothing I will say on here will convince you. Both you and sanfran22 already had your minds made up against him before he even took office so it's no need wasting anyone's time discussing all that he as done and tried to do but was blocked by YOUR republican party.

Please take this discussion to the new thread. I am not accepting this as an answer. Answer the question with specifics, and we will debate them, as opposed to this empty rhetoric.

[sanfran22]

If you don't already know what our president has been doing for us during his term in office then nothing I will say on here will convince you. Both you and sanfran22 already had your minds made up against him before he even took office so it's no need wasting anyone's time discussing all that he as done and tried to do but was blocked by YOUR republican party.
Lol, he had alot of power to do whatever up until recently so that's not a valid argument.

[mrveggieman]

Please take this discussion to the new thread. I am not accepting this as an answer. Answer the question with specifics, and we will debate them, as opposed to this empty rhetoric.


I'm looking forward to your response over there.