Tea Party Group Mobilizes To Oust House Speaker John Boehner

[Cigar]

In a fiery press release on Friday, the Tea Party Leadership Fund announced an ambitious plan to oust Boehner from Congress, accusing the speaker of “stabbing conservatives in the back.”

“John Boehner has declared war on conservatives demanding lower taxes and limited government," said Rusty Humphries, a talk radio host and spokesman for the Tea Party Leadership Fund's Primary Boehner campaign. “Today we declare war on him. We intend to send a message to his fellow 'Republicans In Name Only' that such ideologically bankrupt leadership must come to an end."

The group, which bills itself as the nation’s largest tea party political action committee, announced a $25,000 ad buy targeting Boehner’s record and vowed to recruit a conservative primary challenger to take the fight directly to the speaker. The group also announced a petition drive to collect 1 million signatures in support of its effort.

The statement aired litany of complaints about Boehner, including his decision to “continue the funding of Obamacare” and his “further bankrupting America by raising the debt ceiling without any meaningful concessions.” Also among Boehner’s list of sins: “Agreeing go to pass Amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have broken our laws” and “Kicking courageous Tea Party congressman off of important, key House committees to remove conservative objections to his liberal policies.”



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-group-mobilizes-to-oust-house-speaker-john-boehner/


Start the popcorn ... :happy1: the show is getting ready to start. :laugh:

[Peter1469]

About time to get the moderates in the GOP to either follow the Tea Party(ies) or just get the hell out of the party.

[Venus]

Good. I'm won't vote for him.

Actually I don't know many people around here who will.

[Chris]

Good...but who the hell's the Tea Party Leadership Fund?

[Mini Me]

Ah, yes! I love it!

As expected, the Pee Party is splitting up the Rethug Party of never! They are eating their own, as cannibals do. The billionaire Kock Bros. have put out a hit on the Boner! This will set off much crying and weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Tan man and his corporate sycophants.

They may get rid of the Boner, but another clone will replace him, and not a bagger.

Teddy Cruz and Ayn Rand Paul are all delirious of seeking power, and guaranteeing more wins for the Duhmocraps.

I'm just waiting for the revolution to start! Fox News will not televise it.

[Chris]

Ah, yes! I love it!

As expected, the Pee Party is splitting up the Rethug Party of never! They are eating their own, as cannibals do. The billionaire Kock Bros. have put out a hit on the Boner! This will set off much crying and weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Tan man and his corporate sycophants.

They may get rid of the Boner, but another clone will replace him, and not a bagger.

Teddy Cruz and Ayn Rand Paul are all delirious of seeking power, and guaranteeing more wins for the Duhmocraps.

I'm just waiting for the revolution to start! Fox News will not televise it.



You seem miserable in your fantasyland. :loco:

[Agravan]

You seem miserable in your fantasyland. :loco:
He's off his meds again.

[Peter1469]

Another democrat loon.... :shocked:


Ah, yes! I love it!

As expected, the Pee Party is splitting up the Rethug Party of never! They are eating their own, as cannibals do. The billionaire Kock Bros. have put out a hit on the Boner! This will set off much crying and weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Tan man and his corporate sycophants.

They may get rid of the Boner, but another clone will replace him, and not a bagger.

Teddy Cruz and Ayn Rand Paul are all delirious of seeking power, and guaranteeing more wins for the Duhmocraps.

I'm just waiting for the revolution to start! Fox News will not televise it.

[undine]

About time to get the moderates in the GOP to either follow the Tea Party(ies) or just get the hell out of the party.
I agree. There is no room for moderates in today's GOP.

[Chris]

About time to get the moderates in the GOP to either follow the Tea Party(ies) or just get the hell out of the party.


I agree. There is no room for moderates in today's GOP.


Moderates would be better than the Rep establishment.

[jillian]

About time to get the moderates in the GOP to either follow the Tea Party(ies) or just get the hell out of the party.

i'd rather see the tea party marginalized like the 20% they are.

[Peter1469]

I agree. There is no room for moderates in today's GOP.

Well, the dems are driving the economy over a cliff at 100mph. The establishment GOP wants to slow down to 70mph....

[donttread]

Bohner is a sellout a big tobacco, megacorp puppet.



In a fiery press release on Friday, the Tea Party Leadership Fund announced an ambitious plan to oust Boehner from Congress, accusing the speaker of “stabbing conservatives in the back.”

“John Boehner has declared war on conservatives demanding lower taxes and limited government," said Rusty Humphries, a talk radio host and spokesman for the Tea Party Leadership Fund's Primary Boehner campaign. “Today we declare war on him. We intend to send a message to his fellow 'Republicans In Name Only' that such ideologically bankrupt leadership must come to an end."

The group, which bills itself as the nation’s largest tea party political action committee, announced a $25,000 ad buy targeting Boehner’s record and vowed to recruit a conservative primary challenger to take the fight directly to the speaker. The group also announced a petition drive to collect 1 million signatures in support of its effort.

The statement aired litany of complaints about Boehner, including his decision to “continue the funding of Obamacare” and his “further bankrupting America by raising the debt ceiling without any meaningful concessions.” Also among Boehner’s list of sins: “Agreeing go to pass Amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have broken our laws” and “Kicking courageous Tea Party congressman off of important, key House committees to remove conservative objections to his liberal policies.”



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-group-mobilizes-to-oust-house-speaker-john-boehner/


Start the popcorn ... :happy1: the show is getting ready to start. :laugh:

[sachem]

Tea Party?

[undine]

Well, the dems are driving the economy over a cliff at 100mph. The establishment GOP wants to slow down to 70mph....
Oh, yeah. By outlawing gay marriage, blocking traffic, and shutting down the government. That's really saving us money.

[jillian]

Well, the dems are driving the economy over a cliff at 100mph. The establishment GOP wants to slow down to 70mph....

it has nothing to do with money…

if it did they wouldn't have cost our economy 24 billion.

so lost that argument during the shut down.

[Chris]

Oh, yeah. By outlawing gay marriage, blocking traffic, and shutting down the government. That's really saving us money.


Now do any of those things have to do with costing us money?

[Chris]

(A) it has nothing to do with money…

(B) if it did they wouldn't have cost our economy 24 billion.

so lost that argument during the shut down.


You lost your argument through self-contradiction. (B) contradicts (A).

[roadmaster]

If he is following another McCain then I agree with them.

[jillian]

You lost your argument through self-contradiction. (B) contradicts (A).

because you're so objective.

i'm simply pointing out the tea party lie that they want to save our tax dollars.

try to address the point, chris

[Newpublius]

because you're so objective.

i'm simply pointing out the tea party lie that they want to save our tax dollars.

try to address the point, chris

Look it up, the day after the debt ceiling was increased how the government was suddenly in debt to the tune of 17tn plus. Hundreds of billions in bonds.....of course the government, when it 'shuts down' somehow finds a way to spend more? Think about that, what does that mean? The government had exhausted its borrowing authority, could only operate on what was coming in, and somehow it still cost $24bn more than normal government operations would've cost?

It's either impossible, or it was illegal.....probably the latter.

[jillian]

Look it up, the day after the debt ceiling was increased how the government was suddenly in debt to the tune of 17tn plus. Hundreds of billions in bonds.....of course the government, when it 'shuts down' somehow finds a way to spend more? Think about that, what does that mean? The government had exhausted its borrowing authority, could only operate on what was coming in, and somehow it still cost $24bn more than normal government operations would've cost?

It's either impossible, or it was illegal.....probably the latter.

it is not "government operation" that cost 24 billion more.

the shut down cost our ECONOMY 24 billion.

We believe that to date, the shutdown has shaved at least 0.6% off of annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth, or taken $24 billion out of the economy. However, the closer we get to breaching the debt ceiling, the higher we expect the economic impact to be.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-cuts-us-growth-view-2013-10#ixzz2q33E57NMhttp://www.businessinsider.com/sp-cuts-us-growth-view-2013-10


reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. you can't not pay for the things congress already allocated money for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/

[Chris]

because you're so objective.

i'm simply pointing out the tea party lie that they want to save our tax dollars.

try to address the point, chris


Nice try but all you did was contradict yourself. Get your talking points straight next time.

[Chris]

it is not "government operation" that cost 24 billion more.

the shut down cost our ECONOMY 24 billion.

We believe that to date, the shutdown has shaved at least 0.6% off of annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth, or taken $24 billion out of the economy. However, the closer we get to breaching the debt ceiling, the higher we expect the economic impact to be.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-cuts-us-growth-view-2013-10#ixzz2q33E57NMhttp://www.businessinsider.com/sp-cuts-us-growth-view-2013-10


reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. you can't not pay for the things congress already allocated money for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/



That's a bogus argument and you know it. We had this discussion several times already. Each time you run away. Again, all you're doing is looking at what is seen, the payment of government salaries, which, yes, would have gone back into the same economy from whence it came, meaning net zero. The only possible way for you to show a loss would be for you to show that money would have generated more wealth by redistribution than just leaving it in the hands of those who do generate wealth. What you would have to show in Keynesian terms is a multiplier effect--not even Keynes could show that. So good luck.

As for your quoted, do you even know what it says and the basis for it?

[Chris]

Look it up, the day after the debt ceiling was increased how the government was suddenly in debt to the tune of 17tn plus. Hundreds of billions in bonds.....of course the government, when it 'shuts down' somehow finds a way to spend more? Think about that, what does that mean? The government had exhausted its borrowing authority, could only operate on what was coming in, and somehow it still cost $24bn more than normal government operations would've cost?

It's either impossible, or it was illegal.....probably the latter.


^^Another reason your argument is bogus.

[Newpublius]

the shut down cost our ECONOMY 24 billion.

No, it didn't, if the government didn't spend it, that doesn't mean economic activity didn't happen. When the government wasn't selling those bonds, the money the bondholders would've used to buy those bonds in that time period didn't just disappear.


reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times.

Well, Congress of course and he's not St. Reagan to me, I don't care who acts fiscally irresponsible.


you can't not pay for the things congress already allocated money for.

Yes, you can actually, I mean you're talking about a cash flow deficit in that instance and there's the printing press, there's taxes, there's bonds and then there's spending. You're argument is in essence that the 'debt ceiling' must give way to a 'spending floor' , right? Why not the taxes or the printing? There's nothing about the bonds that is absolutely necessary to facilitate the desired spending.

Not to mention there are laws out there to prevent spending in excess of cash flow. All a spending bill is is a desire to spend a certain quantum of money. If the money isn't there, it meets the doctrine of reality. 'Impossibility' trumps law.

The Constitution expressly commands that all debt be authorized be authorized by Congress. NOTHING says ANYTHING about Congress needing to raise sufficient funds to pay for the spending or, much less, that Congress must raise funds by borrowing it if taxation proves insufficient.

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." - Then Senator Obama in 2008

[Dr. Who]

That's a bogus argument and you know it. We had this discussion several times already. Each time you run away. Again, all you're doing is looking at what is seen, the payment of government salaries, which, yes, would have gone back into the same economy from whence it came, meaning net zero. The only possible way for you to show a loss would be for you to show that money would have generated more wealth by redistribution than just leaving it in the hands of those who do generate wealth. What you would have to show in Keynesian terms is a multiplier effect--not even Keynes could show that. So good luck.


As for your quoted, do you even know what it says and the basis for it?Just throwing it out there, but is it possible that numerous entities that rely on government services were unable to do business during the shut down and thus lost revenue? From tourist oriented business that relied on open federal parks, museums and heritage sites or other business who rely on other government services on a daily basis?

[Newpublius]

Just throwing it out there, but is it possible that numerous entities that rely on government services were unable to do business during the shut down and thus lost revenue? From tourist oriented business that relied on open federal parks, museums and heritage sites or other business who rely on other government services on a daily basis?

Absolutely, but the logic is akin to saying that the US economy lost millions because we stopped making Sherman tanks after WWII....Indeed, x,y,z wasn't happening, but you know what? a,b,c was happening because the money didn't disappear, the government just wasn't borrowing it.

[Chris]

Just throwing it out there, but is it possible that numerous entities that rely on government services were unable to do business during the shut down and thus lost revenue? From tourist oriented business that relied on open federal parks, museums and heritage sites or other business who rely on other government services on a daily basis?

I'm sure that's entirely likely. But that's not what jillian's source is basing their guess on.

So let's say what you say is true. So? The money will be spent elsewhere. If the family heads somewhere on an outing and finds the place closed, we just go elsewhere. Say we don't, say instead, we save the money. Despite Keynesian nonsense, those savings do not sit idle but are invested either by me or for me. There's absolutely no truth to jillian's partisan talking point.

[undine]

I'm sure that's entirely likely. But that's not what jillian's source is basing their guess on.

So let's say what you say is true. So? The money will be spent elsewhere. If the family heads somewhere on an outing and finds the place closed, we just go elsewhere. Say we don't, say instead, we save the money. Despite Keynesian nonsense, those savings do not sit idle but are invested either by me or for me. There's absolutely no truth to jillian's partisan talking point.

Businesses were hurt. Mainly tourism, but hurt they were.

[Chris]

There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From the Government Shutdown (http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/10/there-will-be-no-24b-economic-loss-from-the-government-shutdown/)


The $24 billion number is a talking point which has no basis in reality as the attached article explains.


Washington DC was hurt (maybe) and some businesses around national parks may have been hurt (probably) but this money wasn’t “lost.” It didn’t evaporate. It was spent in other places doing other things. If money wasn’t spent which would have been, it was deployed as capital somewhere in the economy.

This mantra, that the economy “lost” $24 billion in the 13% shutdown of the federal government, is a blatant falsehood. (Though many economists will swear that they honestly believe this tripe.) That it has been repeated by the #oldmedia is sadly typical....


And that draws on this: There Will Be No $24B Economic Loss From the Government Shutdown (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/10/21/there_will_be_no_us_gdp_decline_from_the_governmen t_shutdown_100676.html)


The news has been full of an estimate by Standard & Poor's that the U.S. economy suffered a loss of $24 billion due to the government shutdown. Interestingly, the reports contain few if any details of where those losses came from and the Standard & Poor's website does not seem to have any report backing up the figure either. I have found some of the suggested losses and they are all untrue. In reality, there will be no economic loss to the economy from the government shutdown.

Purported losses include missed wages by federal employees and contractors, the value of lost government services, and lost travel spending. Some of these losses did actually happen, but any losses in one part of the economy will be offset by gains somewhere else.

Certainly, some people have suffered losses due to the shutdown, principally those business owners who depend on tourists visiting Washington, D.C. or a federal site that was closed (such as a national park). Federal contractors who could not work and were not paid to work on other projects during the shutdown may suffer losses. However, they do not hold in the aggregate because every loss will be offset by a gain.

For all the tourist sites that lost money and visitors during the shutdown, there is a business somewhere that received or will receive more business than normal. People who cancelled trips to D.C., national parks, or other sites may instead have taken a trip somewhere else. Business owners in those substitute locations become winners due to the shutdown. Alternatively, people may have stayed home and spent the money designated for their trip at local restaurants, movie theaters, and shops, creating gains in those businesses.

If a business traveler cancelled a trip, that business will either spend the money on something else or it will end up as profit. Extra profits go to a business owner who will then spend the money. Even if money does not get spent, but is saved instead, those savings become investments which also benefit the economy.

All this lost spending is a perfect example of the famous broken window fallacy, just in reverse from the normal example. In the broken window fallacy, people perceive money spent to fix a broken window as a gain to the economy because they do not realize the money would have been spent somewhere else until it had to be diverted to fixing the window. In the current case money that was not spent somewhere during the shutdown gets shifted someplace else, but it still gets spent.

As to lost wages, federal employees will get back pay completely covering their lost wages during the government shutdown. This means that any spending they did not do during the shutdown, they are busy catching up on right now. Federal contractors may have lost wages during the government shutdown and may not recoup all those losses. However, those unpaid wages should end up as either extra profit for the contractor, savings for the government, or delayed employment for somebody....


This is exactly what Newpublius and I have been arguing against, the broken window fallacy found in Bastiat's What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).

[Chris]

Businesses were hurt. Mainly tourism, but hurt they were.



Some lost but others gained. Keep in mind, jillian's claim concerned a loss to the economy, not some business or businesses. In the aggregate there was no loss.