Schadenfreude

[zsdersw]

Doesn't matter what is being whined about....

Sure it does. Election results cannot be changed. People who post here can choose to change their behavior and not be idiots.

If the Democrats crushed the Republicans in the last election and the tables turned, I would bet that you wouldn't be whining about "Schadenfreude".

If I was a visitor of P&N at the time such a thing occurred (2008) I would have.

You are, of course, free to prove me wrong. Go ahead and show me a post of yours from this forum where you take any of the lefty posters to task for their prior bad behavior and maybe I'll change my mind.

*shrug*.. I don't really care about changing your mind.

 

[zsdersw]

Other than the betting elements of this forum, where the lefties made a bit of money (how capitalist of them!) and are gloating about it, I don't see that much celebration. This is just the first round, the first battle, lots of work to be done. So while the victory was magnificent and it validated the power of the Tea Party movement, it has not resolved much of anything yet.

But just so that zsdersw doesn't feel like his post was in vain

Perhaps you missed all the kleenex pictures.

 

[zsdersw]

This is just the first round, the first battle, lots of work to be done. So while the victory was magnificent and it validated the power of the Tea Party movement, it has not resolved much of anything yet.

I see you're still clinging to that hope in things changing for the better. Is it not troubling to you that only one Republican in Congress (Paul Ryan) is talking seriously (as in, has a plan) about real cuts in and reform of entitlements?

 

[PJABBER]

I see you're still clinging to that hope in things changing for the better. Is it not troubling to you that only one Republican in Congress is talking about serious cuts in entitlements (Paul Ryan)?

What can I say? My optimism still overcomes my cynicism, and I am plenty cynical!

I know that there are big plans afoot, it is the main course of discussion here in DC, it just isn't hitting 100% of the press yet.

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all of the other Republican leaders are making it the topic of all of their news conferences since the election (don't you watch any of this?)

The only reason the Republicans won was to turn the tide of Big Government back. They know this and so do those who voted for them. If they don't make substantive efforts, however likely to be stymied by the entrenched Obama and a Senate that is still majority Dem, they will also face removal in 2012 along with yet another third of Senators up for election (most all Dems in 2012!) and the recalcitrant Dem members of the House and the Dem President.

 

[zsdersw]

What can I say? My optimism still overcomes my cynicism, and I am plenty cynical!

I know that there are big plans afoot, it is the main course of discussion here in DC, it just isn't hitting 100% of the press yet.

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all of the other Republican leaders are making it the topic of all of their news conferences since the election (don't you watch any of this?)

Press/news conferences mean less than nothing to me.

The only reason the Republicans won was to turn the tide of Big Government back. They know this and so do those who voted for them. If they don't make substantive efforts, however likely to be stymied by the entrenched Obama and a Senate that is still majority Dem, they will also face removal in 2012 along with yet another third of Senators up for election (most all Dems in 2012!) and the recalcitrant Dem members of the House and the Dem President.

So, where the GOP has failed in the past--to curb the big three entitlements that comprise the majority of the federal budget--they will succeed in the coming years? Again, I ask, why should we believe that?

 

[BoberFett]

Correct, assholes all...................wait a minute, I post here!

So do I. And if anybody should know I'm an asshole, it's me.

 

[PJABBER]

Press/news conferences mean less than nothing to me.

They should. These are public statements of intent and those who make them should be held to account for what they state.

So, where the GOP has failed in the past--to curb the big three entitlements that comprise the majority of the federal budget--they will succeed in the coming years? Again, I ask, why should we believe that?

The R's have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time, so I don't "believe," as in having faith. I am waiting for them to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

What I do believe is that the Tea Party folk are dead set on action rather than rhetoric. I also believe that the fiscal conservatives are now gaining tremendous traction in the debate. If they win the debate, and it looks like many in the leadership ranks of the R's now do recognize their past errors, then we will see substantive attempts at downsizing government, including a reform of entitlements.

I am not optimistic that they will accomplish all that much in the next two years. With a Dem Senate and what will likely be a veto-happy President, it will be near impossible for them to do anything that dramatic. But two years of making proposal after proposal that dies is better than acquiescing to a wholesale rush to bankruptcy.

Under this scenario, 2012 will likely see the Senate go heavily R as the second third of those jobs go on the block and those seats are almost all Dem, and the House likely will go more heavily R.

I don't see Obama running for a second term. He is very thin skinned and with a hostile Congress he has no more chance to pursue his agenda. He will likely bow out rather than be blown out by popular acclaim.

 

[zsdersw]

They should. These are public statements of intent and those who make them should be held to account for what they state.

I hold them accountable by what they do (or don't do), not by the rhetoric they spew in news conferences, which are among the most staged events in politics.

The R's have not been fiscally conservative for a very long time, so I don't "believe," as in having faith. I am waiting for them to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

What I do believe is that the Tea Party folk are dead set on action rather than rhetoric. I also believe that the fiscal conservatives are now gaining tremendous traction in the debate. If they win the debate, and it looks like many in the leadership ranks of the R's now do recognize their past errors, then we will see substantive attempts at downsizing government, including a reform of entitlements.

It "looks" like they're recognizing past errors now simply because we're in the afterglow of the election. When they shift from campaign mode to governing mode I highly doubt they'll be as committed to reform as they seem now.

I am not optimistic that they will accomplish all that much in the next two years. With a Dem Senate and what will likely be a veto-happy President, it will be near impossible for them to do anything that dramatic. But two years of making proposal after proposal that dies is better than acquiescing to a wholesale rush to bankruptcy.

Who's talking about only the next two years? I don't forsee any significant change until both parties are forced to do so by the cold hard facts of the impending bursting of the entitlement bubbles.

Both parties are very skilled at talking and schmoozing their way to electoral victory only to govern in an entirely opposite way. This will continue until the cold reality hits.

Under this scenario, 2012 will likely see the Senate go heavily R as the second third of those jobs go on the block and those seats are almost all Dem, and the House likely will go more heavily R.

The House is not going to become much more Republican than it is now. In order for that to happen the Republicans would have to field more moderate candidates. The Tea Party is, by the very nature of their beliefs, prohibited from becoming a "big tent". In other words, the GOP would have to absorb and ultimately dilute the Tea Party in order to gain much more of a majority in the House than they do now.. to say nothing about the presidency.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Those who whine and those who instigate the whining look the same to me: idiotic.

purple? pink? magenta? periwinkle? TELL ME DAMNIT!

 

[PJABBER]

The House is not going to become much more Republican than it is now. In order for that to happen the Republicans would have to field more moderate candidates. The Tea Party is, by the very nature of their beliefs, prohibited from becoming a "big tent". In other words, the GOP would have to absorb and ultimately dilute the Tea Party in order to gain much more of a majority in the House than they do now.. to say nothing about the presidency.

I heard this same line throughout this last election cycle. The Tea Party is too extreme, they are all kind of nut jobs, everyone will vote for whomever brings home the bacon never mind that the bacon is all bought with borrowed Chinese money, the socialist liberal agenda is the one the country wants if only we educate/propagandize the proletariat.

Wrong.

The voters DO understand the agenda and they voted to reject it. It wasn't just that the economy sucks for so many or that the messaging wasn't as good as it could be. It was, you blowhards just wasted trillions of dollars in real money and opportunity costs in an attempt to buy a permanent place at the political trough. You borrowed money in our name, literally tons of it, and we have nothing to show for it but wackjob Pelosi walking around with a huge f'ing hammer.

Do you honestly think that the R's are going to adopt the agenda of the Dems now, go along to get along? Why should they? What purpose will that serve?

And who will reward them with political office if they do? The Dems? They only love R's when they do their bidding. Look at how many gave lip service to McCain, a true compromiser, then rejected him when it came down to electing such a type into office.

The independents do reject the partisan extremes, but they aren't blind to what each Party actually delivers. The profligacies of the Dems are very recent, look for a lame duck session to confirm just how much they can't stop trying to buy votes. The Bush tax cuts are on the table, will the Dems (they DO still hold the majority in both houses in Congress) extend or allow the largest tax increase in history to happen? If the Dems don't adjust, and it looks right now like they want to go down with the "progressive" ship, the independents will keep putting R's in office.

It is not the Tea Party that is going to be absorbed and diluted, it is going to be the other way round. It is happening right now. The establishment, mini-me R's are being swept along just as the Dems are being swept away.

Despite your exposure here to the range of opposition types you yourself think this is an anomaly. Be aware, some places, SF, NYC, Madison are an echo chamber. How often does anyone there run into a libertarian or a conservative?

The core "progressives" and the personality cult Obamanites are not going to change. They will hold onto their memento dishes and photos of the inauguration of 2008 as dearly as some Russians still hold onto their Stalin portraits. The moment of false hope defines them.

Everyone else is moving on because there is no time to waste. It is that important. And if the politicians can't lead the way, well, they sure had better keep up or they will be left behind.

Small Government is not inevitable, just as Big Government is not. But the tide has definitely turned and now we will see if we have an unusually large breaker or a tsunami. No matter, we are all getting wet and most of us are going to learn to swim.

 

[Infohawk]

In the Bush years, conservative posters were smug about their side's popularity. It was fun to see them go down in flames. At least afterwards you could see them talk about how the party needed to change (RINO talk and such.)

This year the liberal posters have been oddly even more annoying. They are in denial and don't see any problems with their party. So yes, it's great to see their side lose big in an election.

 

[charrison]

In the Bush years, conservative posters were smug about their side's popularity. It was fun to see them go down in flames. At least afterwards you could see them talk about how the party needed to change (RINO talk and such.)

This year the liberal posters have been oddly even more annoying. They are in denial and don't see any problems with their party. So yes, it's great to see their side lose big in an election.

I will also add, the republicans/conservatives also know they did not win this election cycle because they did good, they know they won because the other side did bad. This was an election about voting the other guy out.

Hopefully the tea party will influence the republicans to get their actions to match their words when it comes to spending.

 

[nageov3t]

I have no desire to crow over anybody or to see anybody eating crow, figuratively or otherwise. We should all get together and make a country in which everybody can eat turkey whenever he pleases.

-Harry Truman

:beer:
:turkey:

 

[charrison]

I have no desire to crow over anybody or to see anybody eating crow, figuratively or otherwise. We should all get together and make a country in which everybody can eat turkey whenever he pleases.

-Harry Truman

:beer:
:turkey:

Both sides have been guilty about not working together and it seems to be getting worse with each election cycle as the party in power/out of power tries to one up the other party.

 

[zsdersw]

I heard this same line throughout this last election cycle. The Tea Party is too extreme, they are all kind of nut jobs, everyone will vote for whomever brings home the bacon never mind that the bacon is all bought with borrowed Chinese money, the socialist liberal agenda is the one the country wants if only we educate/propagandize the proletariat.

Wrong.

The voters DO understand the agenda and they voted to reject it. It wasn't just that the economy sucks for so many or that the messaging wasn't as good as it could be. It was, you blowhards just wasted trillions of dollars in real money and opportunity costs in an attempt to buy a permanent place at the political trough. You borrowed money in our name, literally tons of it, and we have nothing to show for it but wackjob Pelosi walking around with a huge f'ing hammer.

Do you honestly think that the R's are going to adopt the agenda of the Dems now, go along to get along? Why should they? What purpose will that serve?

And who will reward them with political office if they do? The Dems? They only love R's when they do their bidding. Look at how many gave lip service to McCain, a true compromiser, then rejected him when it came down to electing such a type into office.

The independents do reject the partisan extremes, but they aren't blind to what each Party actually delivers. The profligacies of the Dems are very recent, look for a lame duck session to confirm just how much they can't stop trying to buy votes. The Bush tax cuts are on the table, will the Dems (they DO still hold the majority in both houses in Congress) extend or allow the largest tax increase in history to happen? If the Dems don't adjust, and it looks right now like they want to go down with the "progressive" ship, the independents will keep putting R's in office.

It is not the Tea Party that is going to be absorbed and diluted, it is going to be the other way round. It is happening right now. The establishment, mini-me R's are being swept along just as the Dems are being swept away.

Despite your exposure here to the range of opposition types you yourself think this is an anomaly. Be aware, some places, SF, NYC, Madison are an echo chamber. How often does anyone there run into a libertarian or a conservative?

The core "progressives" and the personality cult Obamanites are not going to change. They will hold onto their memento dishes and photos of the inauguration of 2008 as dearly as some Russians still hold onto their Stalin portraits. The moment of false hope defines them.

Everyone else is moving on because there is no time to waste. It is that important. And if the politicians can't lead the way, well, they sure had better keep up or they will be left behind.

Small Government is not inevitable, just as Big Government is not. But the tide has definitely turned and now we will see if we have an unusually large breaker or a tsunami. No matter, we are all getting wet and most of us are going to learn to swim.

The problem with your beliefs about the Tea Party is the inconsistency of their positions.

http://www.frumforum.com/tea-party-hypocrisy

Are drastic cuts to and major reform of entitlements popular? Not really.. either among the general population or those who identify as Tea Partiers or Tea Party supporters.

This election is not enough to indicate to me (or anyone who is looking at this in a practical and realistic manner) that there's a major shift coming in the GOP toward a true small-government modus operandi.

I maintain that the only way true entitlement reform and and only time it is going to happen is for and when the entitlement bubble actually bursts and all the rhetoric in the world won't be able to save the status quo. Until then no massive changes in these entitlements will occur. Too many people in this country, Tea Partiers or otherwise, are hooked on them, and any who attempt to do massive changes will be marginalized and swept aside.

Take Obamacare. For all the justified outrage about it, provisions for keeping children on their parents' insurance until age 26 and preventing denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions are highly popular.

Take Social Security. Not enough people want to raise the retirement age or adjust any of the benefits to make it solvent.

Take Medicare. Senior citizens will burn Washington DC to the ground if anyone attempts to reduce benefits or change how they're structured and administered. Eliminating the prescription drug benefit, which was the single biggest expansion of Medicare in decades, would likely result in death threats to the politicians who made it happen.

There's too much hypocrisy right now about entitlements from too many people for any of the needed reforms to happen.

One election doesn't mean anything is going to change or that the winds are changing direction. Look how insignificant on that front the 2008 election was. 2012? 2014? 2016? 2018? 2020? Ditto 2008 and 2010 in terms of their significance toward the cause of entitlement reform.

 

[PJABBER]

The problem with your beliefs about the Tea Party is the inconsistency of their positions.

http://www.frumforum.com/tea-party-hypocrisy

The Tea Party is a grassroots rebellion, it is not homogeneous, nor does it reflect some Great Leader's ambitions. Of course it is going to be inconsistent, in keeping with its character.

Are drastic cuts to and major reform of entitlements popular? Not really.. either among the general population or those who identify as Tea Partiers or Tea Party supporters.

It may not be popular in the same sense as getting someone else's money, it will definitely be unpleasant as the bills have come due, but it is absolutely neccessary.

This election is not enough to indicate to me (or anyone who is looking at this in a practical and realistic manner) that there's a major shift coming in the GOP toward a true small-government modus operandi.

You distrust the Republicans because they did not deliver on the Promise to America? Me, too. Deeds count much more than words and we both await the next round.

I maintain that the only way true entitlement reform and and only time it is going to happen is for and when the entitlement bubble actually bursts and all the rhetoric in the world won't be able to save the status quo. Until then no massive changes in these entitlements will occur. Too many people in this country, Tea Partiers or otherwise, are hooked on them, and any who attempt to do massive changes will be marginalized and swept aside.

I hope it will happen much sooner than after the advent of complete collapse. That would mean that those elected to the responsibilities of government failed miserably and it means the electorate did not hold them to do what was necessary soon enough. This election shows that the electorate is aware, and that is a good start.

Take Obamacare. For all the justified outrage about it, provisions for keeping children on their parents' insurance until age 26 and preventing denial of insurance due to preexisting conditions are highly popular.

There is something wrong with our society if we have adults at the age of 26 who are still dependent on their parents. Preexisting conditions mean an actuarial calculation can be made as to the costs that will be engendered. The charged rates will need to reflect the cost of servicing that client.

Take Social Security. Not enough people want to raise the retirement age or adjust any of the benefits to make it solvent.

That's France. Our life spans are now longer and a person's work life can continue longer. Raising the age for eligibility makes sense. I am not inclined to reduce the benefit pay out, it is really minimal. We should encourage people that want to work, to continue to work and not face ageism. Some element of privatization also makes sense for those who want the possibility of more return for their invested funds.

Take Medicare. Senior citizens will burn Washington DC to the ground if anyone attempts to reduce benefits or change how they're structured and administered. Eliminating the prescription drug benefit, which was the single biggest expansion of Medicare in decades, would likely result in death threats to the politicians who made it happen.

The current system is not as much a problem as the system that is being imposed. Start from scratch and address the issues again - this time with expert panels of actuaries, economists, medical doctors, nursing specialist, hospital administrators, pharma executives, etc. You know, all those people that were never consulted by the politicians and the lawyers.

There's too much hypocrisy right now about entitlements from too many people for any of the needed reforms to happen.

Maybe, but there are plenty of pissed off people as well that will drive the discussion and the decision making.

One election doesn't mean anything is going to change or that the winds are changing direction. Look how insignificant on that front the 2008 election was. 2012? 2014? 2016? 2018? 2020? Ditto 2008 and 2010 in terms of their significance toward the cause of entitlement reform.

We don't know the significance of this election yet. But power was taken away from the Big Government "progressives" and that is a start. Time will tell if enough was taken away or more needs to be. We need two full election cycles for major shifts to occur and solidify. Which is why 2012 will be so interesting.

 

[Zebo]

Wow I can't believe Moonie has not replied. Self hate obviously. So Obvious.

 

[Zebo]

So do I. And if anybody should know I'm an asshole, it's me.

lol Me too...tell me you don't confirmation from SO though affirming that opinion...

 

[zsdersw]

The Tea Party is a grassroots rebellion, it is not homogeneous, nor does it reflect some Great Leader's ambitions. Of course it is going to be inconsistent, in keeping with its character.

An inconsistent message on entitlements does not lend itself to significant reform.

It may not be popular in the same sense as getting someone else's money, it will definitely be unpleasant as the bills have come due, but it is absolutely neccessary.

Since when has what's necessary made a difference in politics in terms of what actually happens?

You distrust the Republicans because they did not deliver on the Promise to America? Me, too. Deeds count much more than words and we both await the next round.

I don't trust any politician.. which is why I don't share your hope in this "transformation" actually happening.

I hope it will happen much sooner than after the advent of complete collapse. That would mean that those elected to the responsibilities of government failed miserably and it means the electorate did not hold them to do what was necessary soon enough. This election shows that the electorate is aware, and that is a good start.

The electorate is "aware" in only the most simplistic of ways. Only when the electorate has consensus on actually reforming the entitlements will both parties have enough political cover to make those reforms happen.

There is something wrong with our society if we have adults at the age of 26 who are still dependent on their parents. Preexisting conditions mean an actuarial calculation can be made as to the costs that will be engendered. The charged rates will need to reflect the cost of servicing that client.

There's many things wrong with our society. As a mirror of society, government can only be as good as the society it is comprised of.

That's France. Our life spans are now longer and a person's work life can continue longer. Raising the age for eligibility makes sense. I am not inclined to reduce the benefit pay out, it is really minimal. We should encourage people that want to work, to continue to work and not face ageism. Some element of privatization also makes sense for those who want the possibility of more return for their invested funds.

"Makes sense" != "going to happen".

Maybe, but there are plenty of pissed off people as well that will drive the discussion and the decision making.

Pissed off, yet still unwilling to agree on.. much less live with.. the changes they claim to support.

We don't know the significance of this election yet. But power was taken away from the Big Government "progressives" and that is a start. Time will tell if enough was taken away or more needs to be. We need two full election cycles for major shifts to occur and solidify. Which is why 2012 will be so interesting.

2012? More of the same.. same sh!t, different year.