HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Orcs v. Goblins: Crazed R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:14 AM

Orcs v. Goblins: Crazed Republicans Turn on Each Other in Ugly Fiscal Cliff Battle

http://www.alternet.org/economy/orcs-v-goblins-crazed-republicans-turn-each-other-ugly-fiscal-cliff-battle



***SNIP

Goblins v. Orcs

The Republican Party, particularly in the House of Representatives, is so blinded by greed and stupidity that factions are turning on each other.

One group, let’s call them the goblins, is just plain greedy, but not completely crazy. These are the folks who favored Mitt Romney for president and simply want to continue shovelling money toward the one percent as they have been doing very successfully for the past three decades. They are willing to make a deal because they know that any deal, particularly one that will shred the social safety net with cuts like those Obama has proposed to make to Social Security (the widely condemned chained CPI adjustment), will work out very nicely to their advantage. They are thrilled that instead of focusing on the jobs crisis, the country has been railroaded into premature deficit-reduction deals that serve as a cover for conservative wealth redistribution schemes. They also know that many Americans are catching on to their scam, and so they tend to rely on subterfuge and the appearance of moderation or “centrism” to get what they want, which is, in essence, more of your money.

President Obama is comfortable with goblins, and is often secretly thought to be one of them, as Bruce Barlett recently explained in the Fiscal Times. They like him okay, too.

Then there are the orcs. These are the lunatics who favored your Santorums, Gingrichs, Bachmanns, Herman Cains and so on -- the assorted nuts in the GOP who are willing to fight ideological warfare with the battle cry “no taxes” and the battering rams of bad math and Ayn Rand-style social theory to send the land into total chaos. It's not enough for them to cut Social Security at a time when the retirement of hard-working Americans has not been so vulnerable since before the Great Depression. These monstrous right-wingers would rather see every American’s taxes rise than increase taxes on a single millionaire by a nickel. The orcs have got the upper hand in the House and it is they who have blocked a deal on the fiscal cliff. They were last seen dancing around a bonfire made from Econ 101 textbooks and an effigy of John Boehner.

18 replies, 2399 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Orcs v. Goblins: Crazed Republicans Turn on Each Other in Ugly Fiscal Cliff Battle (Original post)
xchrom Dec 2012 OP
Selatius Dec 2012 #1
Trajan Dec 2012 #2
quaker bill Dec 2012 #3
hobbit709 Dec 2012 #4
quaker bill Dec 2012 #15
daleanime Dec 2012 #6
TahitiNut Dec 2012 #8
quaker bill Dec 2012 #16
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #5
RBInMaine Dec 2012 #7
sendero Dec 2012 #9
NewJeffCT Dec 2012 #10
riqster Dec 2012 #11
Bandit Dec 2012 #12
riqster Dec 2012 #14
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #13
xchrom Dec 2012 #17
gulliver Dec 2012 #18

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:36 AM

1. The in-fighting is actually driving some numbers of Republicans into the Democratic Party.

The problem is they're still right wingers.

Sure, they may be center-right, and I generally view Obama's economic policies as center-right in nature, especially given the limitations imposed by the House and Senate, but when you have center-rightists competing with leftists in one party, you're going to have a party that has a difficult time coming to any consensus that isn't outside of center-right.

For example, even if the left had an opportunity to pass a Public Option through the Senate and to President Obama, they would've needed well over 60 votes in favor of the bill, not just 60. If it were just 60, the right wingers in the Democratic caucus at the time would've insisted on watered-down language or even opposed the inclusion of the Public Option at all. As it stands, the Public Option had to be deleted in the Senate or risk the defection of Senate members such as one or both Nelsons, Lieberman, Baucus, and McCaskill.

To get a robust Public Option through the Senate likely would've required the numbers of Democrats found in the Senate under LBJ or even FDR himself. The collapse of the New Deal Democratic Coalition is still being felt to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:57 AM

2. If Boehner was wise ....

and he is not - He would strike a deal with the bulk of the Democrats and enough moderate republicans to move forward on a deal ...

Leave the Tea Party caucus, and his speakership, in the dust ....

That would be the most honorable way forward ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:39 AM

3. A colorful description

Of an interesting fight that I hope neither side wins, at least not yet. They need to just keep swinging and axes and cudgels for a while.

While I am no fan of chained CPI, calling something that might reduce the annual benefit increase (COLA) by 0.3% a year "shredding the social safety net" is a bit over the top.

I look forward to collecting these benefits fairly soon and don't think the benefit growth rate should be cut, but it is not "shredding" the safety net to do so. It is closer to "unfortunately trimming" than it is "shredding".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quaker bill (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:49 AM

4. My SS check will increase by a whopping big $15/mo next year.

As a friend of mine said-that's good for about two taco dinners a month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:19 AM

15. An under the common estimate for chained CPI

It would go up $13.50 a month instead. Not a great thing, but hardly the destruction of SSI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quaker bill (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:05 AM

6. Any way you look at it...

it's unnecessary. Oil companies would continue to get millions of tax dollars on top of record profits while struggling seniors would choose between heat, food, or medication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quaker bill (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:23 AM

8. "Stand-off weaponry" makes homicide palatable to those who can't see the bodies.

Any change to Social Security that allows the advocates of that change walk away and avoid seeing the victims that change, no matter how many, is palatable to the blind. The specious posture that Social Security "was never intended to be a retirement system" ignores the wholesale destruction of employee pensions and all 'traditional' forms of retirement.

Quibbling over the rhetoric of "shredding" vs. "trimming" is akin to claiming that the victims of Sandy Hook died of "heart failure" ... since their hearts failed to continue functioning after the invasion of .223 caliber slugs. It's the stance of a butcher to call it "trimming."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:25 AM

16. Again, it is only a reduction in the rate that the benefit increases

The benefit remains and actually continues to increase. I am not a fan of this at all, but some manner of putting it in perspective would be useful and more accurate than "shredding". Analogies to gun slaughter are over the top, and don't match the facts well at all.

Again, I am going to be collecting these benefits fairly soon, so I am no fan of their reduction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:04 AM

5. Extending the Social Security tax cut damages SS. SS advocates

are against it.

Just remember, if you dont fight the goblins, they eat you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:17 AM

7. Obama won't "shred" the social safety net. Please, enough of the hyperbolic purity.

I do agree with much of what you say about the R's, but attacking Obama and centrism is wrong, hyperbolic, and wreaks of purist nonreality.

One could also look at some progressives and note how ultra liberal and intransigent THEY are and acccurately label them as the TeaLeftist Party. These are the ones who will equate Obama and many Dems with the Republicans, will stay home and not vote (as so many did in 2010) as a "protest" about lack of purity, and then whine bitch cry and moan even louder when Obama and Dems are stuck having to find way to compromise with Republicans as is REQUIRED in order to actually govern. It was these "progressives", at least way too many of them, who ALLOWED the ReSCUMs to take over the House and take over so many state houses at the state level in 2010. As Pete Seeger wrote, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:26 AM

9. "Purity"..

..... pu·ri·ty noun \ˈpyu̇r-ə-tē\ - expecting someone to do what they SAID they would do

Apparently an impossible standard for any politician and anyone who doesn't like it is a "whiner".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:29 AM

10. The "goblins" also hate Obama

They don't like him okay. I think Boehner and the few other goblins might deign to work with Obama, but they don't like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:32 AM

11. Extremists on both sides tend to forget

Most Americans are some flavor of Center. And the majority rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:59 AM

12. What you consider to be Extreme Left viewpoints would have been Normal in 1975

Current Right wing ideas would have been considered quite Extreme in 1975. Extreme Right Wing ideas become Normal while Normal Left wing ideas become extreme and we call that the Center

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:58 AM

14. The road does shift over time

But we still live in the here and now and must acknowledge the current paradigm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:43 AM

13. Goblin's out sick

Send in Bob... from accounting.



Looks like this round goes to the orc!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:59 PM

17. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:48 PM

18. This article rated NA-17

No adult over the age of 17 may read this article except when accompanied by a child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread