Republicans Lose Safe Seat Due to Ryan Budget

You know, the Republican strategy of stubbornly avoiding coming up with any policy ideas kind of makes sense, once you realize that everyone hates the ideas they do come up with. Hey, maybe radicalizing in response to electoral rebukes was a bad idea! Anyone thing they’ll catch on? No?



  1. Hey, I love the Ryan budget. Fucking elderly scum have been draining the lifeblood from our country for too long with Medicare and Social Security. Both those programs need to be ended. As for Medicaid… if you can’t afford your own healthcare and your job isn’t important enough for your employer to provide you with insurance coverage, you aren’t important enough to society for it to matter whether you get treated or not. Cut it too.

    Remember, death is good. Better living through fewer people.

    1. oneiroi · ·

      I know you’re sincere in your beliefs, but your comments usually seem so extreme that they remind me of an Onion article or Colbert rant that takes conservative policies on welfare, and makes them so extreme that they seem extreme and morally dubious.

  2. So what’s the alternative to the Ryan plan? Status quo?

    1. No, Mike, there are plenty of alternatives. You and I have debated a few here and elsewhere. But Ryan suffers from the same problem that Simpson-Bowles suffers from – Americans have been convinced by BOTH PARTIES that they can have Cadillac Government for Yugo prices (and yes I did that intentionally). So when someone puts something on the table that threatens that understanding – and doubly so when it threatens that understanding while APPEARING to preserve economic disequality for a segment of the population – the voters react with visceral hostility.

      I agree with one and only one of Mr Ryan’s principles – entitlements need to be on the table, as they constitute 2/3rds of the federal spending each year. I disagree onhow he and the Republicans have framed it; I disagree that revenues (Taxes) need to not be a part of the solution, and I vehemently disagree with the notion that significant gains can be made by cutting non-defense/security discretionary spending.

      I also think Democrats continue to have their heads up their collective backsides on this – the NY state victory is as yet an anomaly in electoral politics.

      1. And I would agree with you on the Ryan plan. My thought from the start was that it was intentionally extreme but the most important thing is that it sheds light on the Democrat position which is that entitlements should be off the table. We can’t have real fiscal reform if that is their stance.

        Ames and his cohorts seem to think NY was a vindication of their position. It’s not. It was simply the second salvo in bracketing the target. See definition 7a here:

      2. oneiroi · ·

        I probably posted this before, but there was this “do nothing” plan that I liked some of their points…

        Also, as we’ve discussed before about “we can’t have real fiscal reform”. The same thing goes for Republicans and raising taxes. Our revenue has gone down more than our spending has gone up.

        1. Ican’t speak for all Republicans but THIS Republican is completely in favor of increasing tax revenues. I just differ with most Democrats on how to get there.

  3. Intentionally extreme: that seems right. Very productive, too. As long as you admit it’s gamesmanship, I guess.

    1. Of course it is. When has the first pass of a budget ever passed?

  4. Yeah, but staking out a ludicrously untenable, offensively extreme starting point for the negotiation?? This is like that other scene from 30 Rock (@ 4:58):

    1. I would characterize the Democrat position as equally untenable and ludicrous.

  5. “Democrat” is a noun not an adjective.

    1. Right. The position of Democrats = the Democrat position.

  6. So the Army of the United States of America is properly expressed as, the America Army. I think you need an apostrophe-s, or a preposition, or an -ic.

  7. You really want to go there tea party?

  8. Using the right part of speech seems clearer to me than when a decentralized partisan group is sufficiently definite to be capitalized.

  9. Just earlier today you said ‘the tea party’ which seems to imply a specific group.

    You also frequently use the term ‘Iraq War’ on your blog. This would be an example of modifying a noun with a noun. By your own rules shouldn’t it read ‘Iraqi War’?

  10. Proper double-noun rule!

  11. Sure there is! I bet you can’t find a counterexample that’s not a proper noun or otherwise agrammatical. Two adjacent nouns require grammatical relation unless the relationship is defined by external context.

    U.S. Army
    Iraq War


    In any event, “Democrat Party” is a known Bush malapropism, used today only ignorantly, or to emphasize the “rat” sound and thereby insult, or maybe express support for Bush. Regardless, it’s incorrect.

  12. Sure I can:

    “Ames bought a new cat food dish.”

    “Ames eats his cereal with a soup spoon.”

    “No changes to entitlements is the Democrat position.”

  13. Both are actual things, though. Cat food, soup spoon.

  14. …and Democrat positions.

  15. I’m sure there’s a specific grammatical rule being violated here, but it might just be that you’re intentionally using an incorrect phrase. Neither is a good thing.

    One of my friends reminds me that the Republicans polled this issue, and found that voters react more negatively to the term “Democrat Party” than the term “Democratic Party.” So let’s not pretend this isn’t a conscious error, specifically intended to marginalize.

  16. I think it is EXACTLY as calculated as saying ‘the tea party’. And I find it amazingly ironic that you of all people are complaining about it.

  17. Jeeze, guys. Really digging into the heavyweight issues here, aren’t you?

    1. It can’t all be Roman history Lanfranc : )

%d bloggers like this: