Tea Party Democrats

[thegreekdog]

I suppose I use "conservative" as a bit of a misnomer to describe intransigence, in-the-pocket politics, and vote-courting tiptoe politics, which I recognize is not part of any political spectrum and just shows my bias. I always swore that if I ever ran for office, I would do the whole fundraiser thing and then donate the millions of dollars to charity. If I get elected, that's a bonus, but I imagine there are rules against that sort of thing. I want to see something refreshing like that, but there isn't a political party in the world willing to do that, because the people who would populate such a party are too busy actually helping others.

Those who can do, and those who can't become politicians. Much better than the original saying.

Give me something. Anything to show that you political fucks actually care about something other than your own well-being.

EDIT: I guess by "conservative" I really mean striving to preserve the status quo. I think that's bad.

Ironically (or whatever), that's where I've been since I stopped going to school (2005ish). I look upon politicians cynically... all of them; regardless of political party or what they say during campaigns. I remain interested in politics because I want to see some sort of change, although I remain convinced that people just don't care enough.

There is a mayor in Braddock, Pennsylvania who I read about yesterday. He seems to be one of the types of people you are looking for in your politicians. However, as politics become more national (i.e. if he moves up to the state and then the federal level), they become more about back-scratching and less about helping people who need the help. And that says something when I would vote for someone like the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, but I have a problem with every nationally prominent member of that mayor's political party.

[PLAYER57832]

The one guy I thought had a clue last election was the green party candidate. I did not agree with all of his policies, either. However, he had no chance of getting elected.

[Woodruff]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it.

Huh...I've seen far more complaints in these fora that you moderate.

[PLAYER57832]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it.

Add:
not closing Guantanamo
not ending the wars, moving out of Iraq quickly enough
Keeping the corporate welfare state, while cutting services to the poor.. again.
Bailing out GM and the banks (though I personnally hold the last administration more to blame for that)
Not cracking down seriously on Wallstreet
Not helping homeowners facing even bogus defaults as much as he ought to have
Allowing more offshore drilling, not inspecting and enforcing regulations well enough
Not reversing the Bush stance on marsellas deep fracking and the EPA
Not reversing fully watershed and air standards eroded by Bush
Not changing no child left behind enough or quickly enough

ETC.

[thegreekdog]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it.

Huh...I've seen far more complaints in these fora that you moderate.

Really? From whom? Player? She said she's not liberal and until the most recent post, she spends most of her time defending the president.

Also, I'm not a moderator any more. I think you meant "that you moderated."

[Baron Von PWN]

Sure they did. They had control of the entire federal government for two years! They could have raised taxes. They could have cut spending. They did neither. They passed a spending increase in the form of the healthcare plan. That's it.

And I would hardly blame the Tea Party lobby for "almost defaulting the nation" (which, by the way, who gives a shit? Oh noes, we almost, but not quite defaulted the nation) and I definitely wouldn't blame them for "throwing the global economy into chaos." I mean, really, because the federal government didn't increase the debt ceiling soon enough (because of the Tea Party), the global economy was turned chaotic? That's the reason? Really? I certainly don't blame this Congress for the current meltdown. I do blame the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II governments (in part) for the 2008 and current meltdown (I also blame some of the banks and other business entities). Which, I think, is the correct answer. Or you could blame S&P for their subpar rating. And you might ask them why they came down with that rating since the US government didn't actually default.

It resulted in you're credit rating being downgraded, that is a fairly serious consequence for playing political games. That was poor grammar on my part I meant that if tea party types had gotten their way and prevented a debt ceiling increase it would have thrown the global economy into chaos.

[thegreekdog]

Sure they did. They had control of the entire federal government for two years! They could have raised taxes. They could have cut spending. They did neither. They passed a spending increase in the form of the healthcare plan. That's it.

And I would hardly blame the Tea Party lobby for "almost defaulting the nation" (which, by the way, who gives a shit? Oh noes, we almost, but not quite defaulted the nation) and I definitely wouldn't blame them for "throwing the global economy into chaos." I mean, really, because the federal government didn't increase the debt ceiling soon enough (because of the Tea Party), the global economy was turned chaotic? That's the reason? Really? I certainly don't blame this Congress for the current meltdown. I do blame the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II governments (in part) for the 2008 and current meltdown (I also blame some of the banks and other business entities). Which, I think, is the correct answer. Or you could blame S&P for their subpar rating. And you might ask them why they came down with that rating since the US government didn't actually default.

It resulted in you're credit rating being downgraded, that is a fairly serious consequence for playing political games. That was poor grammar on my part I meant that if tea party types had gotten their way and prevented a debt ceiling increase it would have thrown the global economy into chaos.

Okay, let me make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that the political games played by the Tea Party Republicans over the past two or three months are more to blame for the credit rating downgrade than either (1) the previous two years of 100% Democrat control or (2) the previous 10+ years of government overspending? That doesn't make sense to me.

There are many, many, many people who would disagree with your second assertion (that no debt ceiling increase = global economic chaos). Even if those people agree with your assertion, it's a sad day when the government has to deficit spend to prop up the global economy. Perhaps that's a good argument for decreasing government spending.

[Woodruff]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it.

Huh...I've seen far more complaints in these fora that you moderate.

Really? From whom? Player? She said she's not liberal and until the most recent post, she spends most of her time defending the president.

I can't imagine why PLAYER would contend that she's not liberal, but that doesn't change that she is. But aside from her, I knew GreecePwns has voiced his displeasure with Obama on a number of subjects.

Also, I'm not a moderator any more. I think you meant "that you moderated."

Aw crap! What next...rds and Evil Semp leaving? Shit.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? From whom? Player? She said she's not liberal and until the most recent post, she spends most of her time defending the president.

Grrr... if you consider "better than the alternatives" and "not the coming of Satan", "not completely and solely responsible for all ills we are experiencing" to be "endorsement", then sure.

I have said from the start that I hoped he would do well, wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, was not ready to fully condemn him as I pretty much had Bush.

Conservatives were blasting him as "the next Satan" (often quite literally) even before he took the oath. If THAT is your gauge, then sure, I "endorsed" him.

As per my being or not being liberal. I am liberal in many ways, not so liberal in other ways. However, the spectrum has utterly changed around me so that I have gone from being considered pretty conservative to being considered a raving at the mouth liberal.

AND.. the past year of forum threads has probably made me more liberal, definitely seem more liberal on many fronts. Specifically, I no longer have much tolerance at all for big conglomerates and their abuse of everyone else.

Me? I think labels are more traps and neat boxes people try to apply. They are usefull ony in specific context. But I surely don't see being called a liberal to be an insult of any kind.

Also, I'm not a moderator any more. I think you meant "that you moderated."

Sorry to see you go. I hope it was for a "positive" reason.. wanting more time at home or such, rather than just disgust about the site or some such.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry to see you go. I hope it was for a "positive" reason.. wanting more time at home or such, rather than just disgust about the site or some such.

Limited time due to work constraints. I usually sit on CC from 7 AM to 7 PM. Now, not so much (although apparently I'm still on here a lot).

[Baron Von PWN]

Sure they did. They had control of the entire federal government for two years! They could have raised taxes. They could have cut spending. They did neither. They passed a spending increase in the form of the healthcare plan. That's it.

And I would hardly blame the Tea Party lobby for "almost defaulting the nation" (which, by the way, who gives a shit? Oh noes, we almost, but not quite defaulted the nation) and I definitely wouldn't blame them for "throwing the global economy into chaos." I mean, really, because the federal government didn't increase the debt ceiling soon enough (because of the Tea Party), the global economy was turned chaotic? That's the reason? Really? I certainly don't blame this Congress for the current meltdown. I do blame the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II governments (in part) for the 2008 and current meltdown (I also blame some of the banks and other business entities). Which, I think, is the correct answer. Or you could blame S&P for their subpar rating. And you might ask them why they came down with that rating since the US government didn't actually default.

It resulted in you're credit rating being downgraded, that is a fairly serious consequence for playing political games. That was poor grammar on my part I meant that if tea party types had gotten their way and prevented a debt ceiling increase it would have thrown the global economy into chaos.

Okay, let me make sure I understand your argument. You're saying that the political games played by the Tea Party Republicans over the past two or three months are more to blame for the credit rating downgrade than either (1) the previous two years of 100% Democrat control or (2) the previous 10+ years of government overspending? That doesn't make sense to me.

There are many, many, many people who would disagree with your second assertion (that no debt ceiling increase = global economic chaos). Even if those people agree with your assertion, it's a sad day when the government has to deficit spend to prop up the global economy. Perhaps that's a good argument for decreasing government spending.

1. The democrats have the sense to increase the debt (which is still a manageable ~65% of GDP) in favor of a default or severe austerity measures. 2. It's not really 10+ years as Clinton posted some surpluses, no they aren't more to blame for the problem itself. What they do take the blame for is making what should be a manageable problem much more difficult.

[john9blue]

the democrats' blame game baffles me. some of them say that the tea party in congress for less than a year is responsible for this country's failed economy, others say that bush is responsible, and still others say that reagan is responsible. predictably, they fail to assign responsibility to members of their own party, who have largely the same fundamental economic beliefs. partisan idiots.

not saying the republicans are above assigning blame to the democrats, but i see a lot more finger pointing from the left.

[thegreekdog]

1. The democrats have the sense to increase the debt (which is still a manageable ~65% of GDP) in favor of a default or severe austerity measures.

The debt is still increasing... like after the "cuts" it's still increasing; and not just because of some natural progression. Barring that, what are the severe austerity measures that the Tea Party was proposing? Ignoring the Tea Party, what severe austerity measures were put forward by anyone? Do you classify "ending three wars" as severe austerity measures?

2. It's not really 10+ years as Clinton posted some surpluses, no they aren't more to blame for the problem itself.

Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001, so it's 10 years at least. Related aside - why is Clinton the one that posted surpluses and Obama is not the one to take us to the brink of default? I mean if you're going to blame Congress on the one hand, let's praise Congress on the other. If you're going to praise the president on the one hand, let's praise the president on the other. I know you don't fit into a neat little Democrat/Republican box, so I know you meant nothing by this, but it bothers me when others do it (in fact, I bet I do it myself on occasion).

In any event, what problem are they to blame for? What exactly happened that was bad as a result of the debt ceiling being increased on August 2nd instead of earlier?

[PLAYER57832]

the democrats' blame game baffles me. some of them say that the tea party in congress for less than a year is responsible for this country's failed economy,

No, they say the Tea Party is and has tied the hands of congress to find real solutions.

others say that bush is responsible, and still others say that reagan is responsible.

A LOT of stuff does come from Bush. Bush made the tax cuts, Bush got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush created Guantanamo, etc.

predictably, they fail to assign responsibility to members of their own party, who have largely the same fundamental economic beliefs. partisan idiots.

No, a lot of Democrats are looking, as do I, clear back to Reagan. Some even go back to Nixon. That includes democratic administrations. However, RECENT problems are absolutely due to Bush, Republicans and more recently, the Tea Party.

One thing that HAS absolutely happened is that Republicans and the right have turned Congress from a group of people who disagreed no various issues, sometimes very strongly, but who could, fundamentally work together. Some even liked each other outside the halls of congress.

not saying the republicans are above assigning blame to the democrats, but i see a lot more finger pointing from the left.

That's because you are only listening to the right.

[Woodruff]

the democrats' blame game baffles me. some of them say that the tea party in congress for less than a year is responsible for this country's failed economy

I have not heard a single individual make this claim...perhaps you could point to some?

not saying the republicans are above assigning blame to the democrats, but i see a lot more finger pointing from the left.

I wonder if it's possible that's because it's where a bit more of the blame lies?

[Baron Von PWN]

1. The democrats have the sense to increase the debt (which is still a manageable ~65% of GDP) in favor of a default or severe austerity measures.

1.The debt is still increasing... like after the "cuts" it's still increasing; and not just because of some natural progression. Barring that, what are the severe austerity measures that the Tea Party was proposing? Ignoring the Tea Party, what severe austerity measures were put forward by anyone? Do you classify "ending three wars" as severe austerity measures?

2. It's not really 10+ years as Clinton posted some surpluses, no they aren't more to blame for the problem itself.

2.Clinton was president from 1993 to 2001, so it's 10 years at least. Related aside - why is Clinton the one that posted surpluses and Obama is not the one to take us to the brink of default? I mean if you're going to blame Congress on the one hand, let's praise Congress on the other. If you're going to praise the president on the one hand, let's praise the president on the other. I know you don't fit into a neat little Democrat/Republican box, so I know you meant nothing by this, but it bothers me when others do it (in fact, I bet I do it myself on occasion).

In any event, what problem are they to blame for? What exactly happened that was bad as a result of the debt ceiling being increased on August 2nd instead of earlier?

1. it is, and it's a problem, but it is a manageable one that can be tackled over the next few years through gradual cuts to government spending and increased revenues. The tea party doesn't propose anything coherent, so I can't say for sure. However just look at what some of the "Tea party" affiliated posters in these fora have to say. Things like cut government spending down to 1900 levels, get rid of social security the list of crazy goes on. The only consistent thing that comes out of the babble is "cut taxes, less government more freedom!" and other such drivel. Unfortunetly a number of members of congress are directly accountable to these people and as a result feel the need to at least posture as slash and burn the government types.

What austerity measures would have occurred? From what I'd read if the debt ceiling was not raised the government would have the option of defaulting or putting a stop to domestic spending. This would have meant the government would no longer be able to pay things like social security, employment insurance, food stamps ect. At a time when the US is still struggling with high unemployment and the largest number of Americans in history are on food stamps.

Ending the three wars on short notice would not be a viable option and as sad as it is to say domestic spending would be cut first. I long term cuts ending the wars is much more likely.

2. So it is, I forget how time passes. I said Clinton as that's all I know about the period. Clinton was president and surpluses were posted, I don't know the political goings on which led to the surpluses being posted so I really can't say how they came about, whether it was due to the president, congress or some other entity.

Well there was the credit rating being downgraded. There was also the chaos on the markets though that may be a tenuous connection. My main beef with it is the very dangerous game they are playing with national policy. The effect it has on policy is one of paralysis, over the long term this causes problems to compound themselves. This really isn't what you want to see when the USA is facing a series of serious economic problems at home, not to mention the ones going on abroad.

[thegreekdog]

1. it is, and it's a problem, but it is a manageable one that can be tackled over the next few years through gradual cuts to government spending and increased revenues. The tea party doesn't propose anything coherent, so I can't say for sure. However just look at what some of the "Tea party" affiliated posters in these fora have to say. Things like cut government spending down to 1900 levels, get rid of social security the list of crazy goes on. The only consistent thing that comes out of the babble is "cut taxes, less government more freedom!" and other such drivel. Unfortunetly a number of members of congress are directly accountable to these people and as a result feel the need to at least posture as slash and burn the government types.

What austerity measures would have occurred? From what I'd read if the debt ceiling was not raised the government would have the option of defaulting or putting a stop to domestic spending. This would have meant the government would no longer be able to pay things like social security, employment insurance, food stamps ect. At a time when the US is still struggling with high unemployment and the largest number of Americans in history are on food stamps.

Ending the three wars on short notice would not be a viable option and as sad as it is to say domestic spending would be cut first. I long term cuts ending the wars is much more likely.

I agree that the Tea Party movement's rhetoric is hardly the model we should be... um... modelling. The Tea Party movement is not really for less spending, it's for less spending on stuff they don't want to spend money on. So let's put that to the side because I agree with you. That being said, what I would have proposed would have been vastly more "shocking" to Congress and the president (and maybe you) than anything proposed by the Tea Party movement. They pretty much just wanted to cut the budget for the new healthcare legislation.

From what I've read, there are conflicting reports. The NBC, FOX, etc. types of the world reported what you've indicated (the government would no longer be able to provide social security, etc.) The Libertarian reports I've read indicate that there were things that the government could do to keep providing all of those things. One prominent Libertarian (so prominent I forget his name) made the point about how the "drop dead date" kept being moved back and questioned the voracity of the August 2nd date. In any event, I'm not sure I'm fully onboard with the idea that the federal government would have stopped paying for stuff.

Well there was the credit rating being downgraded. There was also the chaos on the markets though that may be a tenuous connection. My main beef with it is the very dangerous game they are playing with national policy. The effect it has on policy is one of paralysis, over the long term this causes problems to compound themselves. This really isn't what you want to see when the USA is facing a series of serious economic problems at home, not to mention the ones going on abroad.

I'm going to re-divide this because we lost the "whose fault was it" argument and there are two other points in your paragraph.

(1) Whose Fault Was It - I still think blame has to be placed in large part on Congress pre-2010 election. Not only did they not pass a budget, cut spending, or raise taxes, despite having the ability to do so, they passed a gigantic increase in spending through the healthcare bill. Does blame for the lack of a compromise between January 1, 2011 and August 2, 2011 lie partially with the Tea Party movement (i.e. Republicans)? Yes. Does blame for the lack of a compromise between January 1, 2011 and August 2, 2011 lie partially with the Democrats in Congress and the president? Yes. Pre-2011, who does blame lie with? The Democrat controlled Congress and president, is my contention.

(2) What Happened - First, the government didn't default, people still got their checks, etc. So that's completely off the table as far as I'm concerned. Second, there was a credit downgrade and a drop in the stock market. I'm not sure either of those were a result of the almost-default, as you seem to point out. If they were a response to the almost-default, we live in a really tenuous economic world. I've also heard it argued that the reason for the credit downgrade was because those credit agencies realized the United States would never fix its spending problem (I don't agree, but I've read it).

(3) What Else Happened - Dangerous game because of paralysis - this seems to be what you mostly have a problem with. I understand that. On the flip side, however, the members of Congress, who are probably poor legislators to begin with, had, what, three months, to get a budget together. I think it may have been more dangerous because of the "quick action" of Congress than because of the "paralysis" of Congress. But then that gets us back to the pre-Tea Party Democrat Congress and placing blame on them in some way.

EDIT - You should go to youtube and type in the search "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics" which has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, but it's generally relevant.

[PLAYER57832]

[

2. So it is, I forget how time passes. I said Clinton as that's all I know about the period. Clinton was president and surpluses were posted, I don't know the political goings on which led to the surpluses being posted so I really can't say how they came about, whether it was due to the president, congress or some other entity.

This part is critical and the fact that memories are so very, very short is part of the problem.

Why did Clinton post surpluses? Largely, because we were still able to ride the tide of the dot.com booms. That and real estate was still rising.. for a crash later. Then he made concessions to the Repubs that allowed passage of a bill, though we did have a shutdown first. (government shut down, not default-- I think a lot of people, not necessarily you, confuse those)

The result? The result was partially seen today. Had they realy cinched up on the banking industry back with the first S & L crisis, had there been more done early about real estate.. had they even kept up or strengthened environmental rules, then we would not have quite this mess. I think a lot of it was inevitable, regardless of the above, because it has to do with changing resources and emerging economies.

Bush then very much added to the above. I suspect he would have been ousted were it not for 9-11. People forget that, too. Instead, he decided he got a "mandate" Sure he did.. he got a mandate from corporate America to appease them even further and that he really did not need to pay attention to real America because they would just listen to the latest media blitz and little else. In the meantime, he packed the Supreme court (note the nice diversions to abortion and such at he hearings?)... etc.

The real bottom line is that we are in trouble because corporate America is in trouble. BUT, the reason they are in trouble is because they look short term instead of long term. Even their "long term" is just 5 years. China, I can gaurantee has a LOT longer memory than that!

So, we allow companies to "decide" that is OK to not protect the safety of workers on an oil rig, that is OK to drill... no matter that no one has the capability to even clean up any resulting damage, never mind begin to pay for it. We "decide" that we have to bail out banks, but then somehow simply "cannot" hold the heads of those banks at all personnally responsible for their decisions. Not stupid decisions, but greedy decisions.. decisions based on working for a corporation that solely rewards and punishes based on short-term gains, and pretty much is designed to ignore damage that results. We "decide" that suddenly just being able to go to the doctor is somehow a "luxury" for people who have real money and not something that working america really needs or deserves. We "decide" that we can target illegal employees because they will take jobs that others won't, and yet give almost a pass to employers who hire them. (and you betcha we are happy to take the discounts that result!). We also allow companies to just relocate with no penalty at all.. in fact, again, are quite happy to take the pennies less on various products, needed and unneeded they might sell. We might "protest", but the system is very much set up so that that protest is not heard. Worse, those companies often get nice tax benefits for the "priviliage" of firing hundreds, even thousands, of people.

the answer? The answer is to make companies act responsibly. Make them pay for pollution themselves, pay real employee wages ( not fiction that pretends a person can survive today in the US on $8 an hour without any help), give bonuses only for TRUE profits and pay taxes on the same.. but only the same. No preferential treatment for "certain industries" except where supplement truly is needed to ensure we have a reasonable production base in this country at all time. These limited supplements would be for critical industries only.. and tied so that when and if the industry grows or the need is no longer critical, (for example, if ceramics replace steel, then steel is no longer needed) the supplements are automatically removed, with no lobbying potential. (the rates are directly set to real data points set ahead of time and not reversable).

Implement those and we will see some "crashing", some failures. For that reason, they may have to be installed in graduated fashion. However, the result will be honest reconing, and that is what we need above all else. This corporate structure is a festering wound that needs lancing. I just hope we can catch it before it infects the entire world.. or even just our country.

[Phatscotty]

Clinton AND the Republican Congress (which Clinton lost in 93 and has far more power over deficits/surpluses than the president does), only after a gov't shutdown ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
was able to post some surpluses. I certainly hope you don't give Clinton credit for the internet birth either, er wuz it Gore?

[Snorri1234]

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending?

Fascinating.


Wait....how does this excuse taking the debt-ceiling hostage?

[Phatscotty]

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending?

Fascinating.


Wait....how does this excuse taking the debt-ceiling hostage?

Why do people still gobble up the BS of politicians?

It doesn't because nobody was taken hostage. They were playing politics.

You got served yo

[Snorri1234]

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending?

Fascinating.


Wait....how does this excuse taking the debt-ceiling hostage?

Why do people still gobble up the BS of politicians?

It doesn't because nobody was taken hostage. They were playing politics.

You got served yo

OH HELL NO BRAH!

No but seriously. Raising revenue/cutting stuff had f*ck all to do with the debt ceiling up until now. You might as well go ask why nobody bothered to stop spending or whatnot during the past 40 years when raising the debt ceiling.


Because that's just it. The debt ceiling is an arbitrary limit. There is a good argument for reducing debt and making good policy but none of that has to do with the debt ceiling. It's why the US not raising it was never even a consideration, they would and next time it comes up the same thing will happen.


Btw, the Republican party hasn't played much politics the past year. They have played "I'm going and taking my ball with me".

[Phatscotty]

the tea party is fiercely challenging those republicans

[thegreekdog]

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending?

Fascinating.


Wait....how does this excuse taking the debt-ceiling hostage?

Read my posts, Baron's responses, and then my responses to him. That should help you. To summarize:

(1) Taking the debt-ceiling hostage is bad - why? What happened specifically that was bad?
(2) If we acknowledge taking the debt-ceiling hostage was bad, why are we only blaming the Tea Party and not, you know, also the guys who were in office before the Tea Party guys?

I mean, honestly, I just expect you to re-type the word "fascinating" and go on your merry way to make it seem like you're oh so smart and oh so knowledgeable about U.S. politics without actually getting into a discussion. So, you can assume my expectations for you are way low so don't feel bad.

[PLAYER57832]

(2) If we acknowledge taking the debt-ceiling hostage was bad, why are we only blaming the Tea Party and not, you know, also the guys who were in office before the Tea Party guys?

Because the Tea Partiers are the ones who actually pushed things to the brink. The other guys bought and loaded the gun and ammo, right enough, but it was the Tea Partiers who pulled the trigger.