The Tea Party Scapegoat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, Aug 8, 2011.


  1. The debt ceiling shouldn't have been raised. The spending is OUT of control. Debt and deficits was one of my top reasons for hating George W. Bush and we get Mr. Hope & Change promising to "fix" that but in reality he is spending almost triple! W-T-F?

    The reason that Boehner had a problem getting votes is because the people that were elected in 2010 were elected to be the Anti-Bush's and the Anti-Obama's. They were elected to go against the status quo, not sign off on it. Boehner offered noting substantive to get our fiscal house in order. Harry Reid offered nothing to substantive to get our fiscal house in order. The President offered nothing substantive to get our fiscal house in order.

    Reagan? Really? Do you know who controlled the purse under Reagan? Democrats. Moreover, aside from being something clever to post on Twitter, what is the relevancy NOW?

    Bottom line is we did raise the debt ceiling and did get downgraded. Blaming it on the Tea Party is a cop-out and I find it ridiculous that people can't grasp the reality of our fiscal situation. WE are literally crashing and burning and all anyone cares about is blaming it on anyone but themselves.
     

  2. What you are saying is a flat out lie. The only one willing to let the Country default was President Obama. He was the only person beating that drum. Raise the debt ceiling or we will default, social security checks won't go out, etc.

    Those were LIES. The revenue collected each month can pay all debt obligations, social security, medicare, etc. If I am up to my eyeballs in debt and I tell my creditors that unless they loan me more money, I can't pay them what I already owe...how well do you think that will go over with my creditors? I'd imagine my credit rating would drop. ;)

    Bush/Obama (and their administrations) + Greenspan and Bernanke have destroyed our economy, if you want to blame someone. But they were just following "mainstream" ideas...
     
  3. Who was the last Republican president to balance the budget?
     
  4. #64 Verdurous, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2016
    I don't know. I know Clinton had the budget balanced from my grandparents, but other than that I have no idea.
     
  5. So Obama wanted to default which is why he fought so hard to raise the debt ceiling? :confused:

    and there weren't tea party members rooting for a default over a ceiling increase? :confused:
     

  6. Forget Republican, how about ANY President?

    The last time we (The United States of America) had a 'balanced budget'/surplus was 1957 under Dwight D. Eisenhower (republican).

    No one else has, at least not in "recent" history, not even Clinton. The closest he came was 1999 to 2000 when the debt only increased by $17.9B. But the year before and after increased ~$130B. Never went DOWN.

    And remember, Congress controls the purse? That's the rumor. The House under Clinton from 1995 on was controlled by Republicans.

    Look it up: Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
     

  7. Obama was the ONLY one talking about default. He wanted the debt ceiling raised no questions asked. The debt and deficits are unsustainable.

    You aren't grasping the implications on telling the world that unless we can borrow more money to pay our debts we can't pay our debts? Or the problem with using the printing presses to counterfeit our currency? QE?? The Fed buying Treasury Bonds?

    No Tea Party person I heard, Rand and Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and occasionally Jim Demint, were talking about default. They were proposing ideas to retain our AAA rating and get the debt/deficits under control.

    Obama presented some rhetoric, that's about it. The downgrade was a long time coming and overdue as our policies haven't changed even though our debt levels have grown to unheard of levels. Blaming it on "the tea party" is disingenuous and does nothing to address the problem.

    I'm wondering which Tea Party member voted for all the wars, debt/deficits, "Stimulus" programs, TARP programs, Auto Bailouts, Bernanke confirmation, appointment of Tim Geithner, Fannie/Freddie Support and bailouts, etc.
     
  8. Clinton deserves credit too.

    Cause Bush had a republican congress and he came no where close to balancing the budget.
     
  9. Blaming the tea party does address the problem, which is our economy shouldn't be hijacked by extreme tea party politics.
     

  10. Clinton would probably be labeled a terrorist by the Daily Kos' and Mother Jones' of the world today.

    Bush was awful, no one is disputing that. But guess what? So far Obama is even worse! Hard to do, I know...I thought it would be impossible.

    8 years of Bush, $4.9T
    2 years 7 months of Obama, $3.96T

    Per my post, #36:


    Whiskey
    Tango
    Foxtrot
    ?
     
  11. I know your post wasn't directed at me. Do people not remember how we got into this mess? Reckless gov't expansion and deficit spending, spending money the gov't doesn't have and creating it out of thin air.


    Businesses need to get contracts with the gov't because without those they may be barred from providing a service. Cutting gov't spending in the correct ways would have a very positive effect on the economy. The gov't shouldn't be placing hurtful regulations and unnecessary taxes in the private sector which ultimately ends up hurting smaller businesses and protects larger ones from competition. The gov't shouldn't always be turned to in order to create jobs because on smaller scales I do think it could do this. On the scale that it currently operates on the words efficient and productive aren't in bureaucrats' vocabulary. Entrepreneurs and other people who actually know how to run businesses should actually be allowed to create jobs because they're the most effective at it.

    Personally the economy is pretty important to me because it's supposed to be just individuals cooperatively exchanging stuff with each other. What it shouldn't be is what it looks like now, very distorted economic view that wasteful spending (not saving) and heavy gov't involvement stimulate markets. Revenue isn't the problem spending is.
     

  12. [​IMG]
     

  13. Blame grandpa for selling the farm to the capitalists and turning it into the suburban nightmare we have today.

    Freedom is on the farm. Not in cookie cutter communities. Too late now.
     
  14. #74 aaronman, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011


    If we ever want to stop letting corporations control the government and our lives we have to stop subsidizing them.

    The tea party is looking long term, we can't put off our problems forever. We can put them off a bit longer, but that's not right

    As Andrew Jackson said when he was battling big money on Wall Street, "You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!".
     
  15. I posted this in a couple threads, might as well post it here as well:

    Holy crap!

    Dylan Ratigan rant is PRICELESS....

    [ame=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44079837#44079837]msnbc.com Video Player[/ame]

    Sounds like Ron Paul is needed as President. :smoke:

    A YouTube version of the above, although they cut the first bit off.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z1XOBDbIy0[/ame]
     
  16. why doesnt somebody just tax the rich AND cut spending for the poor?

    why is it either or?

    why cant we just.. do it? why dont we all in our individual states stop voting in people who are bought out by banks

    i mean have some people get together, nominate one of the most intelligent and committed among them, have him pledge to not be bought out by corp., have him run for office, and vote for him

    just do that in the 50 different states....you know like do the democracy thing?

    i mean people do understand they dont HAVE to vote for just rep. and dems. right?
     
  17. #77 Verdurous, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2016
    Because there are too many rich people making the decisions and the Tea Party wants to keep their money.
     

  18. [​IMG]
     
  19. #79 Green Wizard, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011
    If it's ending the corporate/government relationships you are after then, well, that's like trying to legalize weed. If we're lucky, like super duper lucky, we'll all be old and gray before that comes about. But if you really want to stick it to the man, stop spending. Pay less taxes. Grow your own food. Choke the gov't and corporations off. Who really gives a fuck what the GDP figure is? All I want is to smoke my pipe in peace. :bongin:
     
  20. what about rich republicans and democrats?

    don't they want to keep their money too?
     

Share This Page