hey lady on m$nbc...what is a tea party 'value'?

[spanone]

she said this as if we all know what they are....

i, for one, don't have a clue.

she said it would be great if we adopted the tea party 'values'

someone care to enlighten???

[Vincardog]

1. Do you wish uppity Negroes would sit down and shut up? You might be a tea bagger

[tallahasseedem]

9. +1

[proud patriot]

45. +2

[EvolveOrConvolve]

134. Except a teabagger wouldn't use the word "Negro"

Political correctness of the devil, dontcha know?

[madokie]

154. Thats their values in a nutshell

and yes they are NUTS

[Courtesy Flush]

160. Do yuo wish uppidy Neqroes woud sit doun and shut up you mihgt be a tea baager (FTFY)

[KatyMan]

179. +3

Incredibly evident in Tancredo's "speech"

[alsame]

2. Electing white people. nt

[DJ13]

3. Funny hats, bad spelling, and belief in a God that condones greed and war

Those kinds of values?

[SeattleGirl]

4. Lack of intellect. n/t

[tanyev]

5. $4.79 at Walmart.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Mr. Ratigan doing his schtick trying to have progressives join forces with Teabaggers.......

that's what he's been doing...feigning like Teabaggers aren't Republicans. wink, wink.

[blogslut]

8. That man has lost my respect

The other day that idiot announced he would have T. Boone as a guest because he (Ratigan) thought the Picken's plan was teh awesome. After all these years, anyone that falls for Boone's lies has no excuse.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Folks thought because he was against the Wall street Bail outs

that somehow that made him legit.

They forgot that Lou Dobbs started out appearing quite reasonable too.

[Walk away]

25. What a whore! Now he is going to fill the "Teabag" niche....

anything to get his face on TV.

[newspeak]

172. T. Boone Pickens, huh?

Didn't he have something to do with the Swift Boat Liars?

[peace13]

7. Wide stance, toe tapping, gun toting, citizenship questioning fools

[KharmaTrain]

10. It's Mindless Soundbites

You say them and they sound great..."freedom", "no taxes", "no big government"...but ask them to define it and you'll get more soundbites. Don't even try to ask them how they plan to fix roads or fund schools or what their "freedom" means. You'll get crickets...

[MerryBlooms]

99. Exactly!

'no big government' = zero social programs like them thar roads and bridges and stuff.

*palm check

'freedom' = as long as them thar gays don't have freedom.

*rub palm check off on legs ...

'no taxes' - we're all for the military build up and supporting lotsa wars, but we don't want none a them thar 'social' programs like child protection or them thar artsy stuff like liberries.

[Iris]

124. you forgot "common sense"

oh, and "We need a Commander in Chief, not a law professor!"

[raccoon]

183. ""no taxes", "no big government"...but they sure want their SS and Medicare, don't they? nt

[Blue_Tires]

192. that's all they know...

and as i've pointed out repeatedly, if you ask the 600 what their 'movement' stands for, you'd get 300 different answers...like the Ron Paul or Palin fanboys, or the more prominent "I-just-can't-accept-a-black-president-and-this-is-my-only-outlet-besides-the-klan" crowd; you ask them to explain their position and in 30 seconds they contradict themselves (or grow VERY selective memories like our born-again free-market deficit hawk here)...

[brussell51]

11. The 'tea party' is about the national debt

Every man, woman, and child in the US has a revolving charge account, with Uncle Sam as the cosigner. The debt is partly held by foreign governments. The new annual budget proposed bumps the balance from $40K to $45K (thats from $160K up to $180K per wage-earner, including min.wage folks) The tea party is not about Caribou Barbie It is about this run-away, variable interest charge account for which we are all responsible (except that parents are responsible for their children's accounts).

Note this does not include the long-term unfunded liabilities in the dispersal programs. This is current, balance-payable hard cash debt. The tea-party crazies are worried about the rate of growth. They are just being silly, I suppose. I guess they don't like owing money to foreign dictatorships. Paranoid. They fear that a disagreement over Taiwan or Tibet may anger the lender into demanding his money now. Now isn't that silly.

If you prefer, we can distribute this liability according to ability-to-pay. Take your last 1040, multiply your pre-tax annual earnings by, say, 3.1 -- that's your share of the credit card debt. (No one can say how the lender will apportion the debt to us when he comes for his money.)

I'm beginning to see the wisdom in Beijing's side of the arguments about Tibet and Taiwan, aren't you.

[spanone]

12. no it's not. it's about Obama being President. the debt was accrued under bu$h*

[brussell51]

14. It is not about R and D. Its about the checkbook.

[spanone]

17. tell me their platform, i didn't mention r or d...i mentioned george

you DO realize that george didn't put his wars in his budget....that's one reason that Obama's budget is so high....H O N E S T Y...so now Obama's budget has to reflect george's major fuckups

[MUAD_DIB]

21. Hey. I smell bullshit. It's coming from you.

[brussell51]

54. Be nice! State why you disagree

[MUAD_DIB]

101. Mainly because I can smell the bullshit coming off of you from here.

I have a better solution: raise taxes on the rich.


How about that, stinky. You know they can afford it.

[brussell51]

138. that's easy

Why not increase progressive taxation? Because

a) You and I are after the same things: a chicken in every pot
b) The environment which is most conducive to that is one which encourages our economic engine to lumber forward energetically
c) That environment really has very, very few requirements. One of them is the right to own property and have it not be gutted out by a mob.

QED

Which part gives a problem?

[JHB]

174. My problem is the gap in your logical "proof"

You logic requires that:

increase progressive taxation = property ownership "gutted out by a mob"

But that is a demonstrably false assumption: we spent the 50s and 60s with much higher progressivity in taxation. Did out economic engine not "lumber forward" in those decades? Very much so. Was property ownership "gutted"? hardly.


quod erat demonstrandum?

falsus!
non sequitur

[brussell51]

176. economy then successfully sustained the insult; it is much weaker today

[JHB]

181. and your basis for that claim is?

:shrug:

[brussell51]

187. Any measure you wish; hows about debt versus gdp that's in vogue

[JHB]

194. Well, then go right ahead...

Use debt vs gdp to explain how a more progressive tax structure was an "insult" to the economy and not one of the factors that made it stronger in the first place.

[daleanime]

27. Several billions of dollars late....

and about 5 or 6 years late also, if you didn't care about the budget then what's making you care now?

[brussell51]

67. The whole point in the beginning was NEITHER PARTY BEING RESPONSIBLE

[Realityhack]

86. You are not addressing the other posters point. And yelling is uncalled for.

FYI yelling gets a big frown around here.

So tell us when was the last time one or both parties was being responsible?

[brussell51]

91. frustration with bush and mccain spending was part of the tea party beginning

Our debt/gdp projections are worse now than post ww2. we've got to fix that or we won't have anything left to fight about. thanks for tip. I'm overwhelmed by the site. whew. I really stepped in it, huh

[Realityhack]

95. Lil bit.

It seems to me like you agree with one small piece of the 'tea party'. You are pro fiscal responsibility. And you seem to be 100% anti-tax which I am honestly not sure I understand the reasoning behind.
But you already said one of your opinions was not quite in line with theirs down below.
And I have yet to hear you spout any racist nonsense, or birther crap, or say anything about death pannels, etc. etc.

The thing you should know is that a lot of the people here have gone out and talked to 'tea baggers' at rallies (often as counter rallies) and have spent a lot of time discussing what they have experienced first hand, and watching the rest of the countries 'protests'. They know a LOT about the movement's history, and its 'on the ground' behavior.

In my opinion you would be better off talking bout what YOU think than about a larger group that you don't control. I understand you see something good in their platform. But if you don't want to be tarred with their behavior... don't associate.

Also, take a quick look though the DU rules. My reference to a Pizza was an inside joke. Some of this is people playing with you because they know you will eventually be banned.

Honestly I hope you continue your interest in politics and public policy. I hope you strive to get more than the information handed to you, and engage in lively debate. But be aware that this site may not be the place for you to do it. I am honestly not trying to be rude but the Mods may well ban you, and they would not necessarily be wrong.
That said I don't think you came here just to troll or you would not have engaged as openly as you have. Maybe you will have a longer stay.

[brussell51]

117. none of us learn anything unless we deal with opposing ideas

I'm sure the moderators know that. Listening to Fox hour-after-hour doesn't help me, or your cause.

This is a really neat site.

explain pizza?

I fear that the younger people in our country are losing site of where our daily meals come from. They don't come from government. etc. etc.

I believe that their lack of understanding is pretty much a result of multiple generations of school teachers imparting an incomplete understanding of our economy.

Those ARE my politics. Government is money.

Thank you for bootstrapping me.

That's pretty much it.

[Realityhack]

123. Ah the Pizza

Remember Tombstone Pizza? The ads "What would you like on your Tombstone"?
If you get banned you get a 'tombstone' on your account. So people refer to it as getting a pizza.

Anyway, while the moderators are not trying to create an echo chamber, the site is specifically (and by the rules) a place for progressives/democrats to discuss democratic/progressive ideas. Constructive criticism is welcomed but, while there are thousands of sites for people from all over the political spectrum to debate eachother, this is intentionally NOT one of them.
That may be what people meant when the said 'are you sure you have the right forum'.
Many people here participate in other forums to avoid group think and echo chamber effects, but this board is about progressive ideas. and that rule IS enforced.

I really hope I wasn't too rude. I like to see other viewpoints and ideas. And I think you have been fairly good about trying to reply to all of us at once.

For what it's worth, I agree that we need better schools and civics and the economy are areas that clearly need improvement.
I think if you stick around (or even lurk) you will see that while some people here can be rather reflexive a lot of regular posters are extremely well educated and articulate. They don't hold their views out of ignorance.

[brussell51]

136. Well, I'm progressive in every way except I also accept Ayn Rand as my diety does that pass muster?

[MUAD_DIB]

146. Sorry, but "progressive/Randite" is a severe contradiction.

Enjoy your pizza.

[brussell51]

147. And?

[MUAD_DIB]

159. I believe that it lends itself to being disingenuous in nature.

[brussell51]

161. Here I sit; My beliefs are sincere and reasonably schooled Could it be that our labels are inadequa

inadequate for describing people?

[brussell51]

162. I'm feeling fairly genuous

[newspeak]

166. Ayn Rand, huh?

You lost me. I'll actually stick with James Joyce who basically thought Ayn was a squirrel (not his word but mine).

[brussell51]

171. I'll find some Joyce and read it if you'll read atlas

[brussell51]

186. Could you cite a specific work? Can't find any evidence of economic work

[newspeak]

165. But, ya see, I don't mind paying taxes

I love libraries, beautiful parks, smooth roads, safe bridges, love love public education, emergency services and helping those who are in dire straits. Yep, I love paying taxes, just wished most of my taxes didn't go to the MIC for wars or to war profiteers. I love having government agencies over greedy corporations taking over services and providing inadequate services just so they can make an extra buck. I love having government services, and wish they would get rid of the war profiteering corporations who have made billions on our soldiers while providing them with substandard food, tainted water, and unsafe electrical (that's when * privatized military services). See, when the government provides a service with my tax dollars, I still have representation--I still can rant and rave at my congresscritter. But, when a corporation provides the service, I lose that representation. And, see how some corporations have garnered more and more power within our government, I DO NOT TRUST THEM-for they show minimal responsibility and accountability to the public.

[DeltaLitProf]

111. Then perhaps you'll google up some pre-Obama tea party demos . . .

. . . if the tea parties have nothing to do with who is president? If indeed the tea parties are about deficit spending, surely there would have been many such demonstrations by the same folks during the Bush presidency? And surely in today's tea party demos there'd be prominent mentions of Bush on the signs alongside the Obama as Hitler ones.

I daresay you won't find any record pre-Obama tea party demos. And you won't find any anti-Bush signs at any of the present ones.

[KansDem]

16. True, when Bush started spending like a drunken TANG deserter...

...while cutting revenues, not a single, future Tea Bagger complained. Not one!

It it means "kicking butt" in a foreign country, they're all for it. But just suggest public-financed health care and they go apeshit...

[FrenchieCat]

15. The Teabaggers are about Republicans mad that they lost the last election....

and are masquerading as something else, because as Republicans, they lost all credibility.
Their aims are those of the Republican party; to drown the government in the bathtub, to
gut all regulations, and to defeat Democrats, especially Barack Obama.
They have no other agenda.....

The fact that they showed up suddently 40 days into Obama's term, and that CNBC,
the biggest corporate Wall Street Whore of them all started the teabagger movement
via that rehearsed and planned Santelli rant!

Ain't nobody stupid except for those who think that this Teabagging fraud can be perpetuated
over the American people, brought to you by Corporations who are the GOP who are Teabaggers.

[Subdivisions]

32. I saw that rant and the resulting call to visit the website

chicagoteaparty.org. That's what started it all and it was indeed a staged event. Here is Santelli's infamous rant:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

I've been shaking my head over the cluelessness of the teabaggers ever since. They really have no idea how manipulated they are because they were chosen for exploitation exactly because they repeat whatever they are told without any critical analysis. They are, quite frankly, stupid people. As in intelligence deficiency stupid.

[brussell51]

70. ok i scanned the rant about basic capitalism WHAT'S YOUR POINT

[niceypoo]

114. Ding! ding! ding!

We have a winner!

Ask ten different tea partiers what they are protesting against and you will get ten wildly different answers.

[malaise]

118. 100% Correct

It's uncomplicated

[KatyMan]

182. Yes

That's why my new sort of meme that I spread in various forums is that libertarians and "independents" are people too ashamed to admit their really republicans.

[Walk away]

19. Why do you carry guns to political events and carry...

threatening signs? I could not bring my tweener nieces to a meeting on HCR in N.J. because of the gun carrying teabaggers. That bodes so well for the future of politics. Why do you all scream like banshees at anyone who thinks differently that you? Your leaders are Dick Armey and Rush Limbaugh. It's a little late to try and pretend you are sane or that anyone here has anything in common with you.

[MUAD_DIB]

20. Where were the T.P. knuckleheads when George Dubya Bush was running up the debt?

Where were they when he had running quarterly deficits year after year?

Where were they when he was wasting 30 billion a month on war.



I know.

They were cheering him on.


Why?

Because they were/are fucking insane.

[brussell51]

26. That's the whole point of the 'tea party'-- both R and D irresponsible

[spanone]

30. what are your plans. what do you suggest. what do you propose to do with the debt.

how would you raise income. no platform. no ideas. bullshit

[brussell51]

33. cut spending instead of pretending. Say 20% across everything

[spanone]

35. are you talking about 20% cuts in spending on everything. state or federal? or both?

[brussell51]

40. Social Security checks; drones; got to balance checkbook

[Realityhack]

43. What the heck was that suposed to mean? n/t

[brussell51]

49. cut all spending by 20% or whatever it takes to eliminate deficit.

[Realityhack]

59. So you don't actually know what that number would be?

Do you know what it would be for the national budget if you let tax cuts expire vs. not?
Do you know what it would be if health care reform passed vs. didn't?
Do you know what it would be for your state budget if you did not pay or get any federal taxes/money (ie are you a net giver or receiver)?

Honestly I think you are a democrat who just doesn't know it.

[brussell51]

73. Given circumstances, strive for making current outgo = income

[Realityhack]

78. So that would be a 'NO' on all counts?

Look, I understand you are worried about the national debt. So are we. Let's say I had an idea that would help the situation... would you be open to exploring the potential benefits and potential drawbacks?

How about we start with this:
I think we should re-instate the estate tax. This will help to close the gap you are worried about in funding vs. spending.

Of course I don't want to put anyone out of their family business, or cause them to loose grandpas house... so let's come up with some reasonable limit.
How about no estate tax on the first $2,000,000.
Now if grandpa leaves you 2.2Million... you pay tax on 200k of income... and pay no tax on 2 million. Pretty sweet. I wish my grandpa had that kind of money (heck I wish I had met him).

Now I KNOW the 'tea party' would disagree with my idea. What I want to know is what do YOU think of it?

[brussell51]

82. I don't have an opinion about how to raise more taxes. Taxation will not solve the problem.

[Realityhack]

88. That does not answer the question.

And it creates a straw man of my position.
I asked what you thought of an idea that would help.
I never claimed we could just tax our way to a balanced budget.

But now you have made a positive claim.
You say we can't tax our way out of it. In fact you appear to be of the opinion that increased revenues should not be ANY PART of the solution.
So two questions:
1. Why can't tax increases or tax cut repeals be *part* of the solution? Be very specific.
2. When are you going to tell your boss you don't need any more raises and in fact you are willing to go down to minimum wage?


The fact is that what you are participating in is a bait and switch.
Group 'R' said we need to temporarily cut taxes to stimulate growth. Group 'D' opposed this but lost.
Group 'R' now says any increase beyond the current (temporarily lowered) rate is an increase (see that switch) and we should balance the budget at the new lower level.
Rinse wash repeat.
Add tea baggers many of whom don't even know what the current tax rate is in comparison to its historical levels.

[brussell51]

93. Can't answer in the subject line

The campfire that keeps us all from freezing to death is our capitalist economy. Taxing of any kind tends toward depressing the campfire. The problem with the checkbook is that outgo > income. We really can't afford to dump water on the campfire just now, so what we need to do is reduce outgo. This is not rocket science. This is econ 101. new to site got deluged sorry.

[Realityhack]

102. Sorry but this is far from Econ 101. This is international ecconomics in the reall world 94,000

"Taxing of any kind tends toward depressing the campfire."
This is actually not true. And I don't think even you would support it if we take it to the logical extreme.
When taxes are 0% you have anarchy because you can not fund a government. Result = bad for the fire.

In addition the capitalist economy didn't keep us from freezing to death (literally) which is why we created many social programs to begin with (for example SS).

Trying to reduce the real world budget of the United States of America to Econ 101 is a recipe for disaster. It turns out there is a reason they invented Econ 102, and 201, etc.

For example are you familiar with Nash equilibrium points?

Now I am not saying you shouldn't cut ANY spending. But you have a very very simplistic model and I think it is leading you down a very dangerous road.
What exactly happens when Chicago, or Boston, or NY cut their fire departments by a massive percentage? What happens when we cut the budget for federal highway maintenance by even more?
How do you stay the nation that every brilliant mind wants to come to.... if you cut funding for scientific research though various government agencies?

As a real world example Israel spent a fairly hefty amount on speculative research that most politicians here would call wasteful... and jump started a massive high tech boom.

The really REALLY isn't econ 101. Some of the principles apply but pretending it is that simple just isn't realistic.

[brussell51]

122. OK, moderation. The very word healthcare reform is depressing the economy tremendously.

Imagine yourself a small business person, for example. Current political discussion is a major reason to continue to refrain from expanding with, say, a new truck and new employees. These clowns seem totally unaware of the profoundly debilitating effect they are having on jobs and economy just by discussing it. (threatening it) We need to just quietly expand medicaid to cover the urgent problems and move on.

[Realityhack]

126. I work at a small (very small) company.

I don't need to imagine. But then I also followed what they were ACTUALLY discussing a lot more than most.

Health care is a great debate with many good and many bad ideas. I don't think it was ever depressing things as much as you think but I could be wrong. If it was I would say it was only because of so many media hyped lies. The plan was never going to decimate small companies. Neither side was for that. An increase in taxes for the super wealthy would barely register on the radar of small companies, their employees having basic health care without it coming out of the companies pocket would be a huge leveler against larger companies that can offer it as an employment incentive.
And the idea of putting minimums on % that goes to care? Or fixing pre-existing condition problems? That doesn't kill small companies. At worst it is neutral.

It sounds like you think we have some problems with our health coverage in this country. And you even think we should fix them. Discussing the details of things like that is what this board IS about. Most here think everyone should have some basic coverage. I agree. You may disagree. IMO the discussion is an important one. Sorry if it spoils things for some people who scare to easily at what is said of Fox news. We MUST have the discussion as a country.

[brussell51]

129. Absolutely we have probs. In the $20K/year income area

I think my approach would differ quite a bit with yours. It is: make medicaid do what is not being done. Honor and thank and respect the people already in the business. They are producing 3% profits, worse than grocery stores. They are not villains. Help them that's got to be helped and somehow get everyone into screening programs. Politicking about those nasty ole insurance people is silly and much worse than counter productive. And what's wrong with lightening up on the nonsense lawsuits a bit? etc.

[Realityhack]

133. Unfortunately I have to take off for the night.

I would love to delve into various ideas about health care and court reforms. I bet we would disagree. And I bet we would have at least some common ground (hey we already agree there are problems).
But unfortunately I have some things to do other than surf the web tonight.

Keep coming up with ideas though. I think the country needs more people who are at least acknowledging a problem exists and pondering possible solutions.

[Contrary1]

83. How about cutting military expense in the Middle East by 100%?

That works for me.

[brussell51]

85. What we gonna put in our gas tanks?

[Contrary1]

87. Oh, but it's not about oil.

It's about protecting America from terrorists. :sarcasm:

Seriously, though. I really don't care if we get any oil from them. If the US got serious about alternative energy sources, the problem could be solved. And think about all the jobs that would open up.

[brussell51]

132. We have to have oil in the intermediate term or we will starve

[Realityhack]

90. What if we cut the millitary by 30% and took the 'extra' 10% and spent it on alternative energy...

research and development so we could cut the military more in the future.

Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

The fact is that I agree we can not simply stop spending money on the military, or even the military on the middle east. But that does not mean we should just settle for the status quo.

[brussell51]

97. Nuclear power/electric cars might work but that takes decades.

Solar will heat lukewarm water. BFD. A gallon of oil has lots and lots and lots of energy in it. It is a very tough problem. Brazil did it (vegetable oil) because they ruined their currency and noone would sell to them. They had no choice. I'm all for alternatives - but as an engineer I can tell you that myths prevail.

[Realityhack]

108. "an engineer I can tell you that myths prevail" absolutely.

But we also know that if we have an oil peak and we aren't ready we are very very screwed.
And I don't think you are being 100% fair to alternatives. Solar isn't ready to meet our needs for example, but it can be a piece of the solution even if it peaks at 1-2% of domestic usage.

Another good idea is looking at ways to just use less. That is part of what CAFE standards and other similar incentives and programs are about. The 'tea party' would likely be irate at the idea of such 'market manipulation' but many of those programs have worked. As an engineer I am sure you can tell us that an F350 certainty isn't an efficient way to go to the super market. Or a particularly safe one (when you consider the entire society).

So yes myths abound. Energy storage as dense as oil/petroleum products is hard to come by. But in the long run we need a societal plan.

[brussell51]

125. I don't have a big problem with your message.

One barb: We've had CAFE for years, and what do we get? Suburbans, f350s, etc. etc. Because that's what people want to buy. Frankly, we'd all be well served (and hated) by another buck or so on gas. That would do more, more quickly, than a bunch of bureaucrats trying to outfox a bunch of lawyers. But, like the spending problems, noone has the guts to do it.

[Realityhack]

128. Actully one big reason is the way the standards were written.

CAFE standards don't apply to vehicles classified as light trucks in the same way they do to passenger cars.
Which seems reasonable until you realize the definition of light truck makes, an F150, an Escalade, and a PT Cruser all as light trucks.
Another issue is marketing.
Because of the ban on light trucks from outside the US we had SUVs and other light trucks promoted to high hell. Almost killed the US Auto industry.
Fact is that fleet averages HAVE come up. Some consumer pressure, and some from CAFE.

As for your gas tax idea I (and many if not most here) completely agree that we would be better served by a higher tax on gas. You are far from alone on that one. And you will find the supporters here would be happy to pay it and try in vain to explain to the station attendant why they thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[brussell51]

131. I'm more about lassez-faire than republican. Use gas tax tactically as necessary.

It is way more efficient than legislating

[MUAD_DIB]

105. DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Try putting your intellect there.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Blue_Tires]

175. he's supposed to be an "engineer", too

but thinks electric cars are "decades" away

FFS

[MUAD_DIB]

104. Raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%-10%.

Oh, I can hear you now. "Those poor, poor rich folk..."

[brussell51]

139. Because you're pouring water on the campfire by doing that

Why not just build a bigger campfire, where everyone has what they need? Fire works automatically, you just have to configure the fuel (capital) properly.

Another analogy: don't eat the seed corn.

rising tide lifts all boats.

economics is so simple -- just get out of the way. Maybe a little regulation, carefully applied -- presto everyone is better off.

[HughBeaumont]

151. "Laissez-faire" . . . "rising tide lifts all boats" . . .

No offense, but if you think this is a board by-and-large loaded with economic conservatives, you're sadly, SADLY mistaken.

You're trumping up FAILED IDEAS. Your phraseology is one of theory and not reality. That's not something I'm going to let sit.

"Let Do", DIDN'T.

Rising tides only lift yachts. None of us can afford anything but wood planks.

We "got out of the way" for 28 years. That failed 95% of us miserably. Wages have stagnated. The wealth-to-working income gap has ballooned. There's been zero job growth in ten YEARS. This is all undisputed. Your little sect's "ideas" are a steaming pile of ROT. The only section that has recovered in the past 10 years has been the wealthy and Wall Street.

Randian bullshit belongs on that OTHER site.

[brussell51]

155. poorest americans live better than most others

[HughBeaumont]

178. Ah, now we're onto fallacies of equivocation. Classic.

"You're not as poor as someone who eats bugs and lives in a mud hut; therefore, you're not poor."

Squalor is squalor, and to pretend it doesn't exist in America is not only delusional but despicable. Getting into a pissing contest over poverty doesn't make one party any better or worse than the other.

[brussell51]

180. its a simple rising tide position; you might hate it, but it woiks

[newspeak]

177. actually, I disagree with you

Reagan's trickle on economic plan is where we are today. Reagan cuts taxes to 28%-now during FDR, tax on the wealthy was 94%, I believe with Eisenhower it was 88%. It is not until Reagan, that taxes on the wealthy go down to an obscene level. Trickle on does not work. But, if you really wanted to screw the middle class, it's working just fine.

[brussell51]

188. so, you think that more taxes are good for the economy

[newspeak]

184. social security

senior citizens are having a hard time as it is--they've paid into SS all of their lives. Maybe we can keep greedheads from tapping into SSA as they've being doing since Reagan.

[Realityhack]

36. Accross everything?

Wow. I can see you really thought that through.
So all programs are equally over budget? NONE are at the right funding level?
NONE are underfunded?

No consideration of a tax increase?

Tell Colorado Springs to cut ANOTHER 20%. In fact please move there.

[Realityhack]

31. Both being irrisponsible does not make them equaly irrisponsible.

So tell us. Is the 'tea party' for or against allowing temporary tax breaks to expire?
What does exercising your second amendment rights have to do with sound fiscal policy?
If it transcends being R or D, or how you voted in the election... what percentage of the 'party' is D or I?

[brussell51]

34. Does it matter where the money went? Just stop spending now.

[Realityhack]

41. Actually yes it does matter... specifically because you can't "just stop"

Do you seriously run your own budget this way?
Wow.. we spent 20% too much last month. So we will only spend 20% less on fast food... but that is ok because we will also only pay 80% of our electric bill... and drop the termostat from 68 to 54.

You seem to think it doesn't matter if the money went to failed programs or successfully ones we just cut both the failures and successes by 20%. That isn't how real life works. Some of those programs are vitally important. Others not so much. And some need even more funding.

And if you are routinely over budget on your basic necessities (say baby food) do you cut that? or do you look for a second job, or ask for a cost of living adjustment?

I can guarantee that the 'tea party' would go ape shit if Obama announced a 20% cut in the military budget and boarder patrol.

[brussell51]

46. We're not going to have a country to fight over unless we balance spending

Of course, not all would agree with how. But the 'tea party' thing began primarily about out-of-control nonsense fiscal policy -- spending

[Realityhack]

56. Actually the 'tea party' is doing a lot more damage to the country than spending.

Balancing the budget is important. Nobody here will disagree with that. In fact we are in favor of paying down the national debt.
But we disagree on how to proceed. And yelling racist bullshit in the streets hurts the discourse.
And like it or not THAT is what the 'tea party' is actually out there doing.

You are trying to pretend the 'Tea Party' is something it isn't and get us to attack that straw man.
Unfortunately we are on to you. Get over it. We agree balancing the budget is important. We just don't think it is a good idea to do it with one blunt tool because... once you actually get informed you realize attacking the problem that way is the only way to guarantee a disaster.

BTW you keep lying about how the 'tea party' began. It is NOT about spending. It is about the election. If you honestly think these same people would have been out protesting the Bush tax cuts if they only caught on sooner you are deluding yourself.
WE fought those cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible.
WE made a fuss when he lied about the cost of war.
WE were upset when he didn't include the war spending in the budget.
WE want to cut spending in some areas, increase it in others, increase taxes, and ultimately balance the budget.
THE TEA PARTY wants to carry around signs claiming President Obama is not a citizen
THE TEA PARTY wants to talk about gun rights
THE TEA PARTY shows no intention of correcting any of its erroneous statements or opinions.
THE TEA PARTY is about lying about 'death panels' and making racist remarks.

[brussell51]

61. The BS will get filtered out. What will be left will be fiscal resp.

[Realityhack]

69. Funny... that is alread a plank in the democratic platform.

it used to be in the republican platform too.
The difference is we aren't suicidal about it. You don't cut every part of your budget equally. You still pay the full mortgage payment. You don't drink 20% less fluids, and you DO cut 100% of your fast food budget, and maybe all of your cable bill. But the gas still goes in the car so you can get to work.

You are desperately trying to get us to disagree with a balanced budget. My only disagreement is that it needs to be MORE than balanced to pay down the debt.

I will however take issue with you on a few things... which you are consistently failing to address:
1. This is NOT what the 'tea party' is actually out there talking about. It isn't their rallying point. They are not a viable third party. They are mostly just upset about the election... and many of them on racial grounds.
2. They are damaging the country more than helping. The last thing we need is their hyper-polarized no discussion our way or the highway bullshit.
3. Hacking at every program as if they are all equal without any discussion of raising revenues or the relative merits of programs is retarded.

[brussell51]

79. they all talk about -- but neither DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

[Realityhack]

84. That doesn't address any of my points.

Nor is it entirely fair.
How much do you know about the legislative process? I don't mean to be insulting but I have found assuming someone knows things sometimes backfires.

[brussell51]

141. my thing here is esse quam videri

All the world is divided into two parts: politicians and their victims. None of the beltway gang are willing to do the simple thing needed: to restrain spending like grownups. How do the sovereign people gain control? I think maybe legislative term limits.

[KonaKane]

47. Uh huh, sure. That's why you almost never hear a bagger criticising a Republican

Get real.

[brussell51]

57. It is intrinsic to a 3rd party effort: Both existing SUCK

[Realityhack]

60. You can't claim that spending 99% of your time attacking 1 party is being against both. n/t

[brussell51]

63. Palin is not a leader; she's an anachronistic left-over from 2008

[Realityhack]

71. I'm sorry. But who said anything about Palin?

Please provide a direct quote or admit you are putting words in my mouth.

I don't need to go to Pailin to see what the 'tea party' is about. Have you looked at the signs at an average 'tea party' 'rally'? Seen what the average attendee is babbling about? And I say babbling on purpose because if you fact check it your head might explode.

[MUAD_DIB]

107. Methinks this lil chicken ain't 2 bright.

[Realityhack]

110. Be nice.

He has responded to a number of posts. He got flooded and I think some of his views are being seriously challenged. By all means question his faulty assumptions and call him for evasion but no need to be rude.

[MUAD_DIB]

121. Never. No apologies.

He's responded with what? A 20% across the board cut. Pretending that the Teabagges are for both Dem and Repub.

His pizza will be coming soon enough.

[Realityhack]

130. And a $1 a gallon gas tax.

The guy isn't a robot. He is willing to think at least a little. And to discuss.
He may not belong on DU but I wouldn't be too quick to label him troll either.
I have seen some serious Trolls, and this is not a worst case offender.

[brussell51]

76. the 'tea party' is ABOUT inadequacy of BOTH parties

[Realityhack]

81. I really don't think you can support that with evidence.

We could post pics all day of 'tea party' posters that are racist, birther crap, anti-death panel bullshit. We could link to dozens upon dozens of interviews with attendees that show they are not focused on BOTH parties.
And we can point out that the top instigators are partisan hacks.

Obviously *you* feel both parties are inadequate. And good for you. Many of us feel that way. Surf around DU and you will see a lot of criticisms of democrats (we try to keep it constructive).

But I honestly don't think you can back up your claim that the 'tea party' is nonpartisan.

[brussell51]

100. read the history it was only a year ago for heaven's sake

The original gatherings weren't the wackos with the signs, they 'glommed' on. The pristine, original thrust was fiscal responsibility. Of course both parties have a certain posture, who knows what the truth is. Clinton/Bush yadda yadda. Most 'tea party' folks would revere Reagan for his smaller govt approach. I don't have a problem with that. The Clinton Bush years were punctuated with external events (Internet bubble, 9/11, etc.)

We are where we are, and we need to start acknowledging it, instead of pushing and shoving and namecalling.

[Realityhack]

113. So who in your opinion isn't acknowledging it?

I keep telling you, the democratic party, and DEFINITELY DU support a balanced budget.
They may disagree with you on which parts to cut, or if we should raise revenues, but we agree on the point you keep saying we aren't acknowledging. We are not calling for spending without paying for it. Read up on it. That is a myth.

As for "who knows what the truth is", my point is that unless you are prepared to enter the marketplace of ideas, read, learn, question, re-evaluate, and on and on, why should we take your word for what the best plan is? You are admitting you don't even want to hazard a guess as to what might have worked in the past and what was a mistake... but we should boldly move forward with your simplistic chop everything plan?
WHY?
Would you trust someone in a similar situation over an engineering question? Or would you look to the experts on that area, maybe read up and do your own math?

You can't simply say 'both parties suck... therefore I don't need an opinion on what a reasonable tax level is'.

Let's pretend society is starting over. What if anything do you think the government SHOULD be responsible for?

[MUAD_DIB]

109. And that is why only 600 crazy conservatives showed up to

bash Obama.


the 'tea party' is showcases the inadequacy of conservative groupthink.

[brussell51]

143. "conservatives" ??

That's a little different from 'republicans'

What am I? I am very left wing on most social issues. But I am absolutely confident that we're really spinning our wheels with this Robin Hood crap.

So are we talking D and R? Or Conservative/Liberal? I think some on here are actually trying to persue Useful/Not Useful. That's where I'm at

[MUAD_DIB]

145. Instead of conservative I should have used the term

weak-minded conservative.

[brussell51]

148. Mr. Muab, Are you here to discuss ideas or to be rude?

[MUAD_DIB]

158. I'm a realist. I don't suffer fools.

[brussell51]

189. If you try really, really hard, I'll bet you can post something useful without being rude

[KonaKane]

94. False equivalency.

While it's true that both are far from perfect, the last 12 years or so should have demonstrated clearly to you which one was worse. And it was MUCH worse.

Are you sure you're on the right forum?

[brussell51]

103. say what?

[Realityhack]

115. You may want to google 'false equivilency'.

It is a fallacy.

A = Bad
B = Bad
Does NOT mean
A is just as bad as B

You are saying both parties have problems, and then dismissing them both entirely as if they are both equally bad. But this is false (even theoretically the chance of them both being equally bad is a virtual impossibility).
So the other poster is pointing out that you can look at what parties R and D have proposed during the last 20 years (or more or less) and see a clear winner in terms of who was more fiscally irresponsible (at least in our opinion).
What you can NOT do is just claim they are both equally bad based on the statement that they are both bad.

[brussell51]

137. OK, so I read the democrat-speak, and to go back...

What I said or meant to say is that no one would dream of opening a third grouping unless the two existing parties were unacceptable. I never said they were or were not equal. So where is the false?

[KonaKane]

140. Let me help explain it to you.

When you say, as you did, that "both parties suck" you are relegating both parties to the same standard (suck) which, by logic, equates them. That paints an inaccurate picture of the two, that says they both share the same defecits of character and can be blamed equally for the outcomes of their actions, which to anyone who has not beein in a coma for the last 14 years, can easily see is not the case.

"They both suck" is a very convenient end run around thinking, as well as being demonstrably false.

[brussell51]

142. OK, to restate, both inadequate, un-supportable - not equally Hows that?

[csziggy]

75. "both R and D irresponsible" in response to a comment about BUSH running up debt?

How was Clinton getting the US out of the debt that Reagan and Bush Sr. left us in? When Clinton left office, we had a surplus. Not only did Bush destroy that, he ran up more debt that his father and Reagan combined. But now DEMOCRATS are as irresponsible as the Republicans? When every REPUBLICAN president since World War II has damaged our economy and left this country deeper in debt than when they got into office. When Democratic Presidents are in office, the economy improves and the US debt drops - that has been the pattern since WWII.

The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike.

The cumulative effect of these partisan differences is enormous. If the pattern of income growth under postwar Republican presidents had matched the pattern under Democrats, incomes would be more equal now than they were in 1950 — a far cry from the contemporary reality of what some observers are calling a New Gilded Age.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-idealab-t.html

The Bush43 presidency has had its performance shortcomings and if included with the other 20 years of Republican rule would have resulted in uneven terms in office. So in fairness to the Republicans and because the Bush43 presidency is still going, albeit 94.7% complete, I tallied that administration separately from its four immediate Republican ancestors.

With twenty years on each side and since some of the ups and downs of the U.S. business cycle lie beyond the direct control of policymakers, one would expect similar results in the two groups. Not so. Instead, one discovers below a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.


% Per Annum Democrat Republican Bush43
GDP Growth________4.1%_____________2.9%__________2.2%
Employment________2.9%_____________1.7%__________0.5%
CPI_______________4.0%_____________5.1%__________3.0%
DJIA______________8.1%_____________6.5%__________0.9%
Dollar___________+0.8%____________-3.6%_________-5.9%

More: http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

If the deficit is your criteria, try checking into WHO GOT US INTO THIS HOLE! Hint - it was not Obama.

[brussell51]

77. popular myths on both sides; I won't be partisan

[csziggy]

80. The data is not partisan - check the second link

Too bad you did not take the time to read it. Apparently you only read the subject line, not the message.

[Realityhack]

89. Then be non-partisan and debunk the 'myth'.

we would all be better off dealing with facts rather than myths right?
And the facts are facts, they can be interpreted different ways but the facts are facts.
So tell the other poster what is wrong with that analysis.

FACT
The truth does NOT always lie between two extremes.

EXAMPLE
Just because 1 group claims that the WTCs were nuked, and 1 claims aircraft hit them doesn't mean one tower was nuked and an aircraft hit the other (credit and nod to XKCD).

Sometimes the truth is partisan.

[brussell51]

112. We don't have the luxury of time to debate whos at fault. It is an infinite argument

[Realityhack]

120. I disagree.

While it may be an infinite argument it is important to learn from our historical successes and mistakes to the best of our ability.
Just because you can't be 100% sure doesn't mean you don't try.
As an engineer you can't know for certain exactly what caused every failure you see right? Even the best research often disagrees. And you don't know that something will definitely be the most efficient way to achieve an end by the time something goes into production. There are different opinions sometimes all valid.
But that doesn't mean you don't bother trying to figure it out. You still put reasonable effort into it. And then you act with the best available information.

As I read the information I have seen, the best available information seems to indicate that programs like research grants, social security, school lunch, medicare, publicly funded basic health care, government oversite, and infrastructure, are all important things that have minimum spending levels before you loose more than you gain by cutting the funding.
It also tells me that we can re-estate the estate tax, moderately to severely increase taxes on the highest income earners, and close loopholes in the tax codes. All without a negative effect larger than the positive effect we archive.
It also tells me that there are places we should cut spending.

Now I am open to opposing viewpoints. And if you have the research to show that allowing temporary tax cuts to expire will be crushing then by all means let me see what you have to say. But NO I will NOT take it based on 'econ 101' that any specific change will have a net negative effect.

[brussell51]

127. temporary tax cuts are not an incentive to make hiring decisions

or to expand a business. They are correctly viewed by any business person as a very superficial manipulative thrust which don't affect the long-term decision making which they are designed to impact. They are a sham, a carrot, and accurately viewed as such by the audience.

[MUAD_DIB]

98. Spare me the concern, stinky. You clowns are the same ones

that have tried to challenge the fact that Obama is not an America.

You failed.

You clowns are the ones that want to keep the insurance companies fat and happy.


You are the clowns...

[muffin1]

119. So why do you folks wait until there's a "D" in office?

Bush virtually destroyed this country with his unnecessary war in Iraq that cost trillions of dollars. Then he he threw us from the frying pan into the fire by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of the population. The economy nearly COLLAPSED under HIS leadership.

Now, they are angry with President Obama for spending money to fix those problems? Yes, we are spending a lot of money. But it's money to put people to work (700,000 - 800,000 jobs lost during the last few months of Bush; down to about a 10th of that now).
It's money to get health insurance to the millions of people in this country that currently are struggling to survive without it.



I will never believe the anger we see in the majority of the teabaggers is about the deficit. If it was, they would have been out protesting years ago. It is about a black man in the White House, a black man they believe was born in KENYA. They craft racist signs showing Obama with bones on his head and in his nose. They "want their country back" - we all know what that means, too. They align themselves with extremists like Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beckkk, and Rush Limbaugh who feed their ignorance and then laugh at them all the way to the bank.

Let's just stop pretending this whole movement is something that it is not.

:evilfrown:

[Blue_Tires]

190. funny how after all the back-and-forth, there still hasn't been an answer

nor has there been an answer to why if the so-called 'movement' blames both parties, are they so incestuous with the GOP rw fringe...

[muffin1]

191. They are all insane.

BTW, I just looked over that thread again, and he's been TS'd.:)

[raccoon]

185. +1000. nt

[texastoast]

22. So John Kerry was right in 2004?

Pay as you go?

I knew it. Too bad those teabaggers didn't see the wisdom then. We might not be in this mess?

And where were the teabaggers when shrubbie handed out the big bucks to his Wall Street buddies--his base--and why are the teabaggers just now speaking up? And why are 99.9% of them white?

And so, if we quit taxation, what happens? Check the link below and see only the sunrise of "tax relief."

Those teabaggers will be whining like toddlers.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

[brussell51]

37. Hurray for Colorado Springs They get it!

Of course, the bureaucrats are always going to look for the most painful stuff first -- except their #1 expense -- their own salaries.

[Realityhack]

48. If you want to live in a 3rd world country be our guest... just not THIS country.

From that article you are chearing:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473
"The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need."

Not every budget is of equal importance.

[texastoast]

50. Nothing like a bunch of savory crumbling infrastructure

I wonder how long those idiots in their Hummers are going to be quiet when they hit a three-foot pothole in the dark on an icy night. I SOOO wish I could be there and laugh at their stupid asses.

Personally, I can't think of a better town I would wish it on, except I know that among the minority of voters who live there are some great DU'ers.

[brussell51]

51. when the keg runs dry -- you stop drinking. That's where we're at!

[texastoast]

53. Just tell me one thing

Can you tell me how the future will look in 20 years if we do not invest in infrastructure? You know, scorched earth--not one penny invested.

How does that look for you?

[brussell51]

64. Have you been to Caracas lately??

[texastoast]

150. No.

Point?

[brussell51]

156. It looks like Haiti

and it is the capital city of venezuela, which is bankrupt because they ruined their currency repeatedly through a lack of fiscal common sense. There are many, many other examples with a high degree of similarity.

[texastoast]

157. So, answer my question

What does your vision of America look like 20 years down the road if the country does not invest in its infrastructure?

How is it that Colorado Springs "getting it" helpful in maintaining our infrastructure? Who patches the potholes?

[brussell51]

169. Infinitely better, with no maintenance, than places where the currency failed.

[texastoast]

173. Alright

Are we still driving cars in your world where there is no spending on infrastructure? Or are we back to human-drawn carts?

[texastoast]

195. Figures you got tombstoned

Idiot.

[Realityhack]

24. Then why do the same people oppose increasing taxes to pay for it?

Your claim is blatantly demonstrably false.
The 'tea party' isn't about sound fiscal policy. They don't want to let temporary tax cuts expire, they don't want to increase revenues, and they aren't out there yelling 'balanced budget or bust'.
Broadly speaking these are NOT informed people.

PS. Breaking the rules gets you a Pizza.

[brussell51]

29. taking more money won't fix the problem of exploding spending

[spanone]

38. does you mom know you're on her puter?

[Realityhack]

42. Define 'exploding' speding.

Be specific.

Then tell us which parts of the budget are 'exploding' and why that is not OK.

You make it sound like spending is increasing exponentially. I think you will have a hard time justifying that POV using real actual math.

[spanone]

44. good luck

[Realityhack]

72. Might as well try before the Pizza arives.

I don't expect success but if we quit every time we think that we will be out a country.

[brussell51]

106. What do you want? Links? there are hundreds. The US is near default

[MUAD_DIB]

28. Hey, stinky. Did you run off?

[randr]

39. On this account the left and right may find agreement

However, it was the progressives who started asking how the hell is Bush going to pay for his invasion of Iraq.
It was the progressives who asked how the hell are we going to offset the tax breaks to the wealthy. The same wealthy class that ripped out domestic monetary system to shreds while taking home million dollar bonuses.
It was the progressives who asked how the hell will we pay for the increase in medicare costs. An increase I might add that came just before an election.
It is the progressives who are still asking for some accountability as to how we lost the surplus Clinton managed to amass.
It is the progressives who are asking an acknowledgment of responsibility if not an apology from the conservatives who just happened to lose track of their values for a few years.
I, as a tax paying middle income American, am astounded that with all this going on I still got my first tax cut in over 40 years.
I would like to thank the tea baggers for carrying the water on these issues, though I have yet to hear any of them assign responsibility or suggest how to keep the ship of state afloat.
I hope they will start to see clearer and find that the assholes that are still profiting from our mistakes are still calling the tune for them.

[brussell51]

52. We're BROKE. Everyone at fault! We need to deal with it.

[Hestia]

55. Let's see, we spend more on defense that the entire world combined - cut 60% of defense

viola! Balanced budget

[brussell51]

65. Personally, I agree. We can't be world's cops. TP would prolly disagree.

[Realityhack]

74. Cool some agreement.

So you agree that some programs are more bloated than others?
And as a corollary should be cut more severely?

[randr]

135. And the way we deal with it in America

is to elect, by majority, a government we think is smart enough to deal with it.

[brussell51]

144. The world is full of countries which have gone down the path we're on

It is a well-established pattern that representative democracies all wind up not managing fiscal policy very well. They usually ruin their currency totally. This country has already done that once or twice. Why go through that pain? Just to redistribute? The redistribution will work until people start getting hungry (about 2 weeks). Why don't we just go ahead and lead some more like we have in the past and show the world the correct path to chicken-in-every pot.? It is so easy.

[randr]

193. Well recognized path

The financial collapses have mostly come as a result of empire building. In our case, most recently, the cold war had us by the balls until it ended. Following the lowering of Military expenditures under Bush the father, it was easy for Clinton to rebuild the economy. Having the computer age emerge at the same time was significant.
Then the cold warriors took charge again and created the "war on terror" without any consideration of how to pay for it. Once again we find our attempts at empire have brought us to our knees.
The future is ours to make if we have the courage. The courage to end the senseless wars, the courage to challenge international corporations, and the courage to build a new America using models of sustainability.
Unfortunately for the next generation we have been divided and conquered by the people who have promised us peace and prosperity with out delivering on either over the last century.
If the middle class decides to act in its own interest, leaving petty issues aside, a future will emerge beyond our wildest dreams.

[The Gunslinger]

62. LOL Did you read that off of your hand...

Teaparty = Me me me mine mine mine!!!!!

[brussell51]

66. cute

[TwilightGardener]

149. Bullshit. Debt is not new. A black Democratic President is what's new.

[Courtesy Flush]

164. Save the coming-out meltdown for election night n/t

[newspeak]

170. gee, didn't Ronald Reagan triple the deficit?

Did a 28% decrease on taxes, especially to his wealthy friends-then * comes along decreases the taxes on his base (that's code word for guys with lots and lots of money already). Then * starts two wars--one based on massive untruths-but hey, Cheney had that secret energy meeting-those oil fields (which were nationalized by Iraq) looked mighty good to Cheney and *'s best buds, the oil corporations. And, as * cuts taxes and feeds money to the MIC(some unaccounted), cuts funds to some states, deregulates Wall Street further(his other buds), cuts social programs, gives corporations lucrative tax giveaways (even while they're transferring our jobs overseas), our infrastructure starts deteriorating, people are losing jobs, states are broke--but, hey, it's all Obama's fault. Where were the teabaggers two years ago? Huh?

Where were they when * was crapping on the constitution? Where were they when habeas corpus and posse comitatus was suspended? Where were they when the Patriot Act was passed? Where were they when * lied us into Iraq and Cheney had his behind closed doors energy meetings? Where were they when * was illegally wiretapping and torturing? Where were they?

[Contrary1]

18. $4.49 on Ebay. No bids yet.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mad-Hatters-Tea-Party-Little-Golden-Book_W0QQitemZ370329262776QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAntiquarian_Collectible?hash=item5639581ab8

[Hubert Flottz]

23. I think it's like when you're a Nazi, so you call everybody else one

so people will think you're not one...

[LeftishBrit]

58. Harshness. Greed. Xenophobia. Authoritarianism.

[spanone]

68. ok....'the debt'...that's one.....anything else?????

is that a value?

[The Wielding Truth]

92. Who said that tea bag or and announcer?

[spanone]

96. a teabagger who was a guest, i didn't get her name unfortunately

[MiniMe]

116. Pinkie up?

[w8liftinglady]

152. here ya go-from the website of a speaker at the teabag convention

http://www.homemakersforamerica.com/HFA-Issues.html

[Courtesy Flush]

163. Love the homosexual arguments

They seem to think that procreation is the only reason that people have partners. Given that, my marriage of 26 years is invalid, as we chose not to have children. Also, any couple that adopts wold be invalid, as any old gay couple could have done that. And don't get me started on post-menopausal marriage!

[Ganja Ninja]

153. Opposite marriage.

:shrug:

[Orsino]

167. Rich, white, right-wing president who gives lip service to Christianity.

That's about all it takes to shut 'em up, and it's why they were so remarkably quiet for the past couple of centuries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. Let's start with tests for people of certain skin color

before they can ahem vote. That will keep the negro threat down you know. (Sadly paraphrasing a nice piece of reportage of the 1890s). I mean the country would be much better if all states adopted the Mississippi plan...

:sarcasm: for those who need it.

By the way asking people what are the three branches of government is as hard these days as asking them who is the Solicitor General, but that is a whole different story and reflects on our lack of civic education. That does not mean I need voting tests... Mr. Tancredo is a racist and so are the tea baggers.

[KillCapitalism]

196. Hating the poor. n/t