Republican Tea Bagging is sweeping the nation!

[Typical TBD Guy]

Cuz what are they protesting against?

 

In essence, a Carter-style economic policy that will lead directly to:

 

1. Inflation

2. High interest rates

3. High unemployment

 

...resulting in:

 

1. Lower standard of living for all Americans

2. Loss of individual freedoms as government's powers expand

3. Prolonged recession for as long as Keynesian economic policies are maintained

[drnykterstein]

In essence, a Carter-style economic policy that will lead directly to:

 

1. Inflation

2. High interest rates

3. High unemployment

 

...resulting in:

 

1. Lower standard of living for all Americans

2. Loss of individual freedoms as government's powers expand

3. Prolonged recession for as long as Keynesian economic policies are maintained

 

I will try to ignore the fact that you pulled "carter-style" out of your ass because you don't want to say "Clinton-style" as Obama has said himself. Because you know full well that those tax rates improved the economy.

 

...

 

I guess... where is the data to back up those claims you just made? Personal philosophy is great and all, but running a country on philosophy probably is not a good idea. Take a look at the tax rates in the 50's, one of the greatest times of economic booms in our history. That is data. Look at FDR's tax rates and the improvements in the jobless rate. Look at Clinton's era and the tax rates and the improved economy.

 

And then on the other side of the coin.. look at either Bush, look at Coolidge, look at Nixon. Even your hero Regan, look at the national debt under him. His tax policies are lauded far and wide by you guys, but they were unsustainable just because of the national debt.

 

I trust Obama to respond to historical facts and figures and not some personal philosophy of any sort. He seems to be doing that.

 

 

 

At this point, you probably wish I were dead, too, huh? C'mon. Admit. It's okay.

Lol, come on, have you seen Da Big Man's posts????? They don't contribute to anything. I really just wish he would leave this board and never return. Even his rare football related posts are just insane.

 

Anyways, its pretty simple. This spending is an investment in the future of our country and economy and not meant to last. The difference is I believe Obama when he calls it that, the tea baggers do not.

[Wacka]

Lots of drivel deleted...

 

 

Are you really that retarded or just pretending to be?

 

Do you know anythng except what happened the last 10 years?

[Typical TBD Guy]

I will try to ignore the fact that you pulled "carter-style" out of your ass because you don't want to say "Clinton-style" as Obama has said himself. Because you know full well that those tax rates improved the economy.

 

...

 

I guess... where is the data to back up those claims you just made? Personal philosophy is great and all, but running a country on philosophy probably is not a good idea. Take a look at the tax rates in the 50's, one of the greatest times of economic booms in our history. That is data. Look at FDR's tax rates and the improvements in the jobless rate. Look at Clinton's era and the tax rates and the improved economy.

 

And then on the other side of the coin.. look at either Bush, look at Coolidge, look at Nixon. Even your hero Regan, look at the national debt under him. His tax policies are lauded far and wide by you guys, but they were unsustainable just because of the national debt.

 

I trust Obama to respond to historical facts and figures and not some personal philosophy of any sort. He seems to be doing that.

 

at this post. It's pretty late, so for now let me just focus on the bolded part above. Right there you at least acknowledge that a large national debt is unsustainable in the long term. That's a start. So if Obama wants his legacy to be that of a good president on economic issues, he must manage the debt he inherited from Bush. How? Well, he has 3 options:

 

1. Slash government spending.

2. Raise taxes.

3. Have the Federal Reserve print more money to make ends meet.

 

Option 1 is a joke, as we know Obama and Pelosi want to do very much the opposite over the next 2 years that will dwarf Bush's TARP. This will only further increase the absolute value of our national debt, made comparatively worse if the national GDP shrinks at the same time (it almost certainly will, as it already is).

 

Option 2 was a seemingly innocuous plan put forth by Obama during the campaign season, but also the reason why so many "white trash tea-baggers" have decided to protest on the eve of Tax Day. Obama claims that he wants to lower the taxes on most of America and only slightly raise taxes on the wealthiest 1-5%.

 

If that turns out to be a lie, then the protestors were correct in assuming that Obama - like all politicians - was lying to win votes. Even if Obama spares the middle class and raises exorbitant taxes on only the very wealthy, such a decision will further shrink the pool of already shrinking wealth producers in this nation (who, in turn, are the ones who provide the bulk of tax revenue in the first place).

 

If, however, Obama was telling the truth on his tax policy, then how on Earth are we going to balance the rapidly expanding national budget under the Democrats' watch? Because as it stands now, our deficit is MUCH bigger than when Bush left office. Which leads us to Option 3...

 

Option 3 has already been done under Obama's watch, but I fear a lot more is to come. This is perhaps more terrifying than any sort of income tax raise, as it will absolutely crush the poor and middle classes the most...the 95-99% of Americans whom Obama and the Democrats allegedly care for the most. The inflation results may take 2-3 years to be felt, but they will be felt.

 

I can already anticipate your retort to this post...that Option 1 will be a forced public "investment" in energy, health care, infrastructure, government jobs etc... which will prompt spending from the lower classes and wealth production from the investing classes so that just enough tax revenue can be collected under Obama's current tax plan to balance the budget. Two problems with that:

 

1. When has government ever been efficient in allocating its revenue resources for planned public tasks? Have you seen our public education system lately? How are the New Orleans levees doing? How well was Fannie and Freddie Mac managed? How often do public bureaucrats get fired for doing their job poorly?

2. You're assuming private investors and the free markets couldn't do this all more efficiently and FASTER if our politicians would actually release the litany of economic shackles that have been simultaneously placed on employers and laborers alike.

 

As a side note, please stop lumping me in with Republicans and conservatives. I'm libertarian and have never voted for a Republican in my life. Coolidge, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were all freedom-hating statists by my standards.

[drnykterstein]

1. Wacka, nice rebuttal. Your argument has me stumped I can't argue with those facts and figures. Very nice.

 

2. Mr. Blessing...

 

So lets forget these economy recovery spending's going on right now. Lots of money, yes but also they are one time expenditures. Investments in the economy.

 

As far as I know, his plan is a combination of options 1 and 2. Mostly option 1 though. From everything I gather he wants to reform health care (and has not yet released any plan yet) - and if/when he successfully does that, federal spending should drop a large amount.

 

I suppose everyone except me has ignored this quote by him - "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

 

But you said its a joke and don't believe him. I do.

 

And yes, raise taxes on the top 5% richest Americans. Think that plus the tax cuts for the middle class probably are a wash, but I haven't done the math. Either way I'm a fan because a middle class with more money, in my opinion, vastly improves the quality of life in the country. More people with more money tend to spend it and make the economy spin more than less people with more money (my opinion).

 

The energy stuff I think helps the economy and the long term health of our planet and country. As well as helping to keep us as a technological powerhouse. But I don't see how it helps the budget.

[Bishop Hedd]

Tea bagging!?! WTF?? Does the Republic party leadership know how ridiculous they look?

[Wacka]

They are tea parties. You perverted and sick lefties called them tea bagging. Something you're probably an expert at receiving.

[Bishop Hedd]

They are tea parties. You perverted and sick lefties called them tea bagging. Something you're probably an expert at receiving.

Ive got big balls, youve got big balls but Wackas got the biggest balls of them all!

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Wacka, nice rebuttal. Your argument has me stumped I can't argue with those facts and figures. Very nice.

 

2. Mr. Blessing...

 

So lets forget these economy recovery spending's going on right now. Lots of money, yes but also they are one time expenditures. Investments in the economy.

You don't have the first friggin clue that this is true. No one does. Obama's spending plan is exactly equivalent to a venture capital approach to investment in the economy. I doubt you know that model so here it is:

 

I take a pool of money from investors(in this case the taxpayers) and I invest it in 20 companies(government programs) in the hope that, while 18 of them will fail, the 2 that don't hit it big, huge in fact, enough to cover my losses in the 18 and also pay off a significant profit commensurate with the risk the investors took.

 

To wit:

1. neither you or Obama have any idea if spending cash on sustainable energy start-ups will produce anything but surplus grass, wasted time and money, and more debt.

2. I can guaran-fing-tee you that spending more money on health care IT at this point will be absolutely wasted. I can because I work in it a lot, and one of our main jobs is to look at the design of existing systems. They are schit, by any rational development standard. Giving more money to the idiots that made these things only produces more schit, faster. The new thing is: they want to integrate all these systems. Great. Obama will spend billions shipping the schitty data these systems produce around so that instead of massively screwing up one system at a time, he will ensure that the effect of each screw up is exponential. You don't give more money to incompetents of this caliber, you fire their asses. You might get lucky with 1 in 20 of these groups actually using Obama's money to make things better.

As far as I know, his plan is a combination of options 1 and 2. Mostly option 1 though.

Written confirmation of Obama being a "tax and spend" liberal. So much for "new ideas".

Fom everything I gather he wants to reform health care (and has not yet released any plan yet) - and if/when he successfully does that, federal spending should drop a large amount.

Retarded. Not only because of what I have already said but because:

1. They don't have a plan

2. They are listening to anyone who will return their call

3. They are allowing consultants to borrow their watch and tell them what time it is, and provide their "plan" for them.

4. Due to #1 and #3, they are going to dump a boatload of $$$ into firms like Accenture, and get 20 3 ring binders in return, but no actual solution, because nobody has that....according to Accenture.

5. Companies like Lockheed, SAIC, Accenture, EY, EDS and the rest of the usual suspect health care consulting outfits have 2-4 Billion dollar monthly payrolls. You honestly think that whatever health care reforms solutions they offer will ultimatley cost the government, and us, LESS? you think these projects will ever end?

Like I said, retarded. All of this is in my wheelhouse, so go ahead and argue, I dare you.

I suppose everyone except me has ignored this quote by him - "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

 

But you said its a joke and don't believe him. I do.

Words are nice. What actions so far, name one, leads you to believe that anything like the above has happened, is happening, or will happen?

And yes, raise taxes on the top 5% richest Americans. Think that plus the tax cuts for the middle class probably are a wash, but I haven't done the math.

How about this math: you need MORE money to spend MORE, right? Taking money from one group and giving it to another does NOTHING to create MORE money, it just moves it from one place to another. If we were to spend the same amount of money, then we could expect to be fine merely changing the % of where it comes from.

 

A "wash" is not what is needed for Obama's spending, he needs to get more money, which is why the middle class will not get a tax cut, but rather a tax increase.

Either way I'm a fan because a middle class with more money, in my opinion, vastly improves the quality of life in the country. More people with more money tend to spend it and make the economy spin more than less people with more money (my opinion).

Middle class spending is essential, no question. However, the middle class have to have jobs in order to spend. Massive tax increases = no middle class jobs = no middle class spending.

The energy stuff I think helps the economy and the long term health of our planet and country. As well as helping to keep us as a technological powerhouse. But I don't see how it helps the budget.

As I said, it's a trillion $$$ risk = to a crapshoot. I love it that we can't have 15% of our SSI go into the market, but it's ok for Obama to spend billions of start-up money growing grass.

[IDBillzFan]

From everything I gather he wants to reform health care (and has not yet released any plan yet)

And yet he is about to allocate $650 BILLION...got that?...BILLION of TAXPAYER MONEY as a mere DOWN PAYMENT for a plan that HAS NO !@#$ING PLAN! How could anyone in their right mind be okay with that? It is the single most reckless thing I have seen Obama push at this point. There is NO defending this. None. The only way you could possibly defend it is if you could show what kind of savings will ultimately come from this, but you can't because...say it with me now...HE HAS NO !@#$ING PLAN!

 

Irresponsible and reckless spending with no accountability. THIS is why people are pissed. THIS is why people are protesting this week. Go ahead and pretend that these tens of thousands of people simply "don't get it." The number will get much larger once they start realizing the free pass and entitlements Obama is giving to illegals like his dear auntie, an illegal on welfare, and like he is doing with the 27 illegals in Seattle who were handed WORK PERMITS even though they're here illegally. To Obama, that's just 28 more votes just as soon as ACORN can get these folks the proper paperwork.

[drnykterstein]

oh good lord, i dont have time to respond to all that. i'd just be repeating myself anyways.

 

.. whatever. basically i read that you think obama is ignorant and a liar. nothing i'll ever do to change your mind there. why even try.

 

whether you believe it or not, he is honest and intelligent though.

[Chef Jim]

oh good lord, i dont have time to respond to all that. i'd just be repeating myself anyways.

 

.. whatever. basically i read that you think obama is ignorant and a liar. nothing i'll ever do to change your mind there. why even try.

 

whether you believe it or not, he is honest and intelligent though.

 

You're basing this on what exactly?

[Alaska Darin]

oh good lord, i dont have time to respond to all that. i'd just be repeating myself anyways.

 

.. whatever. basically i read that you think obama is ignorant and a liar. nothing i'll ever do to change your mind there. why even try.

 

whether you believe it or not, he is honest and intelligent though.

You don't have "time"? That's the lamest response you've ever posted and that's quite an accomplishment. You're nothing more than a !@#$ing myna bird who repeats whatever he hears with the zeal of a two year old who's been promised a trip to Chucky Cheese.

 

You've got plenty of time. What you're missing is ability.

[Typical TBD Guy]

1. Wacka, nice rebuttal. Your argument has me stumped I can't argue with those facts and figures. Very nice.

 

2. Mr. Blessing...

 

So lets forget these economy recovery spending's going on right now. Lots of money, yes but also they are one time expenditures. Investments in the economy.

 

As far as I know, his plan is a combination of options 1 and 2. Mostly option 1 though. From everything I gather he wants to reform health care (and has not yet released any plan yet) - and if/when he successfully does that, federal spending should drop a large amount.

 

I suppose everyone except me has ignored this quote by him - "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

 

But you said its a joke and don't believe him. I do.

 

And yes, raise taxes on the top 5% richest Americans. Think that plus the tax cuts for the middle class probably are a wash, but I haven't done the math. Either way I'm a fan because a middle class with more money, in my opinion, vastly improves the quality of life in the country. More people with more money tend to spend it and make the economy spin more than less people with more money (my opinion).

 

The energy stuff I think helps the economy and the long term health of our planet and country. As well as helping to keep us as a technological powerhouse. But I don't see how it helps the budget.

 

Not entirely true. Certainly not in this particular economic climate. Giving tax breaks to the middle class is a very good thing, but a significant percentage of that money is going to go towards paying off debt and not towards consumption of goods and services like Barack Hussein Keynes hopes. I'd also argue that this tax cut money SHOULD go toward debt payments and general savings rather than further consumption. America needs fresh capital for a healthy economy in the long term, not continued borrowing from lending sources shrinking in size and in willingness to lend to a nation of materialism addicts.

 

By the way, why do you continue ignoring the role of the supply side? The wealthy 5% spend money as well, but their money goes to create the vast majority of JOBS in America; furthermore, whatever remaining jobs the government provides is only due to taxation revenue generated mostly from - surprise! - those 5% of wealthy Americans.

[IDBillzFan]

whether you believe it or not, he is honest and intelligent though.

I've met more than my share of people who were honest and intelligent, and still were complete !@#$ing morons. Don't sell Obama short. What you apparently need to do is check in with Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, DailyKos, etc. and find out what they think about Obama spending $650 BILLION as a down payment on a health care plan that has no !@#$king plan, and let us know how you should respond. We'll wait.

[Bad Lieutenant]

Irresponsible and reckless spending with no accountability. THIS is why people are pissed. THIS is why people are protesting this week. Go ahead and pretend that these tens of thousands of people simply "don't get it."

 

You do realize that "people are pissed" to the tune of Obama approval ratings in the 60's, right? If you're unaware of that then I'm sure you also don't know that these pitchfork carrying buffoons are the same people who campaigned and voted for John McCain-despite the fact he agreed with Obama on the 700 billion dollar Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last October. Since I'm sensing a trend in your ignorance it looks like I'll also have to remind you that GWB presided over 8 years of "irresponsible and reckless spending with no accountability" and guess what- there wasn't a single Tea Bag Party! And what about the Reagan 80's when the conservative mantra was "deficits don't matter" and The Gipper tripled the deficit? I'm sure all the white trash were riding about on their mechanical pigs with "PORK DC" signs, right? Well, not exactly.

[IDBillzFan]

You do realize that "people are pissed" to the tune of Obama approval ratings in the 60's, right? If you're unaware of that then I'm sure you also don't know that these pitchfork carrying buffoons are the same people who campaigned and voted for John McCain-despite the fact he agreed with Obama on the 700 billion dollar Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last October. Since I'm sensing a trend in your ignorance it looks like I'll also have to remind you that GWB presided over 8 years of "irresponsible and reckless spending with no accountability" and guess what- there wasn't a single Tea Bag Party! And what about the Reagan 80's when the conservative mantra was "deficits don't matter" and The Gipper tripled the deficit? I'm sure all the white trash were riding about on their mechanical pigs with "PORK DC" signs, right? Well, not exactly.

In other words, you are okay with making a $650B down payment on a health care plan that has no plan. So noted.

 

Liberals: Justifying their own incompetence by pointing it out in others.

[OCinBuffalo]

oh good lord, i dont have time to respond to all that. i'd just be repeating myself anyways.

 

.. whatever. basically i read that you think obama is ignorant and a liar. nothing i'll ever do to change your mind there. why even try.

 

whether you believe it or not, he is honest and intelligent though.

No. I agree that Obama is very likely honest and intelligent. How else could he have come out of Chicago without 1000 scandals? He had to be extremely honest to resist those scumbags, and extremely smart to avoid their entanglements without them getting their hooks into him(benefit of the doubt).

 

The problem is not whether he is honest and intelligent, the problem is his other traits.(or the traits of his people)

 

Let me put on my "ex-big 6" hat for a second and in that persona, tell you what they are likely to be thinking:

(Disclaimer: There's a reason I don't work for them anymore, and won't ever, no matter how many recruiters they send)

 

"I think Obama is a "f'ing lamb", and so are his people. I think any strategic/enterprise IT management consultant, sees a client like Obama and his people and starts licking their chops, so we need to get to them first. They have all the things you want in a client:

1. hubris

2. ignorance and no time to get a clue

3. a need to see every problem as simple therefore quickly and easily solved, and need to tell others(US taxpayers) that the problem is being solved

4. deeeeeeep pockets

5. the seriously mistaken belief that they are smarter than we are

6. power drunk

 

This means that we will ask for ridiculous sums of money, get it because they can't be seen as "not getting it" and they "wanna be" just as elite as we are(don't forget this is a persona), pay us, and then lock us in because they won't be able to walk away from the $$$ they already dumped into our projects. Basically we will rob them blind, and they will thank us for it; they'll even defend us. Essentially the mother of all "emporer's new clothes" scenarios, and I get to write government checks to myself."

 

There's a lot more, but I don't like that persona, and I trust the point has been made.

 

As I said, Obama is very likely honest and intelligent, but if he is also the other things I have listed, and more importantly, if his people are, it won't matter. They will be $10 Billion into it before they know it, and by then it will be too late.

[Chef Jim]

You do realize that "people are pissed" to the tune of Obama approval ratings in the 60's, right? If you're unaware of that then I'm sure you also don't know that these pitchfork carrying buffoons are the same people who campaigned and voted for John McCain-despite the fact he agreed with Obama on the 700 billion dollar Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last October. Since I'm sensing a trend in your ignorance it looks like I'll also have to remind you that GWB presided over 8 years of "irresponsible and reckless spending with no accountability" and guess what- there wasn't a single Tea Bag Party! And what about the Reagan 80's when the conservative mantra was "deficits don't matter" and The Gipper tripled the deficit? I'm sure all the white trash were riding about on their mechanical pigs with "PORK DC" signs, right? Well, not exactly.

 

This is not a spending revolt. This is a tax revolt. You do know the difference right?

[blzrul]

This is not a spending revolt. This is a tax revolt. You do know the difference right?

So since taxes are decreasing on most of these people, they should probably find something else to B word about. Like spending.