Like it's some mystery that the libs are hypocrites! 5000 tea partyers in Washington State alone.
Of course they want to downplay it. That and claim Fox orchestrated the whole event...
Same old bullshit, different day.
Why no "tea" Parties under Bush?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Like it's some mystery that the libs are hypocrites! 5000 tea partyers in Washington State alone.
Of course they want to downplay it. That and claim Fox orchestrated the whole event...
Same old bullshit, different day.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yeah, so allow the government to pick some number and you will pay it.
i don't think you believe that. how much is "just enough"? what the government tells you? how do you know?
trust me, the 250K thing is a distraction. obama has been approving/raising taxes with all sorts of new tax hikes. oh, those are voluntary taxes because you don't have to buy those products.
you're a smart guy, why do you believe the government knows better than you do....with regards to your money than you do?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so the "right" should just give up....is that what you are saying?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
If you want to make legislative changes, try winning elections.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Like you've got balls to do anything.
Dropped precipitously? In 1984 if was at 22.1%. 1985 was 22.8%. 1986 was 22.5%. In fact, it didn't go below 21% until 1995. And for the record, for Reagan's first budget (1981) it was at 22.2%. Last year (2008) it was at 21%.
Yes, 2009 will see a high percentage but the long term projections have it at about 22% for the next ten years, which is pretty much the same as the average from 1981-1994.
And I didn't hear peep about "generational mortgage" then either.
Then you weren't listening. I've been talking about it for at least a decade and I know I've presented the idea here. Each time you would tell me, "Well, it's Bush in office." and Desh would chime in how the Ds would fix it because they are so much more fiscally responsible.
Well, it's not Bush anymore, and they are not fixing it.
We need to back off from this insane level of spending. We have the income of a first year elementary teacher at a parochial school and are trying to continue to spend like we have the income of a tenured college professor at Harvard. When we grow again and are flush with cash we'll still overspend our income, and with pride we'll hear how the deficit spending was "halved", with nary a word on how it was first quadrupled for an effective doubling. Stimulus isn't permanent, but the programs "we" create today are.
Well why are you lying about Reagan's spending, Bush I's spending and Bush II's spending as compared to Obama? You bring up some dumbass talking point about WWII levels of spending (I would note also for the record that WWII spending is what finally brought us out of the Great Depression) and how Obama is planning on keeping levels of spending permanently high when really he's just doing what every Republican president since Reagan has done.
And D's are more fiscally responsible. Everyone spends. It's just that Republicans pretend that they can spend and cut taxes at the same time and magically increase revenue. There are two sides to the deficit picture.
I'm not, I'm complaining about Reagan's spending. And Bush's, And Clinton's, And Nixon's, And LBJ's...
For 40 years now we have overspent in good times and in bad. This isn't Keynesian. Keynes says to overspend only in the bad times. It's simply insanity. A whole generation of Americans now believes that this level of government is what you get for the taxes that we pay while we pass on the debt to the next generations. It's planned fiscal failure to continue to only pay the interest on a debt we accrue over generations. Then to be "proud" of "halving" the deficit that he quadrupled? Geez. I can't figure out why somebody didn't speak out before this... other than they have, they just haven't taken to the streets until now. Now is a good time.
Fair enough. But forgive me if I feel that deciding that now is a good time is a tad convenient and is nothing more than people upset with recent electoral defeat as opposed to a principled stance against what has gone on for 40 years.
And I still don't see why you felt the need to lie about Obama's proposed spending levels.
It isn't a lie, it is a truth.
And one more time for the Obamalzheimer patient.
I agree, I think that it was the "last straw", so to speak. Nobody ran that upheld what they believed, what I believe as well.
While you say it is the only reason, I point out to you the myriad reasons that were "also rans". While you think there were no other contestants.
The reality is these people are not represented in our government currently, nor have they been for some time. While Rs had some power there was some hope they could gain sanity and hold back their spending throes, but they didn't and they paid for it by losing the support of this demographic. I don't know about other states, but in CO the largest registered group are Independants, the majority of which are fiscal-only conservatives. These are the people that held back votes for the Rs and won the day for Obama/Democrats in this state.
The numbers were far larger than the first of the war protests in the US. They'll either grow or it will fizzle out. But at this time, it appears as if they'll grow.
Again, this had more than 1,000,000 people nationwide.
The numbers were larger than the first of the war protests, and I believe that they will get even larger (not than the war protests got, but larger than they were this first day.)
What is a truth? You lied about Reagan's spending (there was not precipitous drop). You lie about Obama's current spending (it isn't anywhere close to WWII spending levels as a percentage of GDP). And you lie about Obama's long-term budget projections (roughly 22% of GDP, in line with every president since Nixon, except of course Clinton who, through the benefit of slightly higher taxes and a robust economy had spend drop to about 18% of GDP).
True, I said 'Precipitous' and should not have, the 'errors' that are found in conversation. WWII spending was at 22% at the end of the war, it is at that level. It is a truth.
It is also true that he has quadrupled the deficit spending including the war spending, even before he asked for money for the war. It is also true that he promised to "halve" that deficit. You can do the math on your own.
While you can call that "convenient", they are at the very least a contributor to the protests.
