The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

Federal government spending has risen from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.8 trillion in 2011, a 100% increase. Federal government revenues grew from $2.0 trillion in 2001 to $2.5 trillion in 2008, before collapsing to $2.2 trillion today. GDP over this same time frame has grown 47%. The annual Federal budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. Annual deficits between 2002 and 2008 ranged between 1% and 4% of GDP. Since 2009, annual budget deficits have exceeded $1.1 trillion and will continue to exceed $1 trillion as far as the eye can see.

Annual deficits now exceed 10% of GDP. The Federal government spends in excess of $1.2 trillion per year on the cost of present and past wars, or 55% of all tax revenues. With a gun to their head from Wall Street banks, Congress handed over $700 billion of taxpayer money to the criminal banks that had just crashed the worldwide economic system with their casino gambling. These banks have been getting free money from the Federal Reserve since 2008 and have rewarded themselves with in excess of $70 billion in bonuses since 2008. Obama handed $800 billion of pork to his constituents across the country in order to create 3.5 million jobs. The $800 billion is gone and we’re still waiting for the jobs.
The home buyer tax credit scheme cost Americans $22 billion, or $100,000 per additional home sold, and home prices are now 5% lower than they were before this worthless Keynesian scam. And prices continue to fall. The Cash for Clunkers debacle cost Americans $3 billion, or $24,000 per junked car, as a payoff to Government Owned Motors and Obama’s union backers. The taxpayer bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has cost Americans $160 billion so far, with at least another $150 billion to go.

The Federal Reserve tripled their balance sheet to $2.7 trillion and is now leveraged 55 to 1, twice the leverage of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers when they failed. A 2% decline in the value of their assets wipes out their capital. The government and Federal Reserve threatened the FASB into changing the accounting rules so the Too Big To Fail Wall Street banks could fraudulently report the value of the assets on their books, to appear solvent. Obamacare will add 30 million people to the government controlled healthcare system, while adding mountains of new bureaucracy, and trillions of added costs. And last but not least, the country goes $4 billion further into debt every day. Or for further perspective: $166 million per hour; $2.8 million per minute; $46,000 per second.

Link

Not that I liked Bush's spending either Obama's spending really takes the cake.
Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion to $14.2 trillion by February 2011

It seems as though its exactly the way that a democratic form of government is supposed to function. They may be a congressional minority, but that does not mean that they have no influence. On the contrary, one vote can mean the difference between passage and failure of a bill, and you're talking about over 80. So maybe they're being obstinate, and maybe their ideas are just flat out wrong. They still have a constitutional right to their opinion and a constitutional right to cast their vote in the manner that they...and no one else... believe will best serve their constituents.

The thing I have a little trouble with, is the fact the Tea Parties began in 2009, less than one year after Obama took office. Would the Tea Party still have got together say if it had been Mccain and Palin who won in 2008. Would they have been labelled marxists and socialists, just 12 months into their leadership. You can be pretty sure they would still be in the wars, with possibly a greater involvement in Libya under a Mccain presidency and you can be sure that the debt would be just as big.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
The thing I have a little trouble with, is the fact the Tea Parties began in 2009, less than one year after Obama took office. Would the Tea Party still have got together say if it had been Mccain and Palin who won in 2008. Would they have been labelled marxists and socialists, just 12 months into their leadership. You can be pretty sure they would still be in the wars, with possibly a greater involvement in Libya under a Mccain presidency and you can be sure that the debt would be just as big.

Would hope so. As McCain is just as bad as Obama.
One is slower to the punch then the other.

reply to post by inforeal


you fail to understand that a debt ceiling raise without PROPER legislation to go with it is worse than not raising the debt ceiling. just because congress passes something in time doesn't mean its worth anything.

if the deficit isn't less than zero, the country continues on its death march. we need higher taxes, cut the loopholes big companies use to get out of paying what the owe, and to reduce spending like crazy.

failing to raise the debt ceiling will force the government to cut spending and raise taxes, which is what we need, but neither side has gone far enough. it would be like a balanced budget amendment. the world won't explode.

they are neither anti-democratic, nor abusing power. you seem to be too partisan to see what the country needs to fix itself.

reply to post by Flatfish
So, why not move to California? They almost have their socialist utopia completed. No tea party influence, you should be golden there, right? I hope you don't need a job when you get there though.

reply to post by macman


That's fair enough then, but what would have Sarah Palin done, would she have stepped down as VP so she could join the Tea Party just 12 months into being elected?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Flatfish

 

So, why not move to California? They almost have their socialist utopia completed. No tea party influence, you should be golden there, right? I hope you don't need a job when you get there though.

No job needed. The Govt will pay for everything.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by macman

 

That's fair enough then, but what would have Sarah Palin done, would she have stepped down as VP so she could join the Tea Party just 12 months into being elected?

Don't know. My crystal ball is in my other pants and my magic 8 ball is broken.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by inforeal

 

People voted the tea party in as a gut reaction.
It was like getting pissed and smashing a vase.
Now you have to pick up the pieces, and your vase is broken.

I'm sure the states who sent these new congressmen to Washington, now see they made a terrible mistake. You can tell the most competent congessmen are ready to stangle them. Most certainly the states do see it as they are the ones keeping even the Republican party from doing their jobs. They've been holding the whole country hostage with this most unreliable and unintelligent game.

Can those states begin some kind of impeachment process, or reel them back home by outright firing them; not allowing them to finish their terms?

Bizarre discussion.

The Tea Party isn't against taxation at all that I can tell.

What they seem to be most against is sharing the proceeds.

Everything, every single thing they are trying to cut has to do with that. SSI, Social Security, Medicare, Pell grants, etc., all stuff that effects the bottom half of society, in the ranks.

Where are the Tea Party calls to downsize the military, eliminate the TSA, Homeland Security, and end the wars on Terrror and Drugs? Where are the calls to downsize the prisons and stop holding at huge expense the world's largest prison population? Where are the calls to end corporate subsidies and tax loopholes? Where are the calls for corporate responsibility?

Where is the demand for jobs for Americans, to put America to work and earn our way out of debt?

If they are for responsibility, where is the reform bill for the financial sector that created this mess in the first place? If they are really against the Federal Reserve, then why aren't they holding out for changes to that?

The Tea Party is a fraud, filled with traitors at the top, and really ignorant (smart, maybe, but abysmally ignorant of everything but money), casually callous people who desperately want change, but haven't thought through, aren't willing to think through, the consequences of various options.

Most of the thinking displayed by those describing themselves as Tea Party on this forum in various threads have shown themselves to lack (by my standards) any depth of knowledge of real history (the kind from multiple sources backed by artifacts, geology, geography, memoirs, etc), economics (again the real stuff, not Ayn Rand/Laffer Curve/Wall Street fantasies, the stuff derived from the study of multiple cultures on multiple continents in multiple eras, and actually successfully operating in multiple genuine economies unsupported and unfavored by the local powers), sociology, anthropology, the dynamics of education, or pretty much anything that demands actual rigor and focus of dispassionate thought that accepts the implications of what the assembled facts lay out.

They can tell you an awful lot about money, though: how to get it, protect it, and keep it where you want it, because that's what they really, truly care about. Couldn't, wouldn't give two figs for the country, though: too damn many drooling liberal, commie, socialist freeloaders in it for their tastes.

At least that's what it looks like to me, based on what I've read here that they've posted in various threas.

Btw the way, I'm moving and have been forced to cull my library (books go into my library after I've read them and decided they were worth keeping). The culls number over three hundred, leaving me a mere 1500 or so I can't bear to part with for a variety of reasons.

I want to stress that I've actually read all those books and can quote from Zulu history and discuss their brand of economics as easily as ours, as well as explain why certain Philippino headhunters never kept the heads, and show you how the equations the surfer physics dude came up with for the newest theory of everything resemble a Rubic's cube. I have a really cool book that has maps showing the positions of the guerrilla gunboats that screwed up the British plans at the Battle of New Orleans: very compelling tales in it. I'm NOT trying to brag here. These are just part of my normal. I've read a huge amount more than most people do over a far broader range of subjects. I've spent months in excellent libraries studying books no one opened in decades, painfully translating old usages into comprehension, just because I wanted to know something for sure.

What the Tea Party is doing, from my perspective, is dangerously deadly to the good of the nation. They mean well, but are in the end too ignorant and too emotionally involved in money for what they are attempting to do. It will not end well unless they wake up to broader realities and learn how to be responsible citizens of a wildly and happily diverse nation.

reply to post by angeldoll

You can tell the most competent congessmen are ready to stangle them.

You mean the likes Of the Honorable Charlie Rangel,Dodd and Franks? Please...., We need term limits.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
The thing I have a little trouble with, is the fact the Tea Parties began in 2009, less than one year after Obama took office. Would the Tea Party still have got together say if it had been Mccain and Palin who won in 2008. Would they have been labelled marxists and socialists, just 12 months into their leadership. You can be pretty sure they would still be in the wars, with possibly a greater involvement in Libya under a Mccain presidency and you can be sure that the debt would be just as big.

The only positive of a McCain Presidency would be if the stress was too much for him thus allowing a President Palin to set thing right in the world.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Then why did Ronald Reagan denounce people for threatening not to raise it?
He said IT HAD TO BE RAISED OR THE US WOULD DEFAULT.

Usually the debt limit is raised by a one sentence bill, which has been done many times.

This is the first time that some political kamikazes’ have threatened to expose the US gov to default if they don’t get their extremist political views enacted.

Turn the question around.

How will you feel when and if an extreme liberal group does the same thing and threatens default if they don’t get their extreme views enacted. How would you feel then?

Originally posted by inforeal
How will you feel when and if an extreme liberal group does the same thing and threatens default if they don’t get their extreme views enacted. How would you feel then?

If a person wanted to twist it the way you are, then that same argument could indeed be made about the Democratic party and Obama right now. Afterall, if the *only* thing that matters is avoiding an imminent default, they could just as easily vote for the GOP plan which would prevent that from happening.

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by inforeal
How will you feel when and if an extreme liberal group does the same thing and threatens default if they don’t get their extreme views enacted. How would you feel then?

If a person wanted to twist it the way you are, then that same argument could indeed be made about the Democratic party and Obama right now. Afterall, if the *only* thing that matters is avoiding an imminent default, they could just as easily vote for the GOP plan which would prevent that from happening.

But, but. but that is not the plan THEY want. So, it was achieved by evil means, illegally or what ever you want to add.

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer


So there would have been no need for a tea party had Palin got into the White house. OK that makes it a bit clearer for me.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer

 

So there would have been no need for a tea party had Palin got into the White house. OK that makes it a bit clearer for me.

No. Because the Tea Party was created before Palin arrived on scene.

And No, because no matter how much we like a Politician, they are still a Politician. I trust none of them.

reply to post by angeldoll


I'm interested in your definition of "competent congressman". Does that mean and indepth understanding of how the machine of government works? Expert knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order or Senate or House rules? Deep relationships with the real power brokers in Washington? Regular invitations to high-brow Georgetown parties? Inside sources within the media establishment in which to leak information and control debate?

I'm curious. What makes Harry Reid more "competent" in designing legislation than any of the posters on this tread at the moment? Because he has muscled juice from the Nevada gaming industry and Indian tribes? Because he knows how to apply back room pressure to folks? Because he knows what folks weaknesses are and can exploit them? He is certainly not known for his intelligence. He is certainly not a charismatic figure. What makes him "competent"? I would argue that the very things that the establishment uses as a measure of his competence actually makes him incompetent to represent the real needs of the country.

This entire notion of elected offical competent is nothing more than a ruse. Half of these folks could not run a hot dog truck, yet they have us believe that they are indespensible. They argue that it is the 20+ years they have spent in Washington that makes them so valuable.

It is the 20 years in Washington that has made them unqualified for the positions they hold, not the other way around.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Geez, how can people be so ignorant of California?

It as about as right-wing as it gets in most of it, albeit with a slightly tolerant California twist to it.

The California the eastern foreigners think exists died back in the eighties or early seventies. It's been a corpocracy since the late nineties.