Tea Parties

[hellblazer]

Any President that subscribes to the Keynesian school of economics would be spending like a motherfucker right now.

Any President that spends as Obama has is a fiscal moron, period. You can attempt to justify and rationalize it like a weasel if you want, but you can't slither away from the fact that it's the worst possible thing to do at this time. Keynesian economics is SHIT, and that's your best defense of your boy? Pitiful.

The side by side comparison of the Obama deficit to the Bush deficit is dishonest.

No, it isn't. You just don't like having your boy exposed, so you wail like a little baby, hurling insults when your feeble brain is confronted with the truth. Face it; this level of spending is UNPRECEDENTED. In case you don't know what that means, it means it is without precedent.

Bush coulda done it, McCain coulda done it, aliens coulda done it, but they didn't. Your boy Obama did. That's reality. Deal with it. Stop defending a POS that's destroying our currency. Keynesian economics sucks, he's exposing us to hyperinflation dangers, and meanwhile you're sitting there with your thumb up your ass swallowing his propaganda whole. Repulsive.

 

[guerilla]

You're wrong. Even if someone were to support Bush's spending, they would still have a case that Obama's was much, much larger.

You're just arguing magnitude, not principle.

Without principles, there is no higher morality.

 

[hellblazer]

You're just arguing magnitude, not principle.

Without principles, there is no higher morality.

No, I'm arguing precedent. If you look at the past administrations, you'll see that Bush kept his deficits pretty much equal to past ones. Obama doesn't even come close. He's breaking the trend. His spending is an anomaly.

You said those that bitch about Obama's spending have to complain about Bush's too when that's just flat out wrong. Bush wasn't unprecedented in his spending - Obama was. Bush didn't break the pattern of deficit size - Obama did. Stop making this bullshit equivalence argument leftwingers try to shove down everyones throat. It's not working.

 

[guerilla]

No, I'm arguing precedent. If you look at the past administrations, you'll see that Bush kept his deficits pretty much equal to past ones. Obama doesn't even come close. He's breaking the trend. His spending is an anomaly.

No, you are arguing magnitude. You're not against deficits, you're not against socialism, you just don't think socialism and deficits should grow too fast.

You said those that bitch about Obama's spending have to complain about Bush's too when that's just flat out wrong. Bush wasn't unprecedented in his spending - Obama was. Bush didn't break the pattern of deficit size - Obama did. Stop making this bullshit equivalence argument leftwingers try to shove down everyones throat. It's not working.

Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years.

It's not about equivalence. It's about realizing that right and left don't work for their so-called constituencies. They both are for big government, big debt, big socialism, more war and less liberty.

 

[LogicFlux]

Any President that spends as Obama has is a fiscal moron, period. You can attempt to justify and rationalize it like a weasel if you want, but you can't slither away from the fact that it's the worst possible thing to do at this time. Keynesian economics is SHIT, and that's your best defense of your boy? Pitiful.

First off, fuck off and eat a turd, dickhead. He's not my boy.
Second of all, if you really believe it's not the thing to do, then join the Ron Paul revolution. At least you would be in a camp with people who honestly espouse fiscal conservatism instead of defending and attempting to absolve a group of people who gave up all semblance of principle in their purported fiscal conservatism when they had control over the purse strings.

No, it isn't. You just don't like having your boy exposed, so you wail like a little baby, hurling insults when your feeble brain is confronted with the truth. Face it; this level of spending is UNPRECEDENTED. In case you don't know what that means, it means it is without precedent.

The level of crisis is unprecedented. And how did we get here? Are you willing to forgive and forget the 8 years of Bush including 6 years that all three branches of government were controlled by republicans and in which the debt was doubled? The Bush years were the bubble years. This happened on Bush's watch. Now I'm not a big enough moron or enough of a party liner to blame it on Bush, there is a lot of blame to go around, but to try to pin this on Obama, when he simply inherited the crisis is fucking retarded, especially considering that any mainstream politician would be spending big right now.

Bush coulda done it, McCain coulda done it, aliens coulda done it, but they didn't.

Bush did do it dickhead, at least more than Obama. Obama was nobody when investment banks' books were being leveraged 40:1; when derivatives were being bought and sold and essentially leveraged by selling insurance on OTHER people's debt, many times over. Obama wasn't sitting around watching an unregulated mortgage market fistfuck the borrowers and others who were buying the debt.

Keynesian economics sucks

Then go buy a Ron Paul bumper sticker and stop sticking up for the hypocritical fuckwads who played a big part in creating the problem.

 

[hellblazer]

Second of all, if you really believe it's not the thing to do, then join the Ron Paul revolution. At least you would be in a camp with people who honestly espouse fiscal conservatism instead of defending and attempting to absolve a group of people who gave up all semblance of principle in their purported fiscal conservatism when they had control over the purse strings.

Ron Paul is masterful with fiscal policy, foreign policy not so much. Staying alive comes first to me, then having money.

any mainstream politician would be spending big right now...

No, they wouldn't. That's retarded. Who spends like this when we're 10 trillion in debt, are suffering anemic economic growth - and then spends on social programs that have no chance of generating revenue?

If we're going to spend money on something, for the love of GOD let it be tax cuts. I would shut my fucking mouth right now if Obama had spent 1 trillion dollars in tax cuts. Just across the board, cut the corporate tax, capital gains tax. At least I'd feel like there's a possibility of getting something fucking back. But this? Unemployment money? Healthcare? ACORN? This is pissing money down a hole.

Bush did do it dickhead, at least more than Obama.

Obama wasn't sitting around watching an unregulated mortgage market fistfuck the borrowers and others who were buying the debt.

More than Obama? You must be smoking something that ain't legal. On a year-by-year average, Obama exceeds Bush by far. And it wasn't even a problem that the market was 'unregulated' or that people were buying debt - the problem was that it was SHITTY mortgages that were going to default.

Obama's thugs at ACORN are the ones who brought about the legislative changes that made it possible for those SHITTY mortgages to even be in existence. His boys did it. Then they stormed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's offices and made them buy 1 trillion dollars of shitty mortgages. Obama's boys did that.

I'm sick of when someone criticizes Obama, and ALL anyone can say is "Yeah? So? Bush did it too!"

BUSH IS GONE. The man is fucking gone, probably vacationing or writing a book or some shit. Eventually you'll have to direct your focus on the one shitting on our country, the man you all voted for, the one the only - Obama.

 

[LogicFlux]

No, they wouldn't. That's retarded. Who spends like this when we're 10 trillion in debt, are suffering anemic economic growth - and then spends on social programs that have no chance of generating revenue?

Who spends like this? Like I said before, anyone who subscribes to Keynesian economics, which is most of the people in both of the major parties. The biggest difference is what it would be spent on.

Unemployment money?

You are outraged at the thought of people getting unemployment benefits, yet you have no problem with the people who caused their unemployment.

More than Obama? You must be smoking something that ain't legal. On a year-by-year average, Obama exceeds Bush by far. And it wasn't even a problem that the market was 'unregulated' or that people were buying debt - the problem was that it was SHITTY mortgages that were going to default.

So the problem wasn't that the mortgages were given to people they shouldn't have been given to because of an improperly regulated market, the problem was that they were going to default.
Wow, where do you work, are you the head tautologist there?

Freddie/Fannie played a part in buying up mortgages in the secondary market but they didn't cause the problem. And Bush also supported the initiatives to get more people into home ownership.

You can't blame the government for trying to lower credit barriers and at the same time absolve those who would let the institutions leverage themselves by ungodly ratios and let the financial markets devise any financial instruments they could at any whim, regardless of its risk.

Obama's thugs at ACORN are the ones who brought about the legislative changes that made it possible for those SHITTY mortgages to even be in existence. His boys did it. Then they stormed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's offices and made them buy 1 trillion dollars of shitty mortgages. Obama's boys did that.

I haven't heard one serious economist or financial wizard bring up Fannie, Freddie or ACORN as the sole culprits. The only people I've heard trying to stick the problem on these institutions/organizations are staunch partisan democrat/Obama haters.

I have a source from the most recent winner of the Nobel prize in economics saying it wasn't Freddie and Fannie. And while he may be a lib, he still has the most prestigious credential in his field to back it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html

Give me something similarly credible from a recognized expert to show Freddie, Fannie and ACORN caused this problem.

I'm sick of when someone criticizes Obama, and ALL anyone can say is "Yeah? So? Bush did it too!"

BUSH IS GONE. The man is fucking gone, probably vacationing or writing a book or some shit. Eventually you'll have to direct your focus on the one shitting on our country, the man you all voted for, the one the only - Obama.

Your criticism of current events is inextricably tied to events in the past administration. We can not seriously have this conversation while pretending that time and all of existence just came about on Jan. 20th of this year.

And for the record, I am not a partisan dickhead who defends one side no matter what the circumstances, because either I am to blind to see facts or because they serve an overall purpose or goal. I think both parties suck and both have had a big hand in this mess and yes that includes Dodd and Frank.

 

[popeye]

Your criticism of current events is inextricably tied to events in the past administration. We can not seriously have this conversation while pretending that time and all of existence just came about on Jan. 20th of this year.

In most cases you would be correct. BO has only been in office a few months but what he has done in those few months disqualify his "honeymoon period". He has spent more in his few months than all of the presidents put together in history.

 

[LogicFlux]

In most cases you would be correct. BO has only been in office a few months but what he has done in those few months disqualify his "honeymoon period". He has spent more in his few months than all of the presidents put together in history.

Let's assume for a minute that Obama really is a socialist/commie infiltrator that wants to eat your baby and ruin America. You still would have to admit that for the past eight years the republicans had complete control for 3/4 of it, and that their unprecedented rubber stamping of the president's policies, doubling of the debt and obliviously standing by while the credit bubble was happening, all the while proclaiming how well things were(things are always good in a bubble, that's why they're called bubbles), has given the anti-christ known as Obama leverage in his wholesale destruction of America.

In other words, when Obama says, more or less, that you guys can fuck off with your criticism because you've lost credibility, he's right. And it's a shame because we need a party with credibility on fiscal conservatism.

But I didn't hear any so called conservative republicans bitching between 2000 and 2006. Where were they? It's easy to take a principled stand when you have nothing to lose for it and everything to gain.

 

[popeye]

Let's assume for a minute that Obama really is a socialist/commie infiltrator that wants to eat your baby and ruin America. You still would have to admit that for the past eight years the republicans had complete control for 3/4 of it, and that their unprecedented rubber stamping of the president's policies, doubling of the debt and obliviously standing by while the credit bubble was happening, all the while proclaiming how well things were(things are always good in a bubble, that's why they're called bubbles), has given the anti-christ known as Obama leverage in his wholesale destruction of America.

In other words, when Obama says, more or less, that you guys can fuck off with your criticism because you've lost credibility, he's right. And it's a shame because we need a party with credibility on fiscal conservatism.

But I didn't hear any so called conservative republicans bitching between 2000 and 2006. Where were they? It's easy to take a principled stand when you have nothing to lose for it and everything to gain.

You do remember we were and are still in a war. Wars usually put countries into decifits. I will once again state that I do not support all of the liberal policies of GB but he did for 6 years maintain a booming economy. More people purchased homes in his admin (including minorities) than any admin in history. Yes it got us into problems but so did the Internet bust of the Clinton admin. This Obama guy is doing shit that makes no sense. It defys logic and if he puts in cap and trade like he says he is it will ruin our country.

 

[guerilla]

He has spent more in his few months than all of the presidents put together in history.

And Bush equaled the debt accumulated by 200 years of government in only 8 years.

That's the point.

When Bush was spending, you should have realized it would open the door for the next Democrat to spend even more. But you were too busy being a Bush fanboy to stake out a principled position on his spending, which makes your criticism of Obama for the same, laughable at best.

Again, you guys are trying to argue magnitude, not the principle. Obama is spending too much, if he spent less, you would be ok with it. So you're not against deficit finance, debt stimulus.

You're just against who is doing it and how aggressively. Ironically, you approved of Bush doing it, you would think that Obama doing it hard and fast would please you guys greatly!

What's curious is that you and HB both won't repudiate Bush spending. That's all you have to do. Admit Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and he was wrong, which makes Obama spending even more super wrong.

Is that so hard to do?

 

[Rusky]

No when Bush was doing it. You heard about it in every paper and news channel. When Obama does it; its a sin to even mention it. How dare you Popeye.

How bout that cap and trade. I was wondering how he was going to pay for all this.

 

[transistor]

guerilla wins

 

[gypsy639]

Now "cap and trade" implimentation deferred to EPA unless congress legislates. Either way cap and trade is coming. Hang on to your shorts padnrs, that's all you're going to have left.

 

[guerilla]

No when Bush was doing it. You heard about it in every paper and news channel. When Obama does it; its a sin to even mention it. How dare you Popeye.

How dare Popeye be a hypocrite, and then protest when people claim he has no credibility?

Hey, Obama is getting a free pass. Bush got a free pass in 2001, 2002 and 2003. This is what happens when Bush's fanboys defend him, then can't understand why Obama's fanboys defend him.

I don't see the problem. The game was fine if you were on the winning team, but now that people are on the losing team, it's all sour grapes.

How bout that cap and trade. I was wondering how he was going to pay for all this.

Cap and trade is insane. Seriously. This is the dumbest most insane shit ever.

First, there is no conclusive proof that carbon dioxide (plant food) creates global warming.

Second, there is no proof that man's industrial activities drives climate change.

Third, by attacking cheap sources of energy, this will create two negative by-products.

i. It will destroy the last bit of the American manufacturing base, as the Asians have no problem embracing coal and other dirtier energies.
ii. It will lay the path for a UN or global environmental tax, which will institutionalize super government taxation without representation. No longer will the UN defer to the US because the US funds it. This will allow the UN to operate aggressively against the US with no consequences from a funding standpoint.

But again, Bush pushed global warming and climate change kookery as well.

So why is everyone surprised Obama is following through on it? McCain is 100% behind Cap & Trade, if Obama had lost the election, McCain would be advancing this agenda as well.

That's what I mean about right and left being a false paradigm. Both sides are pursuing the same agenda, with minor variances in what policies appear in which order.

Do you guys really think Obama or Bush pushed their own ideas and wrote their own legislation?

Wake the fuck up.

 

[hellblazer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html

A Paul Krugman link? You've just lost all my respect. Goodbye.

 

[hellblazer]

That's what I mean about right and left being a false paradigm. Both sides are pursuing the same agenda, with minor variances in what policies appear in which order.

Do you guys really think Obama or Bush pushed their own ideas and wrote their own legislation?

Wake the fuck up.

Dude, you're totally wrong on this one. This is your proof? McCain? He's a fucking center-leftist. NOT A SINGLE conservative takes him seriously. McCain is NOT right on that issue, he's left as he is on most issues.

Fiscally, Bush was LEFT. You've simplified shit to such a degree that you perceive Bush as ALL right and are comparing that. Bush was center-right on national security and values issues, downright near SOCIALIST on fiscal matters.

There IS a difference between right and left in this country. Maybe you don't know what they are, which is understandable, but you should educate yourself before repeating this ignorant canard over and over again.

Again, you guys are trying to argue magnitude, not the principle.

No, I'm not. I made a very simple assertion: Obama's spending is UNPRECEDENTED. You haven't refuted it because you can't.

And I never defended Bush's spending. I hated that too. But what I said to you was that EVEN IF I SUPPORTED BUSH'S SPENDING, I would STILL have a case against Obama's spending because it's so much higher.

My assertion remains. Looking back at past deficits over past administrations, it becomes painfully obvious that Obama's spending is UNPRECEDENTED. That's all.

 

[pat J]

SOCIALIST

Bwhahaaha.

But seriously, what is your definition of socialism?

 

[fcreature]

The sooner people realize this the better.

Republicans = Democrats
Right = Left

Start voting third party please. Take away the power of this political regime.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Third Party: