Republican teabaggers

they probably didnt dress like Native Americans either.

back wrote:
do you really believe all this stuff you write?

There's a huge difference between "believes" and "knows what's possible" - venerable is a lot more pragmatic in real life then he is when espousing his libertarian based theories. 

His last two paragraphs for example - he's not happy about Homeland Security, but knows that politically something had to be done to make America "feel" safer so it was bigger government in order to win re-election in 2004, so he has to defend it.  If it was Dem, he would have been ALL OVER IT.

In addition, his last paragraph is bit of a mea culpa because he knows the conservatives wasted a huge opportunity in 2000-2006 by doing everything he opposes and he probably was too quiet about it (despite my constant prodding and reminding him that they won't get a chance like that for another 20-40 years).  He also tends to make blanket statements like "the biggest increase evah" when, in terms of real dollars and projected out over time, the argument fails, especially in comparison to the 8 GWB years, but it's a sound bite and allows him to argue in the now.   He probably does believe in most of it, but he knows the reality is that his beliefs are pipe dreams.

back wrote:
  I am taking a US History class now (as I have some gen eds to take that i skipped in order to finish my degree) and we are leaning of the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. My teacher is a Nigerian fellow who seems to hate America and its founding fathers. but whatever.
   
  The 10th amendment is cool.  I honestly feel that Obama is trying to fix things the best way he knows how, for the goals of Libertarians and such seem nice, there seems to be a lot to fix before they would ever work. 

  I like when people say "let the economy fix itself".  obviously those people havent lost their job.  Either way, I spend much less time reading about politics than you and many others on here, so i try to stay out of the debate too much.  But I imagine if states were granted more power, we'd soon be yearning for the days the Fed was in control…

the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference…..it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them.  this is evidenced by the government determining which companies are too big to fail, so government lets merrill lynch fail, but bails out AIG. . .the market that was created allowed companies to conduct business (the merits of their business and how the made money is beside the point), and when the market finally turned on them, the government, instead of letting the market decide who survives, the government steps in and imposes it's decision onto the market.  that is inefficient, in economics.  obviously, in politics, if someone wants to get re-elected, he can't simply say, eh, sorry, that's how the market works (although it would great if there was some honesty), or else he's likely not going to be re-elected.

i simply disagree with "the best way obama knows how" because that means more federal government intervention and interference in the market.  on the political side, that is a concern to me because increased government spending and running up deficits cannot continue indefinitely, at some point government is going to have to decide to stop spending, keep spending but print more money (inflation), keep spending and increase taxes (decrease productivity) or keep spending and push collection to the future (inflation and shifts the burden onto future profits and productivity).  this administration seems content with the last one for the time being- i have no doubt that, egged on by a democratic congress, they'll get around to increasing everyone's taxes, not just those who make more than $250K, because there is simply not enough tax revenue from that part of the population to cover all of this administrations' spending priorities.

btw, jefferson is the perfect embodiment of the american political pysche. . .keep the federal government small, give power to the states, and let it remain in the hands of the farmers- but, once in office, he advocated for almost none of those things.  that's why you have people on the left and right quoting him on different issues. 

vansmack wrote:

Venerable wrote:
as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .

In 3 months, you wanted him to eliminate all earmarks?  I'll take a 15% reduction and work towards next year.

After all, a Republican President and a Republican Congress did nothing but increase them over 6 years despite promising to eliminate them.  I didn't hear you (or the Teabaggers) up in arms then…"Reformer with Results?"

he certainly could have vetoed it. . .a CR keeps government in business by using the same amount of funding from the previously approved budget.  instead of taking a stand right away on this topic, he blamed bush (even though congress was run by democrats, of which he was one of).

there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork. 

Venerable wrote:the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference…..it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them.  this is evidenced by the government determining which companies are too big to fail, so government lets merrill lynch fail, but bails out AIG. . .the market that was created allowed companies to conduct business (the merits of their business and how the made money is beside the point), and when the market finally turned on them, the government, instead of letting the market decide who survives, the government steps in and imposes it's decision onto the market.  that is inefficient, in economics.  obviously, in politics, if someone wants to get re-elected, he can't simply say, eh, sorry, that's how the market works (although it would great if there was some honesty), or else he's likely not going to be re-elected.

Elizabeth Warren put it very succinctly last night (start at the 2 minute mark).  Market Regulation keeps our economy from going into crisis. 

The vast majority of Americans will forgo huge wins in the market for stability and that's why we need regulation despite what economists think works in a vacuum.

Venerable wrote:
there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork. 

Did they not ask for any earmarks while advocating against them?

Venerable wrote:

the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference…..it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them.   

 i am not talking about economists, i am talking regular people

theres a difference when an economist says it and when some hick on the local news interview with a O's hat on does.  (see, rhett, maybe the hat DOES make you look like wt)

 

El wrote:
The Boston Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation WHICH is kinda opposite from what we have going on now. The vast majority of Americans are getting lower taxes (I believe 95%) and the rest are still getting a lower tax rate than when Reagan was in office. If these people were out protesting because DC does not have full representation and pays federal taxes that would be one thing… but they are not.

this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?  april 15 is the day that our taxes are due to fund the operation of the federal government. . .this administration and congress is choosing to increase spending well beyond what was seen under bush;  so, april 15 is the day to protest what some people believe to be runaway government spending and government spending beyond its means. . .

in much the same way the boston tea party was about protesting england taxing america unfairly, april 15 was protesting the way the federal government is spending uncontrollably and putting that burden upon all taxpayers, in one form or another.  it's not simply about tax rates.

vansmack wrote:

Venerable wrote:
there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork. 

Did they not ask for any earmarks while advocating against them?

if you want to find an earmark request from jeff flake or john mccain, have at it.

vansmack wrote:

back wrote:
do you really believe all this stuff you write?

There's a huge difference between "believes" and "knows what's possible" - venerable is a lot more pragmatic in real life then he is when espousing his libertarian based theories. 

mostly. . although if i'm truly successful at my job, i will have deregulated myself out of it. . .

so they choose tax day, invoke a protest about taxes that we all learned about in elementary school about an issue that really isnt about taxes. and you wonder why so many people dismiss it

this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?

Because they are using historical references that are not reflective of what they are arguing. You can not reference the Boston Tea Party and then say, well that was about X and we are about Y. The message is different.

Venerable wrote:\
if you want to find an earmark request from jeff flake or john mccain, have at it.

As much as he tries to defend it, there is no way the $10 Million request for the Rehnquist center was not an earmark and not requested by John McCain.

this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?

Again, lead by example.  Federal Budgets during the Bush years:

2010: $3.60 trillion (Obama)
2009: $3.10 trillion (Last Bush)
2008: $2.90 trillion
2007: $2.77 trillion
2006: $2.7 trillion
2005: $2.4 trillion
2004: $2.3 trillion
2003: $2.2 trillion
2002: $2.0 trillion (First Bush)
2001: $1.9 trillion (last Clinton)
2000: $1.8 trillion
1999: $1.7 trillion
1998: $1.7 trillion
1997: $1.6 trillion
1996: $1.6 trillion

vansmack wrote:

this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?

Again, lead by example.  Federal Budgets during the Bush years:

2010: $3.60 trillion (Obama)
2009: $3.10 trillion (Last Bush)
2008: $2.90 trillion
2007: $2.77 trillion
2006: $2.7 trillion
2005: $2.4 trillion
2004: $2.3 trillion
2003: $2.2 trillion
2002: $2.0 trillion (First Bush)
2001: $1.9 trillion (last Clinton)
2000: $1.8 trillion
1999: $1.7 trillion
1998: $1.7 trillion
1997: $1.6 trillion
1996: $1.6 trillion

i think what this argues for, if anything, is that having a democrat in the white house and republicans in charge of congress is best.  :)

according to CBO, from this article:

"President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency. …

By CBO's calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level."

The tally of people attending tea-parties nationwide is around 250,000, give or take.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html

Thus, I thought this was well put.

?Did Sean Hannity get out from behind a desk and attend the immigration amnesty rally in Los Angeles to which 500,000 people showed up last year? Did Fox News dedicate around-the-clock coverage and nearly unbearable homerism to the Iraq War protests which over a million Americans attended (150,000 in San Francisco alone) five years ago? Did Glenn Reynolds claim that government needs to Listen Up and Get the Message and Pay Attention and all this shit when 800,000 people (NYPD estimate; protesters claimed over a million, but such estimates are inevitably high) marched in New York City in 2004 to protest the RNC? Do any of these hacks wax patriotic about the millions upon millions of people who did something real and substantive in electing the new President - not standing around bitching, not listening to talk radio millionaires give speeches in a park amidst misspelled, homemade signs - last November? Of course not. Why? Because ?those people? aren?t Real Americans. See, Real Americans means white people. Angry, middle-aged, rural or suburban white people."

http://charitini.com/post/96850732/did-sean-hannity-get-out-from-behind-a-desk-and

Venerable wrote:
according to CBO, from this article:

Again, you make this sounds like it's something new and disturbing.  Remember when GWB said there would be $5.6 Billion surplus when he left office and the CBO laughed at him.  Instead he left us in the whole how deep?

$459 Billion.

Practice what you preach and stop being an alarmist.

run for offices.
the end.

vansmack wrote:

Venerable wrote:
according to CBO, from this article:

Again, you make this sounds like it's something new and disturbing.  Remember when GWB said there would be $5.6 Billion surplus when he left office and the CBO laughed at him.  Instead he left us in the whole how deep?

$459 Billion.

Practice what you preach and stop being an alarmist.

i think i would take $459 billion over $1.75 trillion…..