Tea Party Democrats

[PLAYER57832]

pretty much confirms what greekdog said before... you are not really about either lower taxes or reducing the government

[Phatscotty]

pretty much confirms what greekdog said before... you are not really about either lower taxes or reducing the government

I am strongly for lower taxes and reducing the government/FIXING America's balance sheet problem.

The surprising thing about the Tea Party movement is how many people didn't (and still don't) see it coming. The U.S. has always been home to a large group of people who think the government is too big and spends too much. Why wouldn't those people rise up when the already gargantuan federal deficit more than doubled seemingly overnight?
It really is not a mystery. And now with the recent downgrade of America's credit, perhaps more Democrats will see that our debt and spending levels need to be reduced. Recent events, if you ask me, guarantee we will begin to see Tea Party Democrats running for Congress.

United we stand

[PLAYER57832]

pretty much confirms what greekdog said before... you are not really about either lower taxes or reducing the government

I am strongly for lower taxes and reducing the government/FIXING America's balance sheet problem.

The surprising thing about the Tea Party movement is how many people didn't (and still don't) see it coming. The U.S. has always been home to a large group of people who think the government is too big and spends too much. Why wouldn't those people rise up when the already gargantuan federal deficit more than doubled seemingly overnight?

Because while a lot of people can be duped by rhetoric, most are not stupid enough to think that cutting school funding and food supports while keeping oil industry subsidies and continueing this "anything for corporations" mentality is really goind to help anything.

It really is not a mystery. And now with the recent downgrade of America's credit, perhaps more Democrats will see that our debt and spending levels need to be reduced. Recent events, if you ask me, guarantee we will begin to see Tea Party Democrats running for Congress.

The Tea Partiers are the ones who CAUSED the downgrade. Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

United we stand

You forgot the other part "divided we fall". If you think this country is united right now, you truly are not looking at reality.

[Phatscotty]

Blame whoever you want, Americans are in the process of uniting. We must deal with our account which is going on 15 trillion dollars in red ink. Both the left and the right understand this simple reality.

[PLAYER57832]

Blame whoever you want, Americans are in the process of uniting. We must deal with our account which is going on 15 trillion dollars in red ink. Both the left and the right understand this simple reality.

Apparently you don't, that was my point. You just see it as another excuse to try and promote the folks who have no itention of really solving this.

Or rather, who are quite happy to "solve" this by destroying America.

[Phatscotty]

pretty much confirms what greekdog said before... you are not really about either lower taxes or reducing the government

I am strongly for lower taxes and reducing the government/FIXING America's balance sheet problem.

The surprising thing about the Tea Party movement is how many people didn't (and still don't) see it coming. The U.S. has always been home to a large group of people who think the government is too big and spends too much. Why wouldn't those people rise up when the already gargantuan federal deficit more than doubled seemingly overnight?

Because while a lot of people can be duped by rhetoric, most are not stupid enough to think that cutting school funding and food supports while keeping oil industry subsidies and continueing this "anything for corporations" mentality is really goind to help anything.

It really is not a mystery. And now with the recent downgrade of America's credit, perhaps more Democrats will see that our debt and spending levels need to be reduced. Recent events, if you ask me, guarantee we will begin to see Tea Party Democrats running for Congress.

The Tea Partiers are the ones who CAUSED the downgrade. Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

United we stand

You forgot the other part "divided we fall". If you think this country is united right now, you truly are not looking at reality.

This country is most certainly united against Obama. Where were you when Obama lost his Congress by the largest margin since the 1930's????????
CC poll on Unity

You are trolling hard right now, saying the Tea Party demands for just a vote on abalanced budget amendment, and 36 no votes in the house of representatives (nevermind twice as many democrats voted no than republicans) is the reason why USA was downgraded for the first time in 100 years?

You're trippin balls yo

Either you are part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. The blame game certainly is not part of the solution. WE have to get our fiscal house in order, otherwise the whole house burns down. If people like you could set aside your hate and bias for one friggin second! Where is your compromise on the responsibilities of the 111th, 110th, 109th, 108th Congress as far as whos fault it is? What about Bush? Pelosi? Only the Tea Party, which has been a minority in power for just 6 months?

It's all of their fault. The Tea Party is the reaction.

[Woodruff]

You forgot the other part "divided we fall". If you think this country is united right now, you truly are not looking at reality.

This country is most certainly united against Obama. Where were you when Obama lost his Congress by the largest margin since the 1930's????????
CC poll on Unity

You are trolling hard right now, saying the Tea Party demands for just a vote on abalanced budget amendment, and 36 no votes in the house of representatives (nevermind twice as many democrats voted no than republicans) is the reason why USA was downgraded for the first time in 100 years?

In fact, it is: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mainst ... 6-861.html

[Phatscotty]

while, also, in fact, it is the debt itself. (which was raised by 2.7 trillion dollars)

SnP - "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics."

[Woodruff]

while, also, in fact, it is the debt itself. (which was raised by 2.7 trillion dollars)

SnP - "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics."

Have you pulled your fingers out of your ears yet, Phatscotty? Or is it too soon?

[Phatscotty]

raising the debt ceiling/going further into debt is viewed as a "negative" by the credit agencies that rate us, as it makes it even harder to deal with our fiscal problems later on down the road when interest will take up more and more of our budget.

If we wanted to stay AAA, we should not have raised the debt ceiling. The very fact that you can raise a "ceiling" means that really there is no ceiling, which is something they are no longer willing to rate "AAA".

[Night Strike]

Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

Actually, the spoiled brats are those who think they deserve money from "the rich" and beg the government to give it to them. The spoiled brats are also those who think we have to keep spending trillions more than we take in. Furthermore, it was Obama who put default on the table, not the Tea Party. Tea Party members can actually do math and see that we take in plenty of money to avoid default. Obama is the one who said he wouldn't pay (which would actually be a violation of the 14th Amendment).

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

Actually, the spoiled brats are those who think they deserve money from "the rich" and beg the government to give it to them.

That's NOBODY. Certainly not me. I want companies and yes, the wealthy to pay what they cost society..a nd now that things are bad, I certainly don't think people who benefitted highly from policies should get a pass on sharing the burdon of dealing with the debt problem.

The spoiled brats are also those who think we have to keep spending trillions more than we take in.

Yep.. the big corporations, exactly

Furthermore, it was Obama who put default on the table, not the Tea Party. Tea Party members can actually do math and see that we take in plenty of money to avoid default.

try to rewrite history all you like. It was Tea partiers and similar who went around saying to just let the US default, it won't matter... etc.

Obama is the one who said he wouldn't pay (which would actually be a violation of the 14th Amendment).

Stop quoting a constitution you won't even bother to honor EXCEPT when it meets your ends. REAL freedom means not going around claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is "violating the constitution". It means not throwing out "that's socialism" every time anyone suggests something to reign in corporate abuses.

And REAL America is about WORKING people, not the bankers, not the CEOs. Those are not the ones our government is supposed to serve, iit is supposed to serve the WORKING people. And NOTHING you suggest is really about working people. You talk about WORKING people as if they were dregs, simply becuase they don't own companies.

[Nobunaga]

Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

Actually, the spoiled brats are those who think they deserve money from "the rich" and beg the government to give it to them.

That's NOBODY. Certainly not me. I want companies and yes, the wealthy to pay what they cost society..a nd now that things are bad, I certainly don't think people who benefitted highly from policies should get a pass on sharing the burdon of dealing with the debt problem.

The spoiled brats are also those who think we have to keep spending trillions more than we take in.

Yep.. the big corporations, exactly

Furthermore, it was Obama who put default on the table, not the Tea Party. Tea Party members can actually do math and see that we take in plenty of money to avoid default.

try to rewrite history all you like. It was Tea partiers and similar who went around saying to just let the US default, it won't matter... etc.

Obama is the one who said he wouldn't pay (which would actually be a violation of the 14th Amendment).

Stop quoting a constitution you won't even bother to honor EXCEPT when it meets your ends. REAL freedom means not going around claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is "violating the constitution". It means not throwing out "that's socialism" every time anyone suggests something to reign in corporate abuses.

And REAL America is about WORKING people, not the bankers, not the CEOs. Those are not the ones our government is supposed to serve, iit is supposed to serve the WORKING people. And NOTHING you suggest is really about working people. You talk about WORKING people as if they were dregs, simply becuase they don't own companies.

... "Working people" is lib code for union labor.

...

[Woodruff]

Legislators have fought it out before, but never before was even the thought of allowing the US to default on the table. The rate-setters are seeing the suppose Tea Party candidates for what they really are.. spoiled brats who just want to make sure no one else gets anything like the benefits they enjoyed.

Actually, the spoiled brats are those who think they deserve money from "the rich" and beg the government to give it to them.

That's NOBODY. Certainly not me. I want companies and yes, the wealthy to pay what they cost society..a nd now that things are bad, I certainly don't think people who benefitted highly from policies should get a pass on sharing the burdon of dealing with the debt problem.

The spoiled brats are also those who think we have to keep spending trillions more than we take in.

Yep.. the big corporations, exactly

Furthermore, it was Obama who put default on the table, not the Tea Party. Tea Party members can actually do math and see that we take in plenty of money to avoid default.

try to rewrite history all you like. It was Tea partiers and similar who went around saying to just let the US default, it won't matter... etc.

Obama is the one who said he wouldn't pay (which would actually be a violation of the 14th Amendment).

Stop quoting a constitution you won't even bother to honor EXCEPT when it meets your ends. REAL freedom means not going around claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is "violating the constitution". It means not throwing out "that's socialism" every time anyone suggests something to reign in corporate abuses.

And REAL America is about WORKING people, not the bankers, not the CEOs. Those are not the ones our government is supposed to serve, iit is supposed to serve the WORKING people. And NOTHING you suggest is really about working people. You talk about WORKING people as if they were dregs, simply becuase they don't own companies.

... "Working people" is lib code for union labor.
...

Pretending liberals use "codes" like that is "conservative code for not wanting to look at the situation honestly".

[Baron Von PWN]

So you think there should be a donkey somewhere in there phaty?

[PLAYER57832]

Here, I think this Ronnie Dunn put out a very good description of the "spoiled brats who think they are entitled"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Guj736bDo

[thegreekdog]

So you think there should be a donkey somewhere in there phaty?

This was not directed at me, but the donkey is riding on top.

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending? Frankly, if President Bush is still taking a lot of blame* why isn't the pre-2010 Congress and president?

* A funny thing I read yesterday - someone on a message board wrote "Can I ask you Democrats something? When does President Obama's presidency begin? I'm just wondering because we're three years into it and he still doesn't take any blame for anything."

[Neoteny]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

[thegreekdog]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it. By way of background, most of my friends are Democrats and one of them is gay, and he's the only one that has complained. Apart from that, they offer explanations as to why the president continues to torture people, expands the powers of the Patriot Act, and increases war efforts abroad while also saying things like "At least he's not GW Bush." And in terms of the economy, they complain (like people around here) that the Tea Party and not enough stimulus are the reasons for the non-recovery.

I mean, I know the Republican alternative is just as bad (or worse), but try a different party for the love of Pete. Go socialist like that dude from Maine! If you're more concerned about social issues, go libertarian! No one listens to me when I say that both parties are the same.

[Neoteny]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it. By way of background, most of my friends are Democrats and one of them is gay, and he's the only one that has complained. Apart from that, they offer explanations as to why the president continues to torture people, expands the powers of the Patriot Act, and increases war efforts abroad while also saying things like "At least he's not GW Bush." And in terms of the economy, they complain (like people around here) that the Tea Party and not enough stimulus are the reasons for the non-recovery.

I mean, I know the Republican alternative is just as bad (or worse), but try a different party for the love of Pete. Go socialist like that dude from Maine! If you're more concerned about social issues, go libertarian! No one listens to me when I say that both parties are the same.

I complain about all those things (though I do say he's better than GWB)! I blame him for not enough stimulus, and not having the balls to be a real progressive (imagine if the dems had had the minerals to let the tax cuts expire; there is a bargaining chip to get more compromise on the debt ceiling [reestablish cuts for the poor and middle class], but naw, he's happy being a conservative).

[Baron Von PWN]

So you think there should be a donkey somewhere in there phaty?

This was not directed at me, but the donkey is riding on top.

Did you know that the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate and also the presidency up until November 2010, and yet they did nothing to increase revenue or decrease spending? Frankly, if President Bush is still taking a lot of blame* why isn't the pre-2010 Congress and president?

* A funny thing I read yesterday - someone on a message board wrote "Can I ask you Democrats something? When does President Obama's presidency begin? I'm just wondering because we're three years into it and he still doesn't take any blame for anything."

The democrat congress didn't nearly default the nation due to an irrational aversion to taxes, or a ridiculous opposition to what should have been a routine debt ceiling increase. The donkeys have plenty to be blamed for, almost defaulting the nation and quite likely throwing the global economy into chaos because of the appeals of a loud and ignorant lobby group is not one of them.

[PLAYER57832]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it. By way of background, most of my friends are Democrats and one of them is gay, and he's the only one that has complained. Apart from that, they offer explanations as to why the president continues to torture people, expands the powers of the Patriot Act, and increases war efforts abroad while also saying things like "At least he's not GW Bush." And in terms of the economy, they complain (like people around here) that the Tea Party and not enough stimulus are the reasons for the non-recovery.

I mean, I know the Republican alternative is just as bad (or worse), but try a different party for the love of Pete. Go socialist like that dude from Maine! If you're more concerned about social issues, go libertarian! No one listens to me when I say that both parties are the same.

I think the problem here is one of interpretation. Liberals and Democrats, generally complain about ALL involved. The Right seems to want to vilify the left. Most of the "endorsement" of Obama is more along the lines of "not great, but better than the alternative" or "it could be a lot worse". Hardly resounding "endorsements", in truth.

AND.. that is historically the problem. Those on the right have, historically been far more willing to vilify and target the left. The left, by definition, is more tolerant. That is, while all but the extremists accept racial "equality" (though may disagree still on what that really means and how to implement it, etc.. legitimate debates, I might add), homosexuality is still somewhat divided into "liberal means accepting" and "conservative means rejecting". Similarly, Liberals are, by definition, tolerant of diverse views in everything from religion to politics, etc. They tend, NOT to object to the fact that others disagree. The far right, then has mostly has a free platform to dictate the terms of debate. Note, the same extremism occurs on the FAR left, but that voice is so seldom heard its negligible. Also, the far left is, by its nature somewhat more disorganized and splintered (some say by design of corporate America, etc. some lay the blame elsewhere). NOTE.. I fully understand that some people with conservative econmic views are liberal in other ways, but that is the point.. the ways in whch they differ from the right are labeled as "liberal".. until they become so mainstream that ONLY the farthese extreme objects (as race is now and as homosexuality is moving to become).

Basically, when liberal =tolerant and conservative = specific position, it becomes easy for the conservatives to define the debate, become the group that is always saying "no". And, sadly, the left has just stood and let it happen.

[thegreekdog]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it. By way of background, most of my friends are Democrats and one of them is gay, and he's the only one that has complained. Apart from that, they offer explanations as to why the president continues to torture people, expands the powers of the Patriot Act, and increases war efforts abroad while also saying things like "At least he's not GW Bush." And in terms of the economy, they complain (like people around here) that the Tea Party and not enough stimulus are the reasons for the non-recovery.

I mean, I know the Republican alternative is just as bad (or worse), but try a different party for the love of Pete. Go socialist like that dude from Maine! If you're more concerned about social issues, go libertarian! No one listens to me when I say that both parties are the same.

I complain about all those things (though I do say he's better than GWB)! I blame him for not enough stimulus, and not having the balls to be a real progressive (imagine if the dems had had the minerals to let the tax cuts expire; there is a bargaining chip to get more compromise on the debt ceiling [reestablish cuts for the poor and middle class], but naw, he's happy being a conservative).

I wouldn't call President Obama a conservative. I would call him a politician. I think if one looks at the voting records of presidents Reagan through Obama, one will see a lot of similarities, at least from a fiscal policy perspective. On a theoretical basis, I'm fine when people say the Republicans are the party of big business; I think that's true. What I'm waiting for is people to understand that Democrats are no different. In sum, President Obama talked a good game during the campaign, but when it came to being in office, he succumbed to political reality. I don't think that changes no matter who the Democratic nominee was (whether Hillary Clinton or some more liberal person). As long as campaigns are driven by big business and unions (and not by voters), we'll have presidents and members of Congress who are basically the same.

The democrat congress didn't nearly default the nation due to an irrational aversion to taxes, or a ridiculous opposition to what should have been a routine debt ceiling increase. The donkeys have plenty to be blamed for, almost defaulting the nation and quite likely throwing the global economy into chaos because of the appeals of a loud and ignorant lobby group is not one of them.

Sure they did. They had control of the entire federal government for two years! They could have raised taxes. They could have cut spending. They did neither. They passed a spending increase in the form of the healthcare plan. That's it.

And I would hardly blame the Tea Party lobby for "almost defaulting the nation" (which, by the way, who gives a shit? Oh noes, we almost, but not quite defaulted the nation) and I definitely wouldn't blame them for "throwing the global economy into chaos." I mean, really, because the federal government didn't increase the debt ceiling soon enough (because of the Tea Party), the global economy was turned chaotic? That's the reason? Really? I certainly don't blame this Congress for the current meltdown. I do blame the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II governments (in part) for the 2008 and current meltdown (I also blame some of the banks and other business entities). Which, I think, is the correct answer. Or you could blame S&P for their subpar rating. And you might ask them why they came down with that rating since the US government didn't actually default.

[Neoteny]

Have you seriously not heard any liberals complaining about Obama?

I have! They complain that he has not taken the gay marriage issue seriously; that's about it. By way of background, most of my friends are Democrats and one of them is gay, and he's the only one that has complained. Apart from that, they offer explanations as to why the president continues to torture people, expands the powers of the Patriot Act, and increases war efforts abroad while also saying things like "At least he's not GW Bush." And in terms of the economy, they complain (like people around here) that the Tea Party and not enough stimulus are the reasons for the non-recovery.

I mean, I know the Republican alternative is just as bad (or worse), but try a different party for the love of Pete. Go socialist like that dude from Maine! If you're more concerned about social issues, go libertarian! No one listens to me when I say that both parties are the same.

I complain about all those things (though I do say he's better than GWB)! I blame him for not enough stimulus, and not having the balls to be a real progressive (imagine if the dems had had the minerals to let the tax cuts expire; there is a bargaining chip to get more compromise on the debt ceiling [reestablish cuts for the poor and middle class], but naw, he's happy being a conservative).

I wouldn't call President Obama a conservative. I would call him a politician. I think if one looks at the voting records of presidents Reagan through Obama, one will see a lot of similarities, at least from a fiscal policy perspective. On a theoretical basis, I'm fine when people say the Republicans are the party of big business; I think that's true. What I'm waiting for is people to understand that Democrats are no different. In sum, President Obama talked a good game during the campaign, but when it came to being in office, he succumbed to political reality. I don't think that changes no matter who the Democratic nominee was (whether Hillary Clinton or some more liberal person). As long as campaigns are driven by big business and unions (and not by voters), we'll have presidents and members of Congress who are basically the same.

I suppose I use "conservative" as a bit of a misnomer to describe intransigence, in-the-pocket politics, and vote-courting tiptoe politics, which I recognize is not part of any political spectrum and just shows my bias. I always swore that if I ever ran for office, I would do the whole fundraiser thing and then donate the millions of dollars to charity. If I get elected, that's a bonus, but I imagine there are rules against that sort of thing. I want to see something refreshing like that, but there isn't a political party in the world willing to do that, because the people who would populate such a party are too busy actually helping others.

Those who can do, and those who can't become politicians. Much better than the original saying.

Give me something. Anything to show that you political fucks actually care about something other than your own well-being.

EDIT: I guess by "conservative" I really mean striving to preserve the status quo. I think that's bad.