The Tea Party Movement

[Revolution 9]

The Tea Party is just a new name for the far right. They are still against gay marriage, immigration, and abortion etc etc. They still want to spend on the military. It's not only about fiscal responsibility, and spending less. You cannot have Sarah Palin be one of your national spokesmen if that was your goal. It's still about the Christian religion, immigration, and the extreme right's "values". When you vote for Tea Party backed candidates you are still getting Republicans. A new party and new movement worth a damn would not include religious zealots, and conservative radio celebrities as figure heads.

Ron Paul was the closest thing to a revolution we've seen from the right. It seemed like he was more for less government, along with giving all beliefs fair respect than anyone in the Tea Party.

The extreme religious right does not want religious freedom in the country. They cannot tolerate anything but their belief. That is the hump they must get over if they want to go back to the old
way of conservatism.

If you truly want a government that spends less, and stays out of your business you'll have a movement that will go down in history. This is nothing but a backlash, like we saw in the previous elections that were because of Bush.

Let's face it this is all setting up Palin for a run up against Obama in '12.

 

[candrew]

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

You were saying? Look closer. They still didn't balance the budgets. Just some nice accounting tricks.

Laughable - it's bad enough you counter a non-partisan website with an uber-partisan group; you reference an article written by Stephen Moore who is currently riding a "Dimaggio-like" streak of making himself look like a jackass on any show with an open forum for debate.

 

[candrew]

The Tea Party is just a new name for the far right. They are still against gay marriage, immigration, and abortion etc etc. They still want to spend on the military. It's not only about fiscal responsibility, and spending less. You cannot have Sarah Palin be one of your national spokesmen if that was your goal. It's still about the Christian religion, immigration, and the extreme right's "values". When you vote for Tea Party backed candidates you are still getting Republicans. A new party and new movement worth a damn would not include religious zealots, and conservative radio celebrities as figure heads.

I'm sorry, I don't believe this for a moment. If you look at who is behind The Tea Party Movement as well as The Birthers as well as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as well as the "Impeach Clinton" and "Vince Foster was murdered" groups; it's all the same people. The ultra rich trying to make sure that the trend of the rich getting richer which started during the Reagan Administration continues on indefinitely

All the other issues: gay marriage, family values, immigration, abortion...it's all just window dressing for the masses.

 

[sirkickyass]

Just to be clear, in the article you referenced, the claim in the article you quoted is that the budget *was* balanced while Clinton was President, but that Congress did it despite Clintion. No mention of accounting tricks. So, I wonder if you bothered to read what you quoted.

Exactly.

There are some articles out there that describe it as accounting tricks, but that isn't one of them.

Before I posted the fact check article I went out and read a couple of arguments that it was an accounting trick. Those arguments are largely premised on various theories about how social security was counted in the calculation.

I specifically picked the fact check article because a) they are painfully non-partisan and b) the article goes out of its way to explain that the budget was balanced regardless of how you count social security.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

You're right, why should something like "labor" be important when we are talking about "productivity"? God, sorry I missed the boat so thoroughly.

And, yeah! Why should a laborer own any stake greater than the ability to sell his own labor for a wage!

EDIT: BTW, the union that I'm a member of is asking for a 1-7% raise for the employees. A 1% raise would be about $1.17 million dollars in a $20 billion dollar budget. Are we going to get it? It's hard to say because they refuse to communicate with us. And, this union has organized 2 or 3 initiatives that would actually SAVE the company money (because they spend much of it in ridiculous ways), but they just must be anti-Union because they refuse to budge or show any sign of weakness to us. BTW, we are educators.... you know, doing that kind of "button pushing" work.

There was a time when Unions were necessary. Now they are just ridiculous and out of control. rather than giving up something for all members to keep their job they fight tooth and nail and see reductions in the work force because of it. Perfect example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Exactly.

There are some articles out there that describe it as accounting tricks, but that isn't one of them.

Before I posted the fact check article I went out and read a couple of arguments that it was an accounting trick. Those arguments are largely premised on various theories about how social security was counted in the calculation.

I specifically picked the fact check article because a) they are painfully non-partisan and b) the article goes out of its way to explain that the budget was balanced regardless of how you count social security.

Not really. I gave credit to the GOP elected Congress and said that they still didn't balance the budget.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

I'm sorry, I don't believe this for a moment. If you look at who is behind The Tea Party Movement as well as The Birthers as well as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as well as the "Impeach Clinton" and "Vince Foster was murdered" groups; it's all the same people. The ultra rich trying to make sure that the trend of the rich getting richer which started during the Reagan Administration continues on indefinitely

All the other issues: gay marriage, family values, immigration, abortion...it's all just window dressing for the masses.

When in doubt as always the critics will pull out the race card as well as homophobia. Sad really.

 

[sirkickyass]

Not really. I gave credit to the GOP elected Congress and said that they still didn't balance the budget.

Actually, your statement was:

It has really been shady since Clinton. He supposedly used accounting principles to make it look like he balanced the budget.

You have yet to cite a single piece of evidence for the proposition that a) the budget was not balanced and/or b) that accounting trickery was used to make it appear balanced.

You linked to an article that stated the budget was balanced (contrary to your position), made no mention of accounting principles (providing no support for your position), and merely argued about who should get credit for it.

 

[sirkickyass]

When in doubt as always the critics will pull out the race card as well as homophobia. Sad really.

I read his statement several times. He's not playing the race card. If anything, he's accusing others of playing a number of social issues cards to mobilize them behind their economic agenda.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, let's completely stop paying any attention to economic reality and listen only to windbags huffing and puffing for more and more and more control. Economic illiteracy is great! Look where it's gotten us.

If you mean the current economic meltdown, it started with the removal of a lot of controls during the last couple of years in the Clinton administration. The resulting boom-bust cycle is an almost predictable result, compare the ecnomic behaviro of the US in teh second half of the 19th century (contrast with the second half of the 20th, when the controls were in place). Your comment on economic illiteracy are nothing more than ironic.

Who in their right mind thinks someone working on the production line at GM with a high school diploma in most cases at best deserves north of 40 dollars an hour? Must be really tough to push a button.

Spoken like a man whos never worked in a factory.

Unions are one of the reasons we now own a lot of GM.

Compared to the bad decisions of management, a very small reason.

I see Charlie Rangel just won his primary and will again likely be back in the house. Lovely how that works.......

Power corrupts.

There was a time when Unions were necessary. Now they are just ridiculous and out of control. rather than giving up something for all members to keep their job they fight tooth and nail and see reductions in the work force because of it. Perfect example...

No employer is going to hire 30,000 people to do the job of 20,000, even if the 30,000 will take a pay cut. No employer is going to agree to a no-lay-off clause in a union contract, regardless of the pay cut offered.

 

[sirkickyass]

ah, c'mon, man! Don't bother him with that **** that says the wealthiest 1% should pay more!!!!!!!!! Don't bother telling him that their production is tied to the labor of everybody else and that they don't make their money in a vacuum!!!!! It's his goddamn money. period.

This is a chart of the percentage share of the national income that the top 1% receives over the last 100 years.

As you can see, income inequality is presently the highest it's been since the late 1920s.

Clearly those people are really hurting and need their tax cuts made permanent.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

Love this guy. Throw Paul Ryan on his ticket as the VP and he's got my vote.