tea party a movement or nuts

Because for 6 years of the Bush presidency the economy was running strong, once it collapsed then people took notice and the fire of disapproval was lit. Then the new president expanded government further began talking about additional taxes and instituting a health care program that 80% of the American people did not like, so it was viewed as government take over, as was the take over of Chrysler and GM. So what should they do now, not say anything because Obama did not start the problem, its not like they can accomplish anything by protesting Bush. Like it or not he is going to take the heat because he is the man in the chair right now and is the one empowered to make a change. So they voice their oppisition, do some of them use ignorent and unproductive tactics, yes. Do I believe it possible that Cleaver would lie, yes knowing what I know about him as my Representative, the others, I don't know.

By the way and this is a little off topic but I feel it deserves to be said. When you talk about McCain, whether or not you agree with his policies or political positions he does deserve respect for the sacrafices he has made in service to this country as a soldier and a prisoner of war. Originally Posted by dirty dog

DD you can't honestly say that 6 of Bush's 8 years the economy was strong- I can produce figures to dispel that theory very easily. Perhaps, the first 2 years of Bush's first term when he had a surplus thanks to his predecessor, but the Bush years-the vast majority them were defecit ridden- high gasoline prices since the Iran Oil embargo- record number of jobs went overseas, wages climbed slowly for the middle class, slow job growth, in fact the only ones who prospered under Bush was Big Oil and Big Banks- do you have many jobs were lost overseas due to Bush's policies??? I don't thin k any economist would agree with you that the vast majority of Bush's years we had a strong economy that's just not true. All of Bush's major policies and programs have not been paid for- the 2 biggest being the Iraq War and Medicare Part D.
On your note about McCain, I respect McCain just as I respect any man/woman who puts on a uniform and serves in a war or in harm's way. However, America seems to elevate people who served in Vietnam war as if they should be held to a higher plateau. i don't know your age DD, but the facts are the Vietnam was not a popular war- many Americans thought it was unjust and that we had no business being in that war. The Viecong did not attack us or threathened to invade our country or take away our freedoms. It was a political war that we lost on and off the battlefield and still scars us today. Yes, I understand Mccain was a POW and was tortured, but many other Americans were too. I mean one does not have to serve in a war to be an American hero or prove that he/she loves this country. After Obama won, I heard a lot of people say McCain deserved to win because he served in the War and loved his country. If that was the case than John Kerry should have been President over Bush- whom many people say didn't show up and had his military records falsified, but that's a different story. Actually had the McCain who ran in 2004 ran in 2008, I would have strongly cnsidered voting for him, but the McCain that showed up in 2008 really disappointed me with using some Karl Rove tactics that didn't work for him and when he choose Sarah Palin it was all over for him. However, as a person I have no issues with McCain I just like the 2004 McCain better than the 2008 Mccain.

Every economic indicator you could think of, from 1960 to 2009:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html

The gas prices rose here in Kansas City from $1.00 a gallon to a $1.50 a gallon in 2001 after sept 11th. They then returned to about $1.15 to $1.25 and remained their until 2006 at which time they began climbing and continued to climb to over $3.00 a gallon. The deficit has nothing to do with the "perceived strength" of the economy, this is the strength that the avg American feels on the street. At the end of 2005 the stock market was still producing strong returns and no one was losing money on their retirement funds. All the stuff you have stated at the time had nothing to do with how the people on the street perceived the economy at the end of 2005. It is this perception that was shattered when the economy began its slide downward, it was not until 2007 that the media began its steady warning cry of mortgage failures, banks quit loaning more than a home was worth which caused people to be unable to refinance their mortgages which resulted in their ARM's going up. It was not until 2007 that the media began telling the people that the banks were on the verge of failure. Which triggered the beginning of bailouts. This answers your original question of why the Tea Party did not say anything, in a nut shell it took getting kicked in the face to wake them up.

Now with regards to your McCain statement, so what your saying is if a war is not popular then one should not be given respect for their sacrafice? People don't elevate the Vietnam war, they speak of it because prior to Iraq it was the most recent war, the survivors of the Batan death march in WW2 were given just as much respect. Yes others were POW's and should get the same respect, and if you had been bad mouthing them I would have referenced them as well, but you were being disrepectful of one man so that what I drew attention to. In your little lecture, you paint the picture that Iam somehow elevating McCain, he is singled out because he is the one your being disrepectful towards. Are you really this slow. Your right one does not have to be in a war to be a hero and if you were being disrespectful of them I would point that out to. What people said about McCain after the election means absolutely nothing to me. You are so blinded by your race based allegence to Obama that anything said about him demands a defence from you like its a personal attack. I am going to clue you in on something, in the real world, people get talked about, sometimes wrongly but it happens, if your going to defend every critical remark like it's a fight to the death then your going to be a tired puppy.

Oh by the way, I am old enough to have lived through Vietnam, so the history lesson is not necessary.

The gas prices rose here in Kansas City from $1.00 a gallon to a $1.50 a gallon in 2001 after sept 11th. They then returned to about $1.15 to $1.25 and remained their until 2006 at which time they began climbing and continued to climb to over $3.00 a gallon. The deficit has nothing to do with the "perceived strength" of the economy, this is the strength that the avg American feels on the street. At the end of 2005 the stock market was still producing strong returns and no one was losing money on their retirement funds. All the stuff you have stated at the time had nothing to do with how the people on the street perceived the economy at the end of 2005. It is this perception that was shattered when the economy began its slide downward, it was not until 2007 that the media began its steady warning cry of mortgage failures, banks quit loaning more than a home was worth which caused people to be unable to refinance their mortgages which resulted in their ARM's going up. It was not until 2007 that the media began telling the people that the banks were on the verge of failure. Which triggered the beginning of bailouts. This answers your original question of why the Tea Party did not say anything, in a nut shell it took getting kicked in the face to wake them up.

Now with regards to your McCain statement, so what your saying is if a war is not popular then one should not be given respect for their sacrafice? People don't elevate the Vietnam war, they speak of it because prior to Iraq it was the most recent war, the survivors of the Batan death march in WW2 were given just as much respect. Yes others were POW's and should get the same respect, and if you had been bad mouthing them I would have referenced them as well, but you were being disrepectful of one man so that what I drew attention to. In your little lecture, you paint the picture that Iam somehow elevating McCain, he is singled out because he is the one your being disrepectful towards. Are you really this slow. Your right one does not have to be in a war to be a hero and if you were being disrespectful of them I would point that out to. What people said about McCain after the election means absolutely nothing to me. You are so blinded by your race based allegence to Obama that anything said about him demands a defence from you like its a personal attack. I am going to clue you in on something, in the real world, people get talked about, sometimes wrongly but it happens, if your going to defend every critical remark like it's a fight to the death then your going to be a tired puppy.

Oh by the way, I am old enough to have lived through Vietnam, so the history lesson is not necessary. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Please quote me when I disrespected mccain as a veterna? I made no such remarks to Mccain as his time as a soldier. If I talked about Mccain as a politician what the hell does that have to do with what war he served in? So I guess McCain can't be critiqued because he served in the war as a POW??? I guess no one should talk bad about any remarks or policies that McCain has because he was an ex soldier and anytime someone talks about an ex soldier even if ti's politcs that person is being disrespectful.
I would really love for you to copy and paste any disrespectful comment I made about McCain as a VETERAN and I will personally travel to flagstaff and apologize to MCcain.
Also, one's perception and the true reality are two different things. Ok, take for example now- the perception to the average american is that the economy is still recovering, now I can argue that in recent months there has been job growth and also a report came out today that showed consumer spending was up- if you take that on a bigger level and compare the U.S economy as it is right now to the next 2 economies: Japan and China- our economy in present day is still far stronger than the 2 and 3 economies in the world by far. Of course it would be wrong theoretically to say that the economy was weak under Bush because it wasn't but it was no where as strong as it was under the Clinton era. Mainly because Bush didn't continue the EIC that Clinton pushed which gave those on the poverty level a better financial outlook- instead Bush choose to give tax breaks to Big oil and the ricest 2% which was his core base. You don't thi k it was by accident that Bush nor Cheney NEVER once gave a glimpse of solution to the high oil prices??? Bush's record on Energy was one of the worst in history. Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil- Bush and Cheney were fossil fuel guys they have no incentive to develop alternate energy sources-hence this si a reason why so many believe Bush wanted war with Iraq and eventually Iran had he had the chance. i will produce data showing that the economy lost steam under Bush and I am not just talking about his last year in office, Bush dropped the ball economically in various areas.

Before i forget: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2 Again the economy grew for the 3rd straight quarter- showing signs that the economy is slowly on the right path to recovery. My question to the Tea Party and those opposed to Obama- if Obama was such a bad president or doesn't know what he's doing- why aren't we in a DEPRESSION and why are slowly seeing Economic growth under Obama? Surely Obama could have made the wrong decisions and had us in a Depression, but we are not- can we at least give his administration credit for not getting us into a depression because it could have went south in a bad way. I just wonder how well we would be doing had his predecessor not left him in a world

"If I talked about Mccain as a politician what the hell does that have to do with what war he served in?"

You can disagree with someone politically withou calling them names, you know the same thing you complain about people doing to Obama, by the way when I speak about things i may disagree with about Obama, I do it without name calling and disrespect. Just because someone has a political stance you disagree with does not mean you should be disrespectful, especially anyone who has made sacrafices for the country that you live. ITS A MATTER OF SIMPLE RESPECT.

"Of course it would be wrong theoretically to say that the economy was weak under Bush because it wasn't but it was no where as strong as it was under the Clinton era."

Well I dont think I said it was stronger than clinton, I said it was strong, which you just agreed with.

"Also, one's perception and the true reality are two different things."

You asked a question as to why the Tea Party protestors did not protest Bush, I answered that question. When your talking about why people respond the way they do "perception" has everything to do with it.

"You don't thi k it was by accident that Bush nor Cheney NEVER once gave a glimpse of solution to the high oil prices???"

Apparently Obama has not glimpsed it either, checked gas prices lately, up a $1.00 a gallon over last year. Is Obama in the oil business too.

Nothing you have posted in your response is on topic, I asnwered your question about Tea Party memebers. If you want to debate the economy Bush Vs Obama start another thread.

Before i forget: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2 Again the economy grew for the 3rd straight quarter- showing signs that the economy is slowly on the right path to recovery. My question to the Tea Party and those opposed to Obama- if Obama was such a bad president or doesn't know what he's doing- why aren't we in a DEPRESSION and why are slowly seeing Economic growth under Obama? Surely Obama could have made the wrong decisions and had us in a Depression, but we are not- can we at least give his administration credit for not getting us into a depression because it could have went south in a bad way. I just wonder how well we would be doing had his predecessor not left him in a world Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

When unemployment drops below 7% then we can talk about recovery. Tarp saved the economy, and you reminded us the other day that Bush started Tarp. SO tell me what other decisions he made which saved the economy.

"Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil"

So is Saudi Arabia, so what?

Brazil has huge oil reserves.

Referring to their ethanol program? Not nearly as successful as the ABC News special made it out to be. Throughout most of its history, it has been subsidized to match the price of gasoline...only when gas goes above a certain price point does the subsidy go away. Its no different than incentives and subsidies that the US gives to our corn farmers...just done in a slightly different way.

Brazil has so much damn oil, they are pushing to export the majority of their ethanol product (ie sugar crop), instead of use it domestically. In the upcoming years, we will buy it from them because of self imposed mandates on alternative fuel consumption...not because it is cheaper than oil. Its not an ethanol success story, instead its a story of agricultural tariffs protecting a domestic industry.

Anyway, the high gas prices were a symptom of a strong international economy, to include our own...not an indicator of a weak economy....to suggest that is just bizzare.

Economic indicators were poor during the first two years of the Bush presidency. Contrary to an earlier ill informed comment about his predecessor leaving him a good economy, he inherited the dot com collapse, and immediately after that, September 11. I also blame the fed for raising interest rates too quickly in the run up to his presidency. So no, his first two years were not good...they were quite bad...just look at the data before you type, and these kinds of mistakes won't happen.

BTW, since the price of oil seems so important, remember Clinton releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve, to depress the rising price, to help Al's election prospects. I do

Anyway, with the exception of 2008, indicators were very, very good during the remainder of the Bush years. Its completely silly to argue about that: they were good. Period. Now, it is more insightful to understand why. First, Bush let the housing bubble grow. We all knew it was bad...but most of the growth in the economy was due to housing, so everybody pretended not to notice it was unsustainable. Also, the Chinese government has to add 100,000 jobs to their economy each month!!!!...and we are their biggest export client (I think in recent months the EU may have taken over that distinction). So, the Chinese kept buying American debt...and this is important, holding onto it...and amazingly, continued to buy to this day. This made money very cheap in this country, and credit was easy to get...it grew the economy. Now of course, the Chinese know this can't go on forever, so we may be headed for a new awakening....but it helped keep GDP up (significantly), productivity went to an all time high, and unemployment was low, the stock market went up. We can have a serious discussion about whether or not it was all folly, but the economy was very good for 5 out of 8 Bush years (from the 'man on the street perspective)...and 2002 was lost to September 11 impacts on the markets.

Here we sit in 2010, and what are we doing? Selling unprecedented levels of debt to the Chinese!?!? If it was dumb for Bush to add 2.5 trillion to our debt in 8 years, it is certainly dumber for Obama to add 6 trillion to our debt in 15 months. We also are hovering near 10% unemployment. Thats the simple answer for the Tea Party movement...but don't blieve for a minute that it is solely directed at Obama. It is also squarely directed at republicans who have voted for TARP, the two who voted for ARRA, those who have proposed immigration reform in the recent past, and any republican who is considering 'working' with the demcrats in the near future (Lindsey Graham and cap n trade).

Crew:
"April 10 Gallup poll shows 49% Republican, 43% Independent, and 8% Democrat."

This statement is misleading. What that poll shows is that of the 28% in the poll who support the tea party 43 % were independents. I am certainly not crapping my pants over that number.

"So no, his first two years were not good...they were quite bad...just look at the data before you type, and these kinds of mistakes won't happen."

Please remember your own words, Sir.

Dirty, I would have voted for McCain in 2000. In 2000 he stood for reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats. In 2000 he also took a huge amount of non stop ass-rape from Turdblossom and his cronies. What he learned from that is that in order to win, you must sell your soul. And God help him, he did. His shining moment in 2008 was telling that woman in the crowd at his rally "no, no he's not". That and his concession speech, in which he showed the kind of humility and strength that he has inside of him.

His service to his country was amazing. Beyond question. Who here can state they would have done what he did? Survive that hell... permanently disabled right arm and shoulder from the torture... the cancer he had... hell of a man.

And this from a self confessed liberal for life. Now which of you uber conservatives would like to compliment John Kerry or George McGovern?

I have the utmost respect for any military man regardless of whether or not he was a POW. My father faught in Korea and 3 tours of Vietnam, I also try hard to always be respectful even if the person has views or made decisions I disagree with. In fact you will find that although we may disagree with the President on many items, most of us are respectful of the office. I do not call him names, that was the purpose of my statement. I am not familar with McGovern's military record, Kerry, I respect his service, I did not like the Kerry who returned from Vietnam and spoke against the war while it is being fought. But you have to applaude his service and willingness to fight when so many refused and fled North or to Oxford. I do not believe the time to ever protest the actions of the government and its reason for fighting while were fighting, there is plenty of time to discuss how wrong we were after its done and the soliders have come home.

Point of order B-man, I am not uber conservative lol.

That's reasonable....

McGovern won the distinguished flying cross while flying B-24's out of Italy in WWII. He was immortalized for his record in "Wild Blue" by Steven Ambrose. He flew 35 missions. Lastly and just because "schadenfreude" is my middle name, there is this tidbit.." in 1980, McGovern was challenged for reelection by Republican Congressman James Abdnor. While campaigning that year, McGovern ran into two women who angrily complained about his support for defense cuts, then bought some groceries with food stamps. He later remarked that he knew he wouldn't be reelected at that moment. He was right. On election day, Abdnor defeated McGovern by a landslide." Hilarious.

Kerry came home said what he thought, and while I would have acted differently he did what he thought he had to. He didn't deserve to have his war record smeared by the swift boaters. Anyway this is off subject.

"Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil"

How can you even compare brazil to the US.

Brazil uses 2300 barrels a day
US uses 20 million

Now how much easier would you say it would be to be independent at 2300 barrels vs. 20 million.

"Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil"

How can you even compare brazil to the US.

Brazil uses 2300 barrels a day
US uses 20 million

Now how much easier would you say it would be to be independent at 2300 barrels vs. 20 million. Originally Posted by dirty dog

It's 2.5 million barrels a day used by Brazil, not 2,300. Where did you get 2,300? At first I thought you just made an error, but you included the number twice so I am guessing you meant to use that number.

"Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil"

So is Saudi Arabia, so what?

Brazil has huge oil reserves.

Referring to their ethanol program? Not nearly as successful as the ABC News special made it out to be. Throughout most of its history, it has been subsidized to match the price of gasoline...only when gas goes above a certain price point does the subsidy go away. Its no different than incentives and subsidies that the US gives to our corn farmers...just done in a slightly different way.

Brazil has so much damn oil, they are pushing to export the majority of their ethanol product (ie sugar crop), instead of use it domestically. In the upcoming years, we will buy it from them because of self imposed mandates on alternative fuel consumption...not because it is cheaper than oil. Its not an ethanol success story, instead its a story of agricultural tariffs protecting a domestic industry.

Anyway, the high gas prices were a symptom of a strong international economy, to include our own...not an indicator of a weak economy....to suggest that is just bizzare.

Economic indicators were poor during the first two years of the Bush presidency. Contrary to an earlier ill informed comment about his predecessor leaving him a good economy, he inherited the dot com collapse, and immediately after that, September 11. I also blame the fed for raising interest rates too quickly in the run up to his presidency. So no, his first two years were not good...they were quite bad...just look at the data before you type, and these kinds of mistakes won't happen.

BTW, since the price of oil seems so important, remember Clinton releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve, to depress the rising price, to help Al's election prospects. I do

Anyway, with the exception of 2008, indicators were very, very good during the remainder of the Bush years. Its completely silly to argue about that: they were good. Period. Now, it is more insightful to understand why. First, Bush let the housing bubble grow. We all knew it was bad...but most of the growth in the economy was due to housing, so everybody pretended not to notice it was unsustainable. Also, the Chinese government has to add 100,000 jobs to their economy each month!!!!...and we are their biggest export client (I think in recent months the EU may have taken over that distinction). So, the Chinese kept buying American debt...and this is important, holding onto it...and amazingly, continued to buy to this day. This made money very cheap in this country, and credit was easy to get...it grew the economy. Now of course, the Chinese know this can't go on forever, so we may be headed for a new awakening....but it helped keep GDP up (significantly), productivity went to an all time high, and unemployment was low, the stock market went up. We can have a serious discussion about whether or not it was all folly, but the economy was very good for 5 out of 8 Bush years (from the 'man on the street perspective)...and 2002 was lost to September 11 impacts on the markets.

Here we sit in 2010, and what are we doing? Selling unprecedented levels of debt to the Chinese!?!? If it was dumb for Bush to add 2.5 trillion to our debt in 8 years, it is certainly dumber for Obama to add 6 trillion to our debt in 15 months. We also are hovering near 10% unemployment. Thats the simple answer for the Tea Party movement...but don't blieve for a minute that it is solely directed at Obama. It is also squarely directed at republicans who have voted for TARP, the two who voted for ARRA, those who have proposed immigration reform in the recent past, and any republican who is considering 'working' with the demcrats in the near future (Lindsey Graham and cap n trade). Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Ok I want to respond mainly to your last paragraph because critcs of Obama bring up the 6 trillion dollar question all the time. Can you honestly tell me why Obama HAD to add 6 trillion dollars to the debt? Did Obama add the 6 trillion to the debt because on day 1 he walked into his office and his predecessor left him with a gold mine basicaly a surplus along with a booming economy and were we at peace when Obama entered the office on day 1??? Please come back to reality and it admit that much of the 6 trillion Obama HAD and note I emphasize HAD to add to the defecit was because of the conditions of the country left by his predecessor. Let's just say for example I was CEO of a fortune 500 company called ACME labs and as CEO I ran the company in the red with multi billion dollar losses and then you take over why the company is in bad shape- you had to make some drastic changes- close a few plants here and there- lay off people here and there, but now nearly year and half later- ACME labs is slowly improving- some but not all of the laid off people are back to work- some but not all of the plants have re-opened, but I blast you for not having ALL of the employess back to work and not all of the plants re-opened- wouldn't you think that was a bit unfair of me to make such claims??
Also, I admazed you admit that the TEA party doesn't believe in a bipartisian governement- so they will oppose any Republican who works with a Democrat on ab ill they don't like??? that is such petty childness and B.S! I rather the two parties work as whole. I love it when Bills get passed with Bipartisian approval- would I don't like is one particular party and I don't care which one is it- to just say NO to everything the other party put forths for the sake of saying NO. And I am sorry as an Independent I believe the GOP has not served the American people under Obama- I honestly feel obama has reached out to the GOP on various bills.
I will tell you the truth- the GOP and the TEA party will be shocked this Novemeber and what's added fuel to the fire is Arizona's Immigration law which I can't recall one Republican denouncing as of yet. Obama has already opposed it and so has many Dem's- rest assured that the Latino vote will be out in masses come November. There have already been massive rallies here in Texas due to the large hispanic population and trust me Latinos will vote in masses for the Dems basically on the principle of the bill. If the GOP thinks that just because they have large number of TEA party support is going to help them win- what's going to happen when the latino vote shows up in November in record numbers? Most people who I talk to believes the economy is lowly getting better but believe Obama needs to focus more jobs which I believe he will, but again without the stimulus bill and without the Bail out the Unemployment rate would have been much much larger. Yes Obama did state that he believed the stimulus would keep the junemployment rate at arund 8% hey he was wrong. Did Bush predict the Iraq war would cost so much and last so long??? Remember Bush in his Mission Accomplished motto when the war was far from over????

"Brazil is now 100% Independent of foreign oil"

How can you even compare brazil to the US.

Brazil uses 2300 barrels a day
US uses 20 million

Now how much easier would you say it would be to be independent at 2300 barrels vs. 20 million. Originally Posted by dirty dog

As someone has already detailed your 2300 barrels are way off- 2300 barrels in brazil wouldn't last 30 minutes- U.S has about 100 million nore people than Brazil and obviously there consumption would be more than Brazil. Brazil's energy is sadly better than U.S the majority of Brazil is run on renewable energy not so in the U.S. Yes, Brazil, recently discovered huge oil reserves and they are mainly exporting their fossil fuels and using their renewable energy which is a lesson we should learn from Brazil. Even Fox news Bill O'Reily on many occassions have pointed to Brazil's excellent energy program in Brazil. And, yes the majority of their fuel is from ethanol- which we could do in the U.S, but as long as we have a GOP in the U.S we will not have alternate fuel in U.S because Big Oil would be crippled and the GOP is in the pockets of Big Oil.
Oh, when and if the Oil prices hit $4 a gallon as it did under Bush then the obama critics can complain to me. I assure you if it gets close to that range I bet everything I own that Obama will make a stand for it unlike Bush who didn't even address the situation because it was Big Oil that got him elected.