Original Tea Party Anti-Corporate

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Original Tea Party Anti-Corporate

Post #1

Post by DeBunkem »

Let's hope the present so-called Tea Party votes as would the original ones. Their sponsorship sounds more like a cabal of Corporatists, though.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10
Published on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
by Thom Hartmann

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.

Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. :joy: Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.
>>>>>>>


That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.


Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "


The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

>>>>>

That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.
Image
" The corporate grip on opinion in the United States
is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First
World country has ever managed to eliminate so
entirely from its media all objectivity - much less
dissent."
Gore Vidal

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Post #11

Post by DeBunkem »

East of Eden wrote:
DeBunkem wrote:Polls that ask skewed questions to a select population are no indication of popularity.
What skewed question?

That one.
Remember that Gore won the popular vote.
Non-sequiter, so what? We're talking about Obama's unpopularity.

Obama was elected in a landslide. All Presidents lose popularity by mid-term.
I'm so sure that non-whites and blue state voters are inclined to identify with a group that is 99.9% Caucasian and GOP.
By your reasoning white America shouldn't identify with Obama.

But we do, no matter what propaganda polls try to imply.
Bush is the most unpopular President of all.
Wrong, but Obama is going to be.

Even Tea party people deny they ever supported Bush.
Why would anyone but FOX patsies want to go back to that failed era of more war and debt?
Bush's debt was a fraction of Obama's.
Image
This cover would explain why Newsweek is in the process of going under. More of the same: Liberal Democrats masquerading as journalists.

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/05/09/news ... -magazine/
Obama inherited the debt from Bush. He discontinued the Bush practice of putting war funding off the books and thus not counted....thereby increasing the visible debt tremendously but restoring some honesty to what had been under the table.

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ ... 2837.shtml
"As a judicial historian looking at what's occurred on his watch, it is almost void of genuine accomplishment," said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

"In foreign policy where he has taken so much criticism, I think the assessment of history will be surprisingly positive," said former Bush speechwriter David Frum.

"I think President Bush might very well be the worst president in U.S. history," said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Joseph Ellis.

Because today's historians, including Ellis, get to write the first draft, the Bush legacy seems to be in for a bumpy start.

"He's unusual," said Ellis. "Most two-term presidents have a mixed record. Lyndon Johnson, one of the greatest achievements in the 20th century was civil rights legislation; on the other hand you have the extraordinary tragedy of Vietnam. Even Richard Nixon opened the door to China and had foreign policy credentials. Bush has nothing on the positive side, virtually nothing."

And that's not a minority opinion. In a 2006 Siena College survey of 744 history professors, 82% rated President Bush below average, or a failure.

Last April, in an informal poll by George Mason University of 109 historians, Mr. Bush fared even worse - 98% considered him a failed president. Sixty-one percent judged him, as Ellis does, one of the worst in American history.

"John Adams, the second president, said that there's one unforgivable sin that no president will ever be forgiven, and that is to put the country into an unnecessary war," Ellis said. "I think that Iraq has proven to be an unnecessary war, and will appear to be more unnecessary as time goes on."

Image

Grim_railer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:27 am
Location: bolivia

Post #12

Post by Grim_railer »

george bush was a rly good prez

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #13

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:

Remember that Gore won the popular vote.
Non-sequiter, so what? We're talking about Obama's unpopularity.
For the record, Obama's poll numbers have been similar to Reagan's, mostly a bit higher, over the first year and a half of their administrations. They both faced bad economies coming in, but Obama had a much more severe crisis to deal with than Reagan.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for graphs of all President, singly or as a group.


Bush is the most unpopular President of all.
Wrong, but Obama is going to be.
Bush's ending approval ratings were the worst of any President going back to Truman except for Nixon. Bush, Nixon, and Truman were the only President's to have approvals lower than 30%, using the numbers reported here by the Wall Street Journal Online. Truman did experience a rise toward the end of his second term, and so finished higher than Bush.

So, Bush may not be the most unpopular President since 1945, but he is darn close.


At this point, given Obama is trending slightly above Reagan, I can't see that you have much of a case to make that he will end up less popular than Bush. Keep in mind Bush's highest ratings came right after 9/11. Most President's get a big upsurge at the outset of a war. Even the unpopular Truman got a little bump after the start of the Korean War.

Bush went steeply downhill from there, and pretty steadily. He also, outside of 9/11, had nothing like the problems that Obama has had to deal with.



President's usually get more credit and more blame than they deserve about what happens under their watch. Obama's popularity is likely to continue to erode if the economy does not improve. But if it does, he is likely to experience significant increases in popularity. He could easily stay more popular than Reagan was.

Why would anyone but FOX patsies want to go back to that failed era of more war and debt?
Bush's debt was a fraction of Obama's.

Can you parse this out? It has already been noted that Obama has now honestly taken account of the war spending. That should go on Bush's ledger, not Obama's. So does TARP spending.



The Republican's suddent dect conscioussness is quite hypocritical. They ran up the debt, and they largely created the mess were in. Obama is spending to try and keep things from falling apart and most ecnomists agree we needed to do the bail outs to keep from imploding. We are fortunate to be borrowing at low rates.

Also, some of the future deficits are structural, again due to lack of political will and just plain incompetence in the past as far as dealing with long term trends.



In the long term, we have to do something about the debt. In the short term, we need to prevent calamity. Obama has done that. Bush actually deserves some credit for realizing something needed to be done and getting TARP going. Obama probably saved tens of thousands of jobs through the auto bail out and prevented even higher unemployment with the stimulus.




If the Tea Party has some actual constructive, specific, and feasible solutions for dealing with the debt, let's hear them. So far, all I here is a lot of sniping and sloganeering. I hear a lot of false accusations about massive tax increases (one has to ask what the numbers are, what taxes has Obama increased and by how much??). I hear the term "small government" but not much on specfics about what that means.



One has to ask, "where's the beef?"
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #14

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote: That one.
More dodging.
Obama was elected in a landslide.


No he wasn't. He's completely missing in Wikipedia's list of landslide presidential victories.

Presidential
Presidential elections in the United States are indirect; they are not determined by the "popular vote", but by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated as many "electors" as it has Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, and, at present, all states but Nebraska and Maine hold a "winner take all" vote, in which the winner of the popular vote in a state wins all electoral votes the state is eligible to cast (Nebraska and Maine give two electoral votes to the winner of the state and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district within the state.).

For this reason, many presidential victories appear to be huge landslide victories when examining the electoral vote, but much less so when examining the popular vote; for example, in the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan won 90.9% of the electoral vote but 50.7% of the popular vote to Jimmy Carter's 41.0%.

[edit] Popular votes
Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon's 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
Warren Harding's 60.3% to James M. Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election
Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election
[edit] Electoral votes
James Monroe's 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams's 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.1% margin)
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin)
Richard Nixon's 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes and John Hospers's 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin)
Ronald Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin)
[edit] The greatest modern landslides in the United States Presidential elections
1920 - the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote (Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%).
1936 - the greatest electoral votes difference between winner and opponent (Roosevelt 523 to Landon 8).
1964 - the highest percentage for winner (Lyndon Johnson 61.1%).
1984 - the highest number of electoral votes (Reagan 525).

But we do, no matter what propaganda polls try to imply.


:D Keep telling yourself that. Is that why everyone Obama campaigns for loses?

Even Tea party people deny they ever supported Bush.[/color]

Which ones? Bush would be far preferable to the boob we now have as POTUS. I saw a recent poll that said if the election were rerun today McCain would win.

Obama inherited the debt from Bush. [/color]


He didn't inherit the massively expensive, hugely unpopular healthcare bill from Bush, or the phony stimulous bill which in reality was just a payoff to his political base. Few have been conned into believing the stimulous has done any good.

As FDR showed, Obama is proving that truly inept government policy can take a very bad situation and make it much, much worse.

"I think President Bush might very well be the worst president in U.S. history," said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Joseph Ellis.

Because today's historians, including Ellis, get to write the first draft, the Bush legacy seems to be in for a bumpy start.


Who cares what one Joseph Ellis thinks? I would think your Bush Derangement Syndrome would have subsided by now. I guess anything to take the focus off the failed Obama Administration.

And that's not a minority opinion. In a 2006 Siena College survey of 744 history professors, 82% rated President Bush below average, or a failure.

Last April, in an informal poll by George Mason University of 109 historians, Mr. Bush fared even worse - 98% considered him a failed president. Sixty-one percent judged him, as Ellis does, one of the worst in American history.


Again, who gives a rip what a bunch of Obama's fellow liberal professors think? If I got a bunch of my conservative friends together for an opinion would it mean anything? What matters is the American people's opinion, and on that score Obama and his cohorts will be deservedly punished this November.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #15

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote: For the record, Obama's poll numbers have been similar to Reagan's, mostly a bit higher, over the first year and a half of their administrations. They both faced bad economies coming in, but Obama had a much more severe crisis to deal with than Reagan.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for graphs of all President, singly or as a group.
I see what you're saying but the reason Reagan's ratings went up was because his economic policies (the opposite of Obama's) panned out, Obama's will not.

Bush's ending approval ratings were the worst of any President going back to Truman except for Nixon. Bush, Nixon, and Truman were the only President's to have approvals lower than 30%, using the numbers reported here by the Wall Street Journal Online. Truman did experience a rise toward the end of his second term, and so finished higher than Bush.

So, Bush may not be the most unpopular President since 1945, but he is darn close.
OK, but Bush, Truman and Nixon are not POTUS now. Are we going to talk about Millard Filmore too?
President's usually get more credit and more blame than they deserve about what happens under their watch. Obama's popularity is likely to continue to erode if the economy does not improve. But if it does, he is likely to experience significant increases in popularity. He could easily stay more popular than Reagan was.
Policies the opposite of Reagan's will not result in Reagan's popularity.

The Republican's suddent dect conscioussness is quite hypocritical. They ran up the debt, and they largely created the mess were in.
If you're saying Bush and the former GOP Congress spent too much, I agree. They weren't operating on conservative principals that everyone (liberals included) run their lives on, i.e., don't spend way more than you take in. The answer, however, isn't to elect Obama to hugely increase the deficit.

I've said this before, we need term limits, for both parties.
Obama probably saved tens of thousands of jobs through the auto bail out and prevented even higher unemployment with the stimulus.
He said unemployment would rise from 8 to 10 percent if we DIDN'T pass the stimulous. If you want to pump $800 million in the economy, then cut taxes for the job creators as Kennedy and Reagan successfully did.
If the Tea Party has some actual constructive, specific, and feasible solutions for dealing with the debt, let's hear them. So far, all I here is a lot of sniping and sloganeering. I hear a lot of false accusations about massive tax increases (one has to ask what the numbers are, what taxes has Obama increased and by how much??). I hear the term "small government" but not much on specfics about what that means.
How about for a start, stop the generational theft of our hugely increased spending? How about not letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a bad economy? How about closing the borders instead of pandering to your political base?
One has to ask, "where's the beef?"
The Tea Party has been asking that very question of Obama.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #16

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: For the record, Obama's poll numbers have been similar to Reagan's, mostly a bit higher, over the first year and a half of their administrations. They both faced bad economies coming in, but Obama had a much more severe crisis to deal with than Reagan.

See http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... 05-31.html for graphs of all President, singly or as a group.
I see what you're saying but the reason Reagan's ratings went up was because his economic policies (the opposite of Obama's) panned out, Obama's will not.
We'll have to wait and see. Again, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb, and has two wars on top of that, so it would stand to reason (especially since the Afghan war has been going on for so long and is unpopular) he will have a harder time turning things around.

However, predictions are a dime a dozen, and in one like this, you always have some chance of being right, no matter what happens.

Bush's ending approval ratings were the worst of any President going back to Truman except for Nixon. Bush, Nixon, and Truman were the only President's to have approvals lower than 30%, using the numbers reported here by the Wall Street Journal Online. Truman did experience a rise toward the end of his second term, and so finished higher than Bush.

So, Bush may not be the most unpopular President since 1945, but he is darn close.
OK, but Bush, Truman and Nixon are not POTUS now. Are we going to talk about Millard Filmore too?
I didn't bring up popularity. I merely pointed out that DeBunkem was not quite correct in saying Bush was the most unpopular President ever and you are, at least so far, incorrect in saying Obama is somehow more unpopular or will be more unpopular than ever.

President's usually get more credit and more blame than they deserve about what happens under their watch. Obama's popularity is likely to continue to erode if the economy does not improve. But if it does, he is likely to experience significant increases in popularity. He could easily stay more popular than Reagan was.
Policies the opposite of Reagan's will not result in Reagan's popularity.

Well, if you look at the data, Reagan was not exactly the most popular President over this period either. On average, he seems to be slightly less popular than Clinton, having spent slightly more time below 50% and slightly less time above sixty percent. Clinton topped out higher and ended higher than Reagan.


And the implication that one must do what Reagan did to be as popular as Reagan is silly on its face, even without the Clinton example.


The Republican's suddent dect conscioussness is quite hypocritical. They ran up the debt, and they largely created the mess were in.
If you're saying Bush and the former GOP Congress spent too much, I agree. They weren't operating on conservative principals that everyone (liberals included) run their lives on, i.e., don't spend way more than you take in. The answer, however, isn't to elect Obama to hugely increase the deficit.

I've said this before, we need term limits, for both parties.

Obama did not come into office or campaign on tax or spending increases. I challenge you to show that the deficit that Obama is responsible for is that much different than what Reagan ran up. I challenge you to show Obama's tax policy is that much different than Reagan's. Remember that Reagan passed the largest tax increase, in real terms, in history ( at least that is my understanding) when Social Security Reform went through.




Obama probably saved tens of thousands of jobs through the auto bail out and prevented even higher unemployment with the stimulus.
He said unemployment would rise from 8 to 10 percent if we DIDN'T pass the stimulous. If you want to pump $800 million in the economy, then cut taxes for the job creators as Kennedy and Reagan successfully did.

Blaming Obama for economic predictions that everyone got wrong is really not fair. No one at the time understood the economy was in as bad as shape as it was. The 8% comparison is simply bogus. Paulson said if we had not acted we might have seeene 25% unemployment.


If the Tea Party has some actual constructive, specific, and feasible solutions for dealing with the debt, let's hear them. So far, all I here is a lot of sniping and sloganeering. I hear a lot of false accusations about massive tax increases (one has to ask what the numbers are, what taxes has Obama increased and by how much??). I hear the term "small government" but not much on specfics about what that means.
How about for a start, stop the generational theft of our hugely increased spending? How about not letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the middle of a bad economy? How about closing the borders instead of pandering to your political base?
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not generational theft, it is prudent anti-deficit policy. There is little evidence that those tax cuts did much of anything to created jobs.

I also challengee you to show that current border enforcement, as far as number of arrests, etc. is significantly different than it was in the Bush years. The "open borders" accusation is a totally bogus and unfounded charge.

Now, I am all for getting the fiscal house in order, including getting the deficit and debt under control. But a lot of that problem is long term and won't be solved in the short term. Those projections would likely be similar to what they are now if McCain had been elected. You can say what you want about health care and stimulus, but the former is not projected to negatively affect the deficit in the long term, and the latter is a short term fix due to extreme circumstances.


You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the extremity of the situation we were in starting in the fall of 2008.
One has to ask, "where's the beef?"
The Tea Party has been asking that very question of Obama.
[/quote]

But the tea party has largely provided nothing but sloganeering. I can appreciate their concern about deficit and taxes. Their "tyranny of Obama" theme is, however, ridiculous and they were largely out of touch with reality on health care. Their largely emotional response to the situation we are in, combined with the irrational analysis of many aspects of that situation, might end up swaying votes, but it is not likely to provide any constructive solutions to our problems.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #17

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote: We'll have to wait and see. Again, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb,
If you're comparing him to Reagan, I reject that. Reagan had to deal with much higher interest rates and inflation.

I didn't bring up popularity. I merely pointed out that DeBunkem was not quite correct in saying Bush was the most unpopular President ever and you are, at least so far, incorrect in saying Obama is somehow more unpopular or will be more unpopular than ever.
At least we can all agree that Obama is very popular among liberal academics. :D

If, if you look at the data, Reagan was not exactly the most popular President over this period either. On average, he seems to be slightly less popular than Clinton, having spent slightly more time below 50% and slightly less time above sixty percent. Clinton topped out higher and ended higher than Reagan.
You can argue that Clinton had a Reaganesque economic policy, at least with the Gingrich congress he went along with.
Obama did not come into office or campaign on tax or spending increases.
He didn't campaign on much of anything, other than 'change'.
I challenge you to show that the deficit that Obama is responsible for is that much different than what Reagan ran up. I challenge you to show Obama's tax policy is that much different than Reagan's.
Reagan lowered taxes and regulation, Obama wants to raise them.
Blaming Obama for economic predictions that everyone got wrong is really not fair. No one at the time understood the economy was in as bad as shape as it was. The 8% comparison is simply bogus. Paulson said if we had not acted we might have seeene 25% unemployment.
Not acted how? Obama's bogus stimulous?
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not generational theft, it is prudent anti-deficit policy.
There is little evidence raising tax rates raises revenue, the opposite often occurs, and lowering taxes often increases revenue by stimulating the economy. A prudent anti-deficit policy would be to reduce spending.
I also challengee you to show that current border enforcement, as far as number of arrests, etc. is significantly different than it was in the Bush years.
Then why is he suing AZ for trying to enforce immigration laws? What a hypocrite, he doesn't sue sanctuary cities for breaking federal immigration laws but he sues AZ for trying to enforce federal immigration standards.
You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the extremity of the situation we were in starting in the fall of 2008.
That was when Bush was president, we're talking about Obama.
But the tea party has largely provided nothing but sloganeering. I can appreciate their concern about deficit and taxes. Their "tyranny of Obama" theme is, however, ridiculous and they were largely out of touch with reality on health care.
Obama is the one out of touch on healthcare. Last poll I saw said only 38% support Obamacare.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

WinePusher

Post #18

Post by WinePusher »

micatala wrote:Well, if you look at the data, Reagan was not exactly the most popular President over this period either.
I believe Reagan left office with an approval over 60%. Obama has been president for a little over a year and his approvals below 50.
micatala wrote:And the implication that one must do what Reagan did to be as popular as Reagan is silly on its face, even without the Clinton example.
Not quite. Reagan's policies were a total 360 flip from what Obama's doing, and Reagan's approval has been, and probably will be, higher than Obamas.


micatala wrote:Obama did not come into office or campaign on tax or spending increases.
Yes. He the things he didn't campaign on, he is doing; and the things he did campaign on, hes not doing.
micatala wrote:I challenge you to show Obama's tax policy is that much different than Reagan's.
If he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, he will have essentially broken his promise that he will not raise taxes on 95% of americans.

micatala wrote:Blaming Obama for economic predictions that everyone got wrong is really not fair. No one at the time understood the economy was in as bad as shape as it was.
When will this be Obama's economy? I expect any president to own up to his policies and not constantly whine about the prior administration. The fact is, he and his democrat friends sold this failed stimulus bill to America by promising that unemployment would not rise above 8%. Either he is incompetent and does not understand the workings of the economy, or he lied.
micatala wrote:If the Tea Party has some actual constructive, specific, and feasible solutions for dealing with the debt, let's hear them. So far, all I here is a lot of sniping and sloganeering.
No, the tea party message is pretty clear cut. Stop spending, stop adding to the deficit, stop burdening the next generation.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #19

Post by micatala »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote: We'll have to wait and see. Again, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb,
If you're comparing him to Reagan, I reject that. Reagan had to deal with much higher interest rates and inflation.
But not the potential complete meltdown of the financial sector and the prospect of another great depression.





Obama did not come into office or campaign on tax or spending increases.
He didn't campaign on much of anything, other than 'change'.
I challenge you to show that the deficit that Obama is responsible for is that much different than what Reagan ran up. I challenge you to show Obama's tax policy is that much different than Reagan's.
Reagan lowered taxes and regulation, Obama wants to raise them.
This does not respond to the challenge.

Also, Obama wants to lower taxes for the most part, except he wants to allow the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over 250,000.

Reagan RAISESD taxes, and the Social Security Tax hike had a much larger impact on those on the LOWER end of the tax brackets.

As far as regulation, you are probably in general correct.

On the other hand, what has de-regulation gotten us? Reagan has his own Savings and Loan Crisis. The de-regulation in the late 90's helped get us in the mess we are in now, along with lax oversight in the Bush administration.

Lax energy regulation helped get us the BP spill. Sorry if I prefer a practical reality that at least tries to avoid these major catastrophes over some idealogical axiom that has not been shown to be beneficial in general.


Blaming Obama for economic predictions that everyone got wrong is really not fair. No one at the time understood the economy was in as bad as shape as it was. The 8% comparison is simply bogus. Paulson said if we had not acted we might have seeene 25% unemployment.
Not acted how? Obama's bogus stimulous?
If we had not acted, including the stimulus, unemployment would have been worse than it is. I repeat, your 8% comparison is simply bogus and unfair. Everyone low-pegged the number when Obama made this statement. Most economists agree that, even if the general public does not get it, the stimulus saved thousands, even millions of jobs, overall.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not generational theft, it is prudent anti-deficit policy.
There is little evidence raising tax rates raises revenue, the opposite often occurs, and lowering taxes often increases revenue by stimulating the economy. A prudent anti-deficit policy would be to reduce spending.
Evidence??

I am all for reducing spending.

What would you cut and by how much?

I also challengee you to show that current border enforcement, as far as number of arrests, etc. is significantly different than it was in the Bush years.
Then why is he suing AZ for trying to enforce immigration laws? What a hypocrite, he doesn't sue sanctuary cities for breaking federal immigration laws but he sues AZ for trying to enforce federal immigration standards.
Doesn't respond to the challenge.

What are the arrest numbers before and after Obama took office? Can you show that "the border is open" as you put it?



I note the judge DID declare important parts of the law unconstitutional. So, it looks like the administration is at least partially correct on that score.

And as long as we are talking Tea Party, I note there were a lot of protests against the AZ law. I wonder how much of that was on FOX?
You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the extremity of the situation we were in starting in the fall of 2008.
That was when Bush was president, we're talking about Obama.

Dodging the issue again.

But the tea party has largely provided nothing but sloganeering. I can appreciate their concern about deficit and taxes. Their "tyranny of Obama" theme is, however, ridiculous and they were largely out of touch with reality on health care.
Obama is the one out of touch on healthcare. Last poll I saw said only 38% support Obamacare.
I am talking about fiscal and policy reality, not the vaguaries of public opinion. This response simply reinforces the notion that the Tea Party is all about emotion and ideology, and very little to do with substantive problem solving.

And, I think it is quite fair to put a good part of the negative reaction to the health care bill on lies about it on the right, and the less than ideal salesmanship job by the administration.


AND, it is worth noting some of the negative response is due to a chunk of people who wanted the bill to go FURTHER than it did. The public option was polling at over 50% this past spring.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #20

Post by micatala »

WinePusher wrote:
micatala wrote:Well, if you look at the data, Reagan was not exactly the most popular President over this period either.
I believe Reagan left office with an approval over 60%. Obama has been president for a little over a year and his approvals below 50.
Yes, if you read my post, I think I noted that. See the data provided in the linke. The point was that at this point in his first term, Reagan was slightly less popular than Obama is now.

micatala wrote:And the implication that one must do what Reagan did to be as popular as Reagan is silly on its face, even without the Clinton example.
Not quite. Reagan's policies were a total 360 flip from what Obama's doing, and Reagan's approval has been, and probably will be, higher than Obamas.
Again, Reagan was NOT more popular than Obama at this time in his Presidency, and this is true even though Obama has had much bigger problems to deal with.


As far as policy, perhaps you can specify exactly how much different Reagan's tax policy is than Obama's?


And as a small point, 360 degrees different would mean they were actually going in exactly the same direction. ;)

micatala wrote:Obama did not come into office or campaign on tax or spending increases.
Yes. He the things he didn't campaign on, he is doing; and the things he did campaign on, hes not doing.
He campaigned on health care reform. Done.

He campaigned on middle class tax cuts and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Isn't this also getting done?

Some of what he has done that he did not campaign on he did because of the catastrophe that happened a few weeks before the election. To criticize him on that score is a little ridiculous, especially as what he did is working.

All three big three auto-makers profitable again for the first time since 2004.

No second great depression.

No 25% unemployment rate.

Economic growth returning.

Now, things are not great yet, but I think Obama gets some credit for implementing things that seem to at least be getting us headed in the right direction.

When we get the Titanic well away from the ice berg, we can then get back to thee deficit problem.


micatala wrote:I challenge you to show Obama's tax policy is that much different than Reagan's.
If he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, he will have essentially broken his promise that he will not raise taxes on 95% of americans.
I challenge this assertion. What percent of Americans make more than $250,000 per year??


micatala wrote:Blaming Obama for economic predictions that everyone got wrong is really not fair. No one at the time understood the economy was in as bad as shape as it was.
When will this be Obama's economy? I expect any president to own up to his policies and not constantly whine about the prior administration. The fact is, he and his democrat friends sold this failed stimulus bill to America by promising that unemployment would not rise above 8%. Either he is incompetent and does not understand the workings of the economy, or he lied.



Just as with East of Eden, your citation of the 8% number if bogus, unfair, and represents right-wing anti-Obama ideological spin.

EVERYONE pegged the future unemployment number too low because no one at the time Obama made this statement understood how bad the situation actually was. This is like saying if we don't sandbag, the flood will wipe out 100,000 acres. Then the flood came and was worse than anyone predicted and wipes out 120,000 acres. But without the sandbags it would have wiped out 150,000 acres.

You're saying since the 120,000 got wiped out that somehow the sandbags didn't work.


micatala wrote:If the Tea Party has some actual constructive, specific, and feasible solutions for dealing with the debt, let's hear them. So far, all I here is a lot of sniping and sloganeering.
No, the tea party message is pretty clear cut. Stop spending, stop adding to the deficit, stop burdening the next generation.

Sure it's simple; in fact, it's overly simplistic message to the point of being disastrous.

Following this message we would:

Bring home all the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let the automakers go under and have another several hundred thousand, perhaps a million, unemployed people than we do now.

Let the banks go under and have a total financial melt down.

But KEEP letting people making over $250,000 keep another 3% of their marginal income.

Let the health care system continue to run at 50% to 100% more in cost than other industrialied nations while only giving us about the same results overall for most people who ARE insured and leaving a lot more people uninsured and lacking in health care.



The Tea Party if full of nice sounding slogans, but I have not seen anyone in that group actually willing to deal productively with reality. If the Tea Party ever DID gain significant control over the country, they would make the Bush Administration look like rocket scientists.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply