Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 3420
Subject: The 'lie' that is the Tea Party

Posted by: sarge33rd - [280311620] Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 11:21

Named for the Boston Tea Party, which took place to protest "taxation without representation', their entire premise is grounded in a false belief that they are not now represented.

How many city councilman across this country, are Republican?

You are represented.

How many Mayors, are Republican?

You are represented.

How many State legislators, are Republican?

You are represented.

How many Governors, are Republican?

You are represented.

How many Republican seats in the House of Representatives?

You are represented.

How many Republican seats in the Senate?

You are represented.

How many Republican appointees sit on the Supreme Court?

You are represented.

Your entire movement, is grounded on a lie which you tell each other, in order to fire up one anothers emotions. You have fallen so far out of touch with reality, that you find it necessary to lie not only about our President and his position(s), but to each other.

You are represented. What you are not, is representative of the majority.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 11:30

hey guess what sarge the boston tea party would have happened even if there was representation, they protested because they did not want to pay for there own protection. I think the tea partiers have have more in common than you think with the original tea party.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 12:24

You may be right boikin. Had King George WON the Revolutionary War, no doubt those folks would have been labeled as terrorists. There may INDEED, be something in common there after all.

Building 7
ID: 471052128
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 13:15

The Republican party does not represent the Tea party.

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 14:48

Neocons have very little in common with the Tea Partiers. Neocons have very few principles in harmony with the 'Contract with America'.

The republican candidates getting campaign contributions from George Soros have nothing in common with the Tea Partiers.

The Tea Partiers are not represented in congress besides Bachman and a few others.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 14:49

Well, in all honesty...if the Tea Party finds it to their interest to run a 3rd party candidate, and the Reps run their candidate...it will all but GUARANTEE a Dem wins the office.

Seems to me, one or both of the Reps/Tea Partiers are gonna have to find some common ground and *gasp* c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e. (I know thats a 4-letter word for both of those groups, but...oh well.)

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 16:10

It may well be that this fissure in the Republican party allows this country to turn into a marxist country. How happy you must be.

Mith
ID: 482583111
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 16:19

The Republican party does not represent the Tea party

I am 100% certain that this statement will be wholly proven false as soon as the exit polls are in this November, not that the rest of us have to wait that long for what we already know to bear out.

They may hold their nose and call the GOP the lesser evil, but that's absolutely who they will choose to represent them.

Do you see support for a third party springing up out of that movement?

Do you think they'll be voting Dem?

Do you think they'll stay home?

You think their patron saint, Sarah, will be stumping for candidates who aren't Republicans?

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 16:26

Re #6, the only question I have is...What took you so long? Your cries of Marxist this and Marxist that are not only predictable, but hollow.

Obama is a Democrat, not a Marxist. While you may choose to think that social awareness and Marxism are the same; they are not.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 16:27

Also, I have to wonder re your cries of Marxism...just what exactly was McCarthy screaming in the 50s?, or your vaunted conservatives crying out during the civil rights movement?

Riiiiiight. You and they were wrong then, and you're still wrong now. 50 years later and you are STILL blind to the truth.

Myboyjack
ID: 447112610
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:04

Sorry, sarge but you don't get to define for every American
what the "meaning" of the Boston Tea Party was. If for you it
was a bunch of terrorists whining about taxation without
representation then so be it

For others it was about rebellion against an overly intrusive,
imperialistic British government that used taxation as a tool to
keep her subjuects subservient. Calling that view a "lie" is
stupid.

For a actual look at what a defeated rebels against that
British regime were called you can look at N. Ireland.
Opinions vary on what they are called.

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:11

Sarge#9

Yeah, I always thot that too, until the uberliberals at Salon.com TableTalk proudly proved to me MLK was swinging marxist at the end. I don't think it's an ironclad case but I wouldn't bet against it.

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:13

Without a doubt he had very close friends and advisors bending his ear and twisting his arm in that direction.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:15

MBJ....we call them patriots, because we won the war. Plain and simple. Had Britain won the war, I have no doubt at all, NONE; it would have been termed a 'civil war', and the Colonial troops would have been deemed that eras equivalent of terrorists in that they took up arms against their lawful King.

Do you REALLY think otherwise?

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:16

btw...nice to see you post. lol Hadn't seen much from you of late.

Boldwin
ID: 535651
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:25

I on the otherhand would love him to be remembered as having forced America to live up to it's ideals and of having been a supporter of America's founding documents and ideals.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:41

it would have been termed a 'civil war', and the Colonial troops would have been deemed that eras equivalent of terrorists in that they took up arms against their lawful King.

i think they probably would have used the term rebellion not civil war, civil war losers are usually not labeled terrorists see Confederates and Royalists. Truthfully they probably would have been labeled traitors.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:52

traitors to the king would not be far removed from a terrorist in our modern eyes.

Truthfully, would not the Boston Tea Party constitute a terrorist act; had we lost the war? The deliberate, planned destruction of "the kings property", is not all that different from the deliberate and planned destruction in OK City by McVeigh. Yes, civilian casualties were very different, but the 'illegal' destruction of lawfully owned governmental property is the same.

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 17:57

since the act was against crown and not directed towards the population it could probably go either way. I don't think there goal was terror but protest in fairly non-violent way, if McVeigh cleared out all the people from the building then blew it up or stole army trucks and crashed them all you could probably compare the two.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 18:03

non-violent? armed, trespassing, and throwing overboard; governmental property? Not sure "non violent" would fit that description.

I know wiki is somewhat suspect anymore as a source, however their entry re the Boston Tea Party reads quite close to what I recall from my HS and college days:

wiki re Boston Tea Party

The whole thing grew, out of the British Parliaments having taxed the tea shipped to the colonies, while the colonials had no elected representation IN the British Parliament. Hence, "no taxation without representation".

boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 10:36

sarge maybe you should have read the whole page, i mean the king of non-violence protesting Gandhi sites the act.

maybe here is the biggest tea party lie no taxation with out, will with out actually being taxed.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

maybe the new slogan should be no paperwork with out representation.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 10:44

Income tax is such a small percentage of the tax burden these days. Taxes are hidden in countless places, besides the entitlement 'lockboxes' that get treated as general taxes.

The half of the population who do not pay income taxes and the taxpayers who don't realize their witheld taxes are only half the actual income taxes are being fooled into not feeling the true burden of big government.

Khahan
ID: 391582715
Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 16:19

Truthfully, would not the Boston Tea Party constitute a terrorist act; had we lost the war? The deliberate, planned destruction of "the kings property", is not all that different from the deliberate and planned destruction in OK City by McVeigh. Yes, civilian casualties were very different, but the 'illegal' destruction of lawfully owned governmental property is the same.

I think, Sarge, that these are situations where you cannot pick out certain criteria and set it aside to make a rational comparison fit.

The Boston Tea Party was a destruction of the kings property as a way to protest unfair and oppressive rule. That is it. Destruction of property. They were vandals.

Timothy McVeigh is a 'domestic terrorist,' though I prefer the term murderer. His actions had a direct and predictable result of the loss of civilian life. There is no cherry-picking here. All aspects of Timothy McVeigh's actions are part and parcel of his plot and you cannot extract some and leave the others behind.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 09:36

I don't know if it can be called a lie, but tea party types have utterly refused to admit that an economic recovery has been underway for more than a year, and indications are that the recovery will continue in the forseeable future.

So, it's encouraging to see respected conservative economist and CNBC analyst, Larry Kudlow, provide a refreshingly honest evaluation of the current economic conditions.

I’m aiming this thought especially at many of my conservative friends who seem to be trashing the improving economic outlook -- largely, it would appear, to discredit the Obama administration.

Don’t do it folks. It’s a mistake. The numbers are the numbers. And prosperity is a welcome development for a nation that has suffered mightily.

Credibility is at issue here. Conservative credibility. Capitalist credibility.

Now, I have written extensively about the tax-and-regulatory threats of the Obamanomics big-government assault. But most of that is in the future. The current reality is that a strong rebound in corporate profits (the greatest and truest stimulus of all), ultra-easy money from the Fed, and some small stimuli from government spending are working to generate a stronger-than-expected recovery in a basically free-market economy that is a lot more resilient than capitalist critics think.

Rather than blow their credibility over a cyclical rebound that is backed by the statistics, free-market conservatives should tell it like it is.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 13:46

This was not just the business cycle at work. Nothing Obama has done gives businessmen confidence that they can expand without new landmines going off in the form of new taxes and regulations and hostile government environment.

"Like it is". Businesses are leaner and meaner, more efficient and many are doing remarkably well, but not expanding as they would if this were just a normal business cycle recovery.

Perm Dude in Chicago
ID: 333501112
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 13:51

That's because this is far from a normal cycle. Meanwhile, Obama has lowered taxes for small businesses, expanded government spending on stuff US businesses do (like building things), and worked to free up credit markets so businesses can borrow money easier.

The big drag is, and continues to be, job creation. But we've known that for awhile.

What US businesses are *not* doing is responding to Far Right talking points about phantoms such as "takeovers" or "new taxes."

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:06

What US businesses are *not* doing is responding to Far Right talking points about phantoms such as "takeovers" or "new taxes."

Tell it to the businesses Waxman is intimidating and dragging before congress for having the termitity to complain about the new taxes.

Perm Dude in Chicago
ID: 333501112
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:07

Link?

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:10

and worked to free up credit markets so businesses can borrow money easier

This too is debatable. My son at the bank says that the government is talking out if both sides of their mouth. Berating banks for not making more loans, while tightening the regulatory screws considerably on creditworthiness. I understand being more careful on who you loan to, but then don't take credit for easing credit.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:11

*roll* link? Really? You aren't totally aware of Catepillar's situation?

Perm Dude in Chicago
ID: 333501112
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:24

#28: Well, are you really asking for less regulation on bank loans, with no encouragement to loan more?

The government is doing what it can to ease credit. This isn't a bad thing.

#29: Yes, large companies lost a tax benefit they shouldn't have really had in the first place. About a third of large US companies are affected. None, as far as I know, are planning any changes to their benefit packages as a result and I'm not aware of any companies losing money overall as a result of the change in their free ride. I am aware that their profits are taking a bite--profits that were inflated by taxpayers subsidizing their benefit. So guess what, Baldwin: Neither you nor I are having our tax dollars inflate Catepillar's profits by $100 million.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:29

We've got business owners posting here, don't we? Do you feel you can safely expand without being sandbagged by new regulations and taxes? Is it a predictable environment conducive to reasonable business risk-taking?

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 14:49

Didn't we just go through a massive period of extremely low regulation? How'd that work out for those business owners?

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 15:10

Business cant grow?
Business cant expand?
Profits are in the toilet?
Expenses are killing business?

Where is the DOW compared to 1 year ago?

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 15:12

DOW Jones charted over past 12 months

hmm look at that. Up from 8k to 11k.

Yep, business is doing HORRIBLY B. Try facts, not personal, bias.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 18:02

Nothing Obama has done gives businessmen confidence that they can expand without new landmines going off in the form of new taxes and regulations and hostile government environment.

Exactly what Kudlow(who knows more in his little finger about economics than the author of above statement)says destroys conservative credibility.

You're obsessive hatred of Obama consumes so much of your energy that you can't see straight much less make a credible comment about the economy. Your position is not only embarrassing, it's anti-American. Your like the the war critics who refused to admit the surge was a success, purely for political reasons.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 18:53

Business cant grow?
Business cant expand?
Profits are in the toilet?
Expenses are killing business?

Where did I say that?

They are just not willing to expand until they can predict the government environment.

They are lean mean and efficient as they can possibly be [they had to be to survive the lowest point] which translates into profits and a jobless recovery in the market.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 18:54

I know a business making custom steel tubing where everyone is working overtime and they won't even pick up a laid off relative they were grooming for management.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:19

I know a business making custom steel tubing where everyone is working overtime and they won't even pick up a laid off relative they were grooming for management.

My apologies. You're obviously more qualified to analyze the economy than Larry Kudlow.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:24

I know of an insurance company in CA which recorded record profits, then tried to raise rates 39%.

One off the cuff example, does NOT constitute a national trend. You are gonna have to do MUCH better than that.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:26

I didn't invent the term 'jobless recovery'.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:34

No. Nor did you admit that a lone example does not constitute a trend.

The DOW is up almost 40% in a year. I think THAT to be a much better indicator of the overall economy, than the biased rantings and ravings of fauxspews and their ilk.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:45

And you didn't invent ignoring facts either. According to Kudlow:

Let’s begin with the March employment numbers recently released by the Labor Department. Those numbers were solid. People say small businesses are getting killed by taxes and regulations from Washington, but the reality is that the small-business household employment survey has produced 1.1 million new jobs in the first quarter of 2010, or 371,000 per month. If that continues, the unemployment rate will drop significantly.

Additionally, the corporate payroll number for March increased by 224,000 -- not 162,000 as some claim -- with the prior two months being revised up by 62,000. And this is being led by private-sector job creation.

Doesn't it suck when facts get in the way of a pre-conceived bias?

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 19:57

Another consideration is what kind of employment situation would we have faced if the government hadn't stepped in with programs like the stimulus, TARP, GM bailout, tax incentives for homebuyers and an S&P 500 that's risen 70% in a year?

Even the most cynical of economists agree that these steps avoided a global economic meltdown.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:05

Feel free to look at a range of sources google throws for the term. Very very few experts will color this situation in positive terms without grave reservations.

google entries for this week

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:16

I will add that I am not universally against some government action to bolster confidence in the banks that was done. I like seeing the announcement at my my bank that the government is guaranteeing the bank's short term liquidity. I forget the exact terms used, but it amounts to that.

I'm also for auditing the FED and seeing what they actually did and who they bailed out.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:32

You want to use anecdotal evidence to support your claims against the Administration. How about this then,

1) Dow is up WELL over 30% in a year
2) The Co. you cite, is working people OT vs hiring family even.

Would that not lead to the conclusion, that business owners are greedy as hell, and choosing to do more work, with fewer people, to garner greater profits for themselves?

The truth is quite simple; nationally we faced an insanely dire economic crisis which was brought on by deregulation and under monitoring of existing regulations. This leads INEVITABLY, to the conclusion that MORE Govt "interference" (I'll use your word for you), is in our BEST interests.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:42

What is happening is that many on the Right simply cannot deal with anything gray about Obama, so they cherry pick information (sometimes make it up if it isn't actually there), then try to pin the bad stuff on him personally.

Don't like the fact that job creation in this recession is slow? Invent fake business reticence and pin that shyness on Obama for some reason. Don't ever talk about the clear things this Administration has done for job creation, small business, or the actual good numbers, since the discussion is actually not about economic facts (which are not always black and white, and rarely partisan) but about ensuring that Obama looks bad.

The economy, however, belies those with ODS because, believe it or not, most economic information isn't partisan by nature, and fits poorly (when at all) into the scheme.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:44

Very very few experts will color this situation in positive terms without grave reservations.

Did you bother to look at these google entries? The very first one is titled

Is 'Jobless Recovery' Now a Misnomer?
from Smartmoney.com. The experts vary in their opinions as to what to make of the recent numbers, but to state that very very few will color this situstion in positive terms only shows how committed to negativity you are.

All agree the signs are positive. Whether it's sustainable or not, no one knows, and there's certainly no consensus among experts that it's not.

jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:45

sarge,

Why is it greedy for an owner of a small business to try to garner
as much profit as he can from his business for which he has
taken all the risk, borrowed all the money, and which is what he
is using to build a retirement for himself? It is his business to
put kids through college and help them when they may need it.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider that greedy at all. As long as his
employees are treated fairly and paid a fair wage, not exploited
or taken advantage of, why is making as much profit as possible
a bad or greedy thing?

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 20:53

I agree with jedman. "Greed" is what causes businesses to take risks (and which allows them to pay workers, you know, money).

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 21:17

My point wasn't that I am condemning anyone. But that anecdotal evidence can lead to any number of erroneous conclusions.

Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 21:45

Because people like Sarge have never signed the front side of a
paycheck in their lives, and have no clue as to what it takes to
run a small business. I did it successfully for over 25 years, put
two kids through college (one with a masters degree in
education), treated my employees fairly ( had several that were
with me almost from day one), 100% paid for their family health
insurance, and sold that business for enough money to retire at
age 55.

As for the Dow being up over 30% this year WTF does that have
to do with anything? In 2007 the Dow was at almost 14,000,
unemployment in Michigan (My home state) was at about 6%
(which was considered terrible at that time), and now its over
15%. It's most likely worse if you factor into consideration those
who have completely stopped looking for work.

My personal financial portfolio is down 30% since my retirement,
my real estate investments are worth considerably less
than they were just 2 short years ago.

Sarge, I have no clue where you work but unless you're at a
Fortune 500 company I assume, you might be employed by a
small business? Maybe you should quit, and get government
job, but I guess you already had one of those, right?

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 21:47

Because people like Sarge have never signed the front side of a
paycheck in their lives, and have no clue as to what it takes to
run a small business.

WRONG.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 21:52

and BTW, put post 46 into context and reread my post 51.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 22:15

As for the Dow being up over 30% this year WTF does that have
to do with anything?

Are you kidding?

My personal financial portfolio is down 30% since my retirement

Where is it in relation to a year ago? I'm back to even.

I also own a small business. 2008 was the toughest year, but I don't blame Bush or liberals or anyone. I raise three kids by myself, and I had to cut some corners during the downturn.
During the fat years, I didn't buy a bigger house and faster car. I paid off my house and my work van has 100,000 miles on it.

People looking for scapegoats need to check themselves. Is Obama the reason TF's portfolio is down 30% since retirement? Then he must also be responsible for the 70% rise in the past year.

Is Michigan's 15% unemployment Obama's fault? What would it be had GM not been bailed out.

I'm so sick of whining and negativity, especially from people who think they're the 'real Americans.'

jedman
Dude
ID: 315192219
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 22:29

I think small businesses are being careful in hiring because they
don't want to get caught again if things turn downward even
more. Despite improvements in some areas, there are still a lot
of questions out there. I have realized I can do the same
amount of sales with one less person if I just work a few more
hours and give some OT to the other employees, which they all
like. Rather than just hire people because it might make my life
easier, I am more inclined to be cautious and work a little more.
This downturn has caused many companies to realize they can
do the same business with less bodies, thus creating more profit
and giving more security if things don't get a lot better. I don't
know what the future holds, so I am just plugging along doing
the best I can and hoping that we have seen the worst.
I think at some point federal, state, and local governments will
have to try and do the same thing, do the same with less bodies.
Every day I read about our local city being underwater and trying
to figure out what to do. I deal with only schools in my business
and they are all laying off people and doing things with less.
Things are still tough out there, but improving.

Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 22:48

DID I SAY THAT IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA?

Did I even mention Obama's name? I was simply lamenting the
state of the economy, and just because the DOW is currently up
doesn't mean that all is well.

You're telling me that the investments you owned in 07 are back
to even? Some of mine a actually up but thats only because I've
been dollar cost averaging new money into the portfolio but
overall I'm still off over 30% but its looking better.

Let me ask you this...Do you think the current government is
going to be more or less friendly toward small business? Are
your taxes going up/down or staying the same?

In 20+ years of doing business I don't recall ever seeing a
significant decrease in taxes paid or business expenses
regardless of who the jackass was in the white house. The only
fix I ever found was to do more business.

Good luck this coming year!

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 22:50

BTW, rereading things, #39 Sarge was off-topic. What does Anthem Blue Cross' raising their rates have to do with whether or not there is a jobless recovery?

The way some people claim victory...and you held it up like some kind of counter example that crushed my good example.

Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 22:59

Actually Ford is doing very well without any bail out money. Its
simply a matter of knowing how to run a business. My experience
has been that if business is bad it usually has something to do
with employees and the way they work or not work, trained or not
trained. In spite of the government we always managed to find a
way to grow the business. I never looked at cutbacks when things
got tough we expanded into other areas, grew stores or enlarged
what we had and made it run even better. Employees, its always
the employees!

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 23:24

Bad example Flood. Soros owns a big chunk of Ford and he was part of the group that triggered the collapse. They had inside info. Put him in jail instead of Martha.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 23:31

re 58....my point with that B, was that for each single company you point at that is doing poorly, I can point at one that isnt. (I'd REALLY think you capable of drawing the parallel, particularly given that I then repeated that anecdotal evidence proves nothing at all.)

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 23:50

We aren't talking about whether they are doing well. We are talking about whether they plan on hiring.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 23:50

Soros again? Does he own Hyundai too? They saw 40 odd % growth last year. If Soros had such "inside info" as you alledge, surely he'd have bought Hyundai then.

astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Sun, Apr 11, 2010, 23:56

RE: 56

Jedman, I totally agree. At this point, the fear is the unknown. The future business for most companies is still unclear (depends on their lead times, I guess). If demand goes up temporarily, it's alot easier (and safer) to use OT with current workers than to hire more workers.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 00:05

Soros owns a big chunk of Ford and he was part of the group that triggered the collapse.

Is there any part of your economic theories that don't involve shadowy and breathless conspiracy?

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 00:14

BTW, Soros' fund now owns the "big chunk" of .02% of Ford's common stock.

Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 00:17

My personal financial portfolio is down 30% since my retirement,
my real estate investments are worth considerably less
than they were just 2 short years ago.

i saw this (along with the rest of your post), and two things immediately came to mind.

the first is that your portfolio is down because of poor investing. my mutual funds are significantly higher than they were in 2008. yea, i took some big losses at one point, but the past several months have more than made up for that.

the second is your real estate investment - where are they? that could play a big role. real estate is down in a lot of places, but in others, it's barely been affected.

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 10:09

Did I even mention Obama's name? I was simply lamenting the
state of the economy, and just because the DOW is currently up
doesn't mean that all is well.

Let me refer you to my post #23, which started this line of posting. Larry Kudlow, a staunch conservative economic analyst, thinks it's counter productive for conservatives to deny figures that indicate a healthier, rebounding economy mostly because that position might be construed as a positive for Obama.

Baldwin's reaction was predictable.

Nothing Obama has done gives businessmen confidence

So, when TF posts

As for the Dow being up over 30% this year WTF does that have
to do with anything?

it indicates to me that you're in the camp that is willfull downplaying positive data, even after later admitting that your portfolio is looking better.

And in keeping with the title of this thread, the Tea Party has taken the position that Obama should be held front and center for all the country's woes while adamantly refusing to acknowledge an improving economy backed by solid statistics.

I'm in the camp that thinks Americans need to focus on growing the economy while concentrating on reducing government spending and the national debt. It's not an easy task, but it's made even more difficult when there is a contingency devoted to instilling fear in our financial markets because they hate the President.

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 17:45

concentrating on reducing government spending and the national debt - PV

Where? When did that happen?

Boldwin
ID: 634489
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 17:54

There should be a Graham Rudman scorecard showing the percentage of the votes congressmen make that cut spending.

Pancho Villa
ID: 543561115
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 18:43

Where? When did that happen?

It happened a long time ago. You probably never noticed because...well, narcissism comes to mind.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 18:44

#69: I think you need to read the context of that statement again.

Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 19:27

Anyone can look this information up. As a % of GDP, federal
outlays tend to spike during republican administrations and
spending declines when dems are in power. At least for the
last 30 years or so.

We saw an all-time high of 23.5% of GDP spent under
Reagan in 1983. Clinton got spending under control again,
bringng it down below 19% for the first time since ford, then
we see it spike back into the 20s thru most of the bush years,
with estimates showing going down below 19 again under
Obama.

Sorry to meme-quash.

Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 19:51

I shouldn't say all time high under Reagan. Modern era high
would be more like it, as we were spending upwards of 40%
of our GDP 3 years running to fight WWII.

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 20:07

Bear in mind Bili, we had an entire Naval Fleet to rebuild then too, following the disaster at Pearl.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Mon, Apr 12, 2010, 23:55

Link to the historical tables.

I was referencing table 1.3, page 26-28.

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 00:00

So you believe we're on the road to lower spending then?

Seattle Zen
ID: 1410391215
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 00:04

So you believe we're on the road to lower spending then?

Yes, that seems obvious, simply from the ending of the wars.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 00:05

Yes, as a percentage of GDP.

If (and this is a big if, because he seems way too susceptible) Obama is able to avoid kowtowing the deficit hawks who will slow growth if they get there way. There is a large segment of congress that is practically slathering to throw us into a double-dip, jobless recession over over-blown fears of short-term deficits and inflation.

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 06:14

Wow, he can do whatever he wants. People are completely disconnected from reality.

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 06:35

Visualizing the spending

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 07:27

People are completely disconnected from reality.

True statement. And many of said people, can be found at any of a number of Tea Party events.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:16

The ability of the Far Right to shamelessly take on the characteristics of those they claim are their blood enemies is kinda funny at this point.

Whenever they are painted into a rhetorical corner, many will simply act in the very ways they claim to hate: Spout off about Obama being nothing but a celebrity (at a Sarah Palin rally) and so on. Or, in this case, calling people "disconnected from reality" for linking to historical tables of spending which doesn't prove the point that Obama is a spend-happy sociali8st bent on destroying America.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:28

But silly cartoons ignoring "unreal" things like inflation and economic growth are so much more grounded.

Boldwin
ID: 11301223
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:41

shamelessly take on the characteristics of those they...

I guess I should break out into an obligatory biliruben-style poem about now then.

biliruben
ID: 16105237
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:44

Everybody's a critic.

Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 12:13

Hard to be a poet these days.

Forum: polPage 3420Subject: The 'lie' that is the Tea Party

Forum: pol
Page 3420
Subject: The 'lie' that is the Tea Party