Lets take it as a given that Bush spent like a drunken sailor.
Compared to Bush, did Obama spend
a) more
b) less
-
Features
The Rise and Fall of the Tea Party?
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Lets take it as a given that Bush spent like a drunken sailor.
Compared to Bush, did Obama spend
a) more
b) less
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
ROFL. And you call other people's grasp of economics bad.
It's not a trick question. There are actual numbers one can look at and stuff.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,538
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
FIFY
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,953
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
And interest on the total debt is increasing, a lot.
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
Some Republicans are fond of comparing the US Government budget to that of an American family. (Minus a few zeros in every figure, obviously.)
When should a family whip out the credit cards to buy groceries and heating and Timmy's speech therapy? When both Mom and Dad are fully employed getting steady pay increases every year?
Or when Mom has lost her job and is not earning an income, and when credit card interest rates are at all-time lows?
And when Mom finds work again and is making the same salary as before, is that the right time or the wrong time to pay off the credit cards?
When should a family whip out the credit cards to buy groceries and heating and Timmy's speech therapy? When both Mom and Dad are fully employed getting steady pay increases every year?
Or when Mom has lost her job and is not earning an income, and when credit card interest rates are at all-time lows?
And when Mom finds work again and is making the same salary as before, is that the right time or the wrong time to pay off the credit cards?
The Tea Party was just false-flag recruitment for the GOP.
And the GOP is the party of borrow-and-spend, the Democrats are tax-and-spend. People will put a stop to the latter faster than the former so I think the Democrats are less dangerous.
And the GOP is the party of borrow-and-spend, the Democrats are tax-and-spend. People will put a stop to the latter faster than the former so I think the Democrats are less dangerous.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Obama spent like a drunken sailor because he was handed the worse recession since the Great Depression caused by the previous administration's incompetence and devotion to ideology over reality in the belief that the financial sector had finally learned to self-regulate. They cut financial regulations that were obviously needed and didn't enforce the remaining ones. Tax receipts nosedived in in the recession, not unlike the current problem that Trump faces from his unwise corporate tax cut but Obama's drop was much greater than Trump's shot to the foot.
But ObamaCare was funded by new taxes and an expansion of Medicaid. We don't know if the Republican health care plan to replace ObamaCare was funded or not. We have waited for about ten years to see it. The only previous Republican venture into the health care field was the Medicare drug plan and it didn't include any new funding to support it. It was a complete addition to the budget deficit.
Which proposals by the Democratic presidential candidates do you think aren't funded? Which ones would constitute "spending like a drunken sailor?"
Medicare for all will cost less than health care provided by the current system of private, for-profit insurance companies, much less. I do support this. The government can provide insurance much cheaper than private, for-profit insurance companies can. Since we have now established that the government will bail out the insurance companies if they get in trouble like the banks, it seems logical to cut out the inefficient private companies altogether.
A program of forgiving student loans doesn't require any funding, just declare them forgiven and relieve the banks of the obligation to cover the unpaid loans out of their capitalization. It would be a debt holiday, a common event throughout history to boost the economy. I don't support this, it is better to allow student loans to be wiped out by bankruptcy again like it was in the past. Getting rid of the minimum interest rate would help too.
Warren and some others have proposed a wealth tax to fund her proposed programs. I don't think much of this idea, it is too easy for the wealthy to move their wealth overseas. far simpler would be to increase the income tax on the wealthy.
I also blame both parties for the profligate spending that we see in Washington. But realistically, each of us has to decide which of the two parties we are going to support. And the Democrats have been much more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. And only one half of the Democrats are committed to the neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus that has complete control of the Republican party.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That was true of the 2009 Tea Party but not the 2007 Tea Party. That is why there was no 2011 Tea Party.
I wonder if this thread should be moved to the history section.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Republicans = massive tax cuts. Tax cuts under Reagan helped nearly triple the National Debt. Bush's tax cuts, made against the advice of 400 highly respected economists, including 10 Nobel laureates played a big part of the Bush era disaster. Under Obama, Obama managed to only get a 6% cut in these tax cuts thanks to GOP intransigence, and the GOP wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Trump. Massive tax cuts and a doubling of deficits.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Most of the former tea party members are now a part of the populous Trump movement. So I would not say the Tea party has actually dissolved, it has simply changed its colors in order to encompass more membership. Ironically, a populous middle class movement really should have been adopted by the Democrats....and it nearly was until Hillary destroyed what Bernie had started during his presidential campaign.
I continue to believe the Democrats have been fools to piss away the middle class voters in favor of everyone else excepting the white middle.
I continue to believe the Democrats have been fools to piss away the middle class voters in favor of everyone else excepting the white middle.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yes, I agree with this. The republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility until GW was elected. Then they scrapped it. Obama is elected. Tea party starts. Tea Party goes away the second Trump is elected.
False flag operations are deceptive from day 1.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That explains why the Tea Party started on November 5, 2007.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Do you have a link? From Wiki (Tea Party Movement): … The Tea Party movement was launched following a February 19, 2009 call by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for a "tea party,"[14][15] several conservative activists agreed by conference call to coalesce against Obama's agenda and scheduled series of protests."
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,538
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
It has been a while, but I recall the Tea Party having origins prior to the election of Obama. Of course, no one knew it existed except for some Ron "The Kingmaker" Paul supporters, and it had even less support than liberals in DC. Then Sarah Palin happened.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Though an interesting article, I'd say the Tea Party died in December 2017 with the massive tax cuts, along with the fiscal 2018 DoD cherry on top.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,538
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Last time I checked, those guys are still in the House of Representatives, so the Tea Party is alive. Maybe aimless, but still in power.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Uhmmmmmm. Reagan gave us massive tax cuts and massive increases in military spending. Reagan nearly tripled the national debt.
The reason the deficits were not much more massive under Reagan was TEFRA, a massive tax increase thanks to Bob Dole, which in the end failed to balance the budget. The idea that tax cuts pay for themselves died under Reagan. GOP and fiscal responsibility? Don't make me laugh.