An Answer To Tea Parties, "Why Now?"

[ItsFairmont]

We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

You mean Star Wars.

Thirty years, and nothing to show. It's a waste of money, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Drugs and much more.


You just proved to us that you do, indeed, like big government spending. The Star Wars Program is a perfect example. The ultimate bridge to nowhere.

 

[KittenKoder]

We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

Actually, that depends on which part, LRM defense was a good idea, however all of the countries who pose a serious threat did not catch up like we had feared and their missiles still can't reach us, so it's still just wasting money, cutting all of it is a bad idea but cutting some isn't. Thanks to Obama wasting too much money already we may just have to sacrifice some of these things just to keep our heads over water financially. Hell, I wouldn't argue it you say that he wasted money on purpose just so he could push these cuts, he's two-faced enough to do just that.

 

[Annie]

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

Actually, that depends on which part, LRM defense was a good idea, however all of the countries who pose a serious threat did not catch up like we had feared and their missiles still can't reach us, so it's still just wasting money, cutting all of it is a bad idea but cutting some isn't. Thanks to Obama wasting too much money already we may just have to sacrifice some of these things just to keep our heads over water financially. Hell, I wouldn't argue it you say that he wasted money on purpose just so he could push these cuts, he's two-faced enough to do just that.

Considering they needed refinement, I find NK's test enough to say worth it, lame though it was, they're close. Russia is not our friend. Iran is buying from NK.

 

[mattskramer]

For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?

One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.

Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...

I don’t understand this “tea party” thing. First of all, the original tea party was a protest concerning “taxation without representation’. We have representation. Obama was elected. Secondly, I estimate that 95 percent of the protestors will actually see no increase in their taxes. Practically speaking, unless they smoke or earn more that $200,000 per year, they will not have a tax increase. Finally, as is often the criticism leveled against liberal protestors, don’t those people have job? Don’t they have a family to take care of? Don’t they have career responsibilities? They should go back to work.

It was funny to learn Joe “the plumber”, who complained about the prospect of paying more in taxes, was behind in paying what he currently owes in taxes. Also, I did the math. If he does become more successful and get a salary of over $200,000, then his taxes would go up by roughly $20 under Obama. Wow. That sure will destroy any hope that he as for running a successful plumbing business. LOL. Hey Joe, cut back on a couple of happy meals and you will break even.

 

[oreo]

For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?

One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.

Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...

Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.

Why I am a tea party protestor

Being a tea party protestor myself--I'll tell you when it hit me. You see the original article is right. I don't mind having to spend money to clean up after 9/11--I don't mind spending money to go after Al Queda--the ones that killed 3000 Americans. I don't mind spending money to clean up after Hurricane Katrina & the help we had to send down to New Orleans to help the citizens there.

But--last year it started with Bear Stearns--the bail-out, then it was Fannie/Freddie/ then it was AIG--then it was we needed to bail out our irresponsible neighbors because they bought too much home. Then it was the Auto workers. After looking into the situation of how this came about--it became clear to me--that it was government's mis-management of Fannie/Freddie that brought us to ground zero of this economic collapse. And now they were taking our money to fix the mess they created.

To add to that our incompetent government signed a 787 Billion dollar stimulus bill that they didn't even read. Here we are Americans that are hurting financially. Americans are losing their jobs, their retirements, their homes, & the values of their homes are plummeting, while our government loaded this bill with 20 BILLION dollars for Acorn. 98 million dollars for Hollywood to buy film with, 75 million dollars for smoking cessation, 640 million to build a train from Disneyland to Las Vegas, 64 Million dollars for retention bonuse's for AIG executives, & 200+ million bonuses for Fannie/Freddie executives.

After signing off on this one, our government then proceded as quickly as they could to get the Ominus bill passed, which was another multi- billion dollar bill that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks from both democrats & republicans.

President Obama's new proposed budget that has already passed the house--3.9 TRILLION will in effect give the goverment a no limit credit card with our kids & grandkids names all over it. It's already passed the house it is in the senate waiting for approval.

DID YOU KNOW: For an average 20 year old--heading into the work force this 3.9 TRILLION dollar bill will cost them $114,000.00 in INTEREST alone over their working years. For a 40 year old, they will be paying $138,000.00 in INTEREST alone on this budget.

This is not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. If this message doesn't get you off the couch to head your next tea party, I don't know what will?

 

[garyd]

Reagan's democratic congress gave him the luxury boat tax, and the removal the mortgage deduction for second homes, that pretty much single handedly bankrupted the S&L system in the latter case and left the New England pleasure boat industry moribund in the former. And please don't give me that tired tripe about some sort of league between Southern Democrats and Reagan which was limited almost entirely to Defense spending which during Reagans entire presidency never exceeded 25% of the Federal budget while social spending continued it's meteoric rise into the stratosphere and beyond.

 

[RoadVirus]

I don’t understand this “tea party” thing. First of all, the original tea party was a protest concerning “taxation without representation’. We have representation. Obama was elected.

We don't have representation. The only group that has representation are the special interest groups

 

[Iriemon]

I don’t understand this “tea party” thing. First of all, the original tea party was a protest concerning “taxation without representation’. We have representation. Obama was elected.

We don't have representation. The only group that has representation are the special interest groups

That's life in a democracy. Until Jan 09 only the rich and religious had representation.

 

[DiveCon]

I don’t understand this “tea party” thing. First of all, the original tea party was a protest concerning “taxation without representation’. We have representation. Obama was elected.

We don't have representation. The only group that has representation are the special interest groups

That's life in a democracy. Until Jan 09 only the rich and religious had representation.

you are devoid of logic

 

[Iriemon]

...And please don't give me that tired tripe about some sort of league between Southern Democrats and Reagan which was limited almost entirely to Defense spending which during Reagans entire presidency never exceeded 25% of the Federal budget while social spending continued it's meteoric rise into the stratosphere and beyond.

I won't give it to you; but here's what the CBO says:

Military spending:
1980 134.6
1988 290.9
% chng: 116%

Income security:*
1980 44.3
1988 57.3
% chng: 29%

*Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

 

[Iriemon]

We don't have representation. The only group that has representation are the special interest groups

That's life in a democracy. Until Jan 09 only the rich and religious had representation.

you are devoid of logic

Had just as much logic as the post to which I responded.

 

[DiveCon]

That's life in a democracy. Until Jan 09 only the rich and religious had representation.

you are devoid of logic

Had just as much logic as the post to which I responded.

wrong, the 2 groups you listed are special interests groups, but they are not the ONLY special interest groups
the first statement was correct, your's was totally false
right now special interest groups are the only ones getting representation
we need to change the make up of congress and have more congressional districts
make it so each congress person has fewer people to represent
that way you might actually get people that want to represent the people actually electing them

 

[DiveCon]

...And please don't give me that tired tripe about some sort of league between Southern Democrats and Reagan which was limited almost entirely to Defense spending which during Reagans entire presidency never exceeded 25% of the Federal budget while social spending continued it's meteoric rise into the stratosphere and beyond.

I won't give it to you; but here's what the CBO says:

Military spending:
1980 134.6
1988 290.9
% chng: 116%

Income security:*
1980 44.3
1988 57.3
% chng: 29%

*Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

you realize you actually supported his claim with that, right?

 

[sealybobo]

We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

Yea, why now? Why not when Bush doubled the debt? Was it because people wanted to be patriotic?

See, I told you that the GOP were just fleecing us in the name of defense.

A lot easier to rip you dumb fucking American voters off when its in the name of defense than thru much needed social programs. We spent more than every other nation COMBINED!!!

How was the missile defense coming along before funding it was cut stupid?

 

[Iriemon]

...And please don't give me that tired tripe about some sort of league between Southern Democrats and Reagan which was limited almost entirely to Defense spending which during Reagans entire presidency never exceeded 25% of the Federal budget while social spending continued it's meteoric rise into the stratosphere and beyond.

I won't give it to you; but here's what the CBO says:

Military spending:
1980 134.6
1988 290.9
% chng: 116%

Income security:*
1980 44.3
1988 57.3
% chng: 29%

*Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

you realize you actually supported his claim with that, right?

I guess if you figure 29% is a meteoric rise in social spending.

 

[DiveCon]

I won't give it to you; but here's what the CBO says:

Military spending:
1980 134.6
1988 290.9
% chng: 116%

Income security:*
1980 44.3
1988 57.3
% chng: 29%

*Includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

you realize you actually supported his claim with that, right?

I guess if you figure 29% is a meteoric rise in social spending.

that wasnt what he claimed
he said that even though the military budget rose a lot, it never exceeded 25% of the total budget

 

[Iriemon]

you realize you actually supported his claim with that, right?

I guess if you figure 29% is a meteoric rise in social spending.

that wasnt what he claimed
he said that even though the military budget rose a lot, it never exceeded 25% of the total budget

Welfare type spending increased 29% during Reagan's term compared to military spending which went up 116%. If anything had a "meteoric rise" it was spending on the military, not welfare.

Just my opinion.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess if you figure 29% is a meteoric rise in social spending.

that wasnt what he claimed
he said that even though the military budget rose a lot, it never exceeded 25% of the total budget

Welfare type spending increased 29% during Reagan's term compared to military spending which went up 116%. If anything had a "meteoric rise" it was spending on the military, not welfare.

Just my opinion.

but the non military spending shouldnt have been DECREASED
that what you liberals dont understand
the military is an essential the other is NOT

 

[sealybobo]

that wasnt what he claimed
he said that even though the military budget rose a lot, it never exceeded 25% of the total budget

Welfare type spending increased 29% during Reagan's term compared to military spending which went up 116%. If anything had a "meteoric rise" it was spending on the military, not welfare.

Just my opinion.

but the non military spending shouldnt have been DECREASED
that what you liberals dont understand
the military is an essential the other is NOT

You mean the military spending, not non.

What you refuse to understand is that the GOP uses DEFENSE to empty the treasury. I've told you over and over. I've shown you dozens of examples.

But you don't care how much the GOP wastes as long as it is on defense.

Bush doubled the debt on defense.

That's why I tell you guys:

1. You are not really fiscally responsible

2. You do not deserve a fucking tax break

Not while you turn a blind eye to Bush doubling the debt in the name of defense.

I wonder how much Blackwater has cost us. They are in Iraq and New Orleans. God knows where else. But talk about privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. Blackwater is a perfect example.

 

[Iriemon]

that wasnt what he claimed
he said that even though the military budget rose a lot, it never exceeded 25% of the total budget

Welfare type spending increased 29% during Reagan's term compared to military spending which went up 116%. If anything had a "meteoric rise" it was spending on the military, not welfare.

Just my opinion.

but the non military spending shouldnt have been DECREASED
that what you liberals dont understand
the military is an essential the other is NOT

Thanks for your opinion.

I was just pointing out that the claimed "meteoric" rise in social spending didn't look that meteoric compared to the increase in military spending, not making a judgement statement about it.