National Tea Party Leadership Team Accepts President Obama's Invitation

[jillian]

I'm protesting the over spending and control over everything in our lives. The control they are giving to the UN. I'm protesting the report from DHS as well.

Bullypulpit, anyone who uses the term 'teabag' to describe the Tea Party movement doesn't get it.

A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have. ~ Ford

so you're protesting losing the election?

I thought your motives were purer than that.

if you had a problem with big government and big spending, where were you guys for all the time baby bush was in office?

 

[driveby]

I don't think politicians have been selling out the interests of the wealthiest Americans at all over the past years. Obama represents a threat to that, which is why I suspect they organized the tea parties.

do you mean obama won't stay bought? i doubt it.

Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street - washingtonpost.com

Well, maybe he is. It would be unlike his previous character -- as a Harvard Law magna cum laude and editor of the law review, Obama could have been "bought" and paid top dollar at any wall street firm. He turned that down.

If he was bought by Wall Street, I'd be suprised he'd have been talking about raising taxes on the wealthier Americans and eliminating their loopholes. But maybe that was all a sham and he's in cahoots with them after all. We shall see.

Silly rookie, he turned that down for a career in politics where he could REALLY cash in. Now he's in the top office with a license to spend whatever he wants, LEGALLY. He can be bought, Wall Street just hasn't met the asking price. So you just go ahead and keep thinking he's fighting for you like a good little Obamabot......

 

[Iriemon]

It amazes me that the President of the United States doesn’t have an in depth understanding of the will of the people he governs. Perhaps it’s true that only true American’s can understand American values.

I disagree with the implication that the tea partiers represents the will of the of the people or that they are "truer" Americans. They represent just the will of some people, and apparently a fairly small percentage at that.

I've seen some of what you call "true Americans" say they'd rather see what they call "the fucking country" go bankrupt than pay higher taxes to avoid that. That is not what I'd call "true Americans" or "American values," but that's just my opinion.

What bothers me is that average citizens with legitimate reason for concern are feeling disenfranchised even further by the extremist elements of the Republican party who are co opting these tea parties and drowning out their voice. It is politically convenient to marginalize their concerns, but I don't think it's in our best interest to do so.

Again, what are average citizens? As an "average citizen" I can guarantee you I felt disenfranchised as I watched my country devolve from the shining city on the hill into one that starts wars on false pretext, locks people away in secret dungeons without even the most minimal of due process, and tortured people.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm protesting the over spending and control over everything in our lives. The control they are giving to the UN. I'm protesting the report from DHS as well.

Bullypulpit, anyone who uses the term 'teabag' to describe the Tea Party movement doesn't get it.

A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have. ~ Ford

so you're protesting losing the election?

I thought your motives were purer than that.

if you had a problem with big government and big spending, where were you guys for all the time baby bush was in office?

Already addressed.. maybe you did not like the answer.. or the fact that people did complain about growing govt and government waste, but you have conveniently forgot.. but it was addressed

I don't care if it were McCain that won the election.. if this would be happening under him, I would be complaining the exact same way

 

[Valerie]

I disagree with the implication that the tea partiers represents the will of the of the people or that they are "truer" Americans. They represent just the will of some people, and apparently a fairly small percentage at that.

I've seen some of what you call "true Americans" say they'd rather see what they call "the fucking country" go bankrupt than pay higher taxes to avoid that. That is not what I'd call "true Americans" or "American values," but that's just my opinion.

What bothers me is that average citizens with legitimate reason for concern are feeling disenfranchised even further by the extremist elements of the Republican party who are co opting these tea parties and drowning out their voice. It is politically convenient to marginalize their concerns, but I don't think it's in our best interest to do so.

Again, what are average citizens? As an "average citizen" I can guarantee you I felt disenfranchised as I watched my country devolve from the shining city on the hill into one that starts wars on false pretext, locks people away in secret dungeons without even the most minimal of due process, and tortured people.

As did I. Average citizens aren't represented by the political extremes.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm protesting the over spending and control over everything in our lives. The control they are giving to the UN. I'm protesting the report from DHS as well.

Bullypulpit, anyone who uses the term 'teabag' to describe the Tea Party movement doesn't get it.

A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have. ~ Ford

so you're protesting losing the election?

I thought your motives were purer than that.

if you had a problem with big government and big spending, where were you guys for all the time baby bush was in office?

Already addressed.. maybe you did not like the answer.. or the fact that people did complain about growing govt and government waste, but you have conveniently forgot.. but it was addressed

I don't care if it were McCain that won the election.. if this would be happening under him, I would be complaining the exact same way

It's just too bad they weren't complaining when Bush took the surplus he inhereted and sqaundered it with tax cuts, military buidups, and an unnecessary war.

 

[NOBama]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

 

[DiveCon]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

well, it needs SOME surplus year to year to pay down the massive debt
once the debt is paid, then yes, they have no need of a surplus

 

[DiamondDave]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

Well.. we have not had a surplus since 1957... and that is a documented fact, unlike what some of the myth believing lefties have tried to exclaim

 

[jillian]

Already addressed.. maybe you did not like the answer.. or the fact that people did complain about growing govt and government waste, but you have conveniently forgot.. but it was addressed

I don't care if it were McCain that won the election.. if this would be happening under him, I would be complaining the exact same way

the dems complained about the spending by bush... we complained that he was bankrupting the country.

the right sure wasn't... and they sure weren't holding tea parties and protesting his being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

 

[Iriemon]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

See Divecon's response. He's right.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

 

[DiamondDave]

Already addressed.. maybe you did not like the answer.. or the fact that people did complain about growing govt and government waste, but you have conveniently forgot.. but it was addressed

I don't care if it were McCain that won the election.. if this would be happening under him, I would be complaining the exact same way

the dems complained about the spending by bush... we complained that he was bankrupting the country.

the right sure wasn't... and they sure weren't holding tea parties and protesting his being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

Conservatives certainly did exclaim about wasteful government spending.... to state otherwise is a flat out lie... Now we conservatives did not complain about extra military and defense spending during a war.. but did complain that other useless programs and government spending was not eliminated when the defense spending was increased

And they key is not taxing more, but cutting back the govt to spend less... and that complaint was continually spouted by conservatives

 

[Iriemon]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

Well.. we have not had a surplus since 1957... and that is a documented fact, unlike what some of the myth believing lefties have tried to exclaim

There was a surplus under Clinton.

Proof here, if anyone is interested:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

 

[Iriemon]

Already addressed.. maybe you did not like the answer.. or the fact that people did complain about growing govt and government waste, but you have conveniently forgot.. but it was addressed

I don't care if it were McCain that won the election.. if this would be happening under him, I would be complaining the exact same way

the dems complained about the spending by bush... we complained that he was bankrupting the country.

the right sure wasn't... and they sure weren't holding tea parties and protesting his being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

Conservatives certainly did exclaim about wasteful government spending.... to state otherwise is a flat out lie... Now we conservatives did not complain about extra military and defense spending during a war.. but did complain that other useless programs and government spending was not eliminated when the defense spending was increased

And they key is not taxing more, but cutting back the govt to spend less... and that complaint was continually spouted by conservatives

The biggest growth areas during the Bush years were military. The military budget more than doubled while he was president, and that is not including the $125 billion a year spent on the wars.

I saw few conservatives squawking about that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

For those who will try and spout off about some mythical Clinton surplus.. for we know it is gonna come

And yes.. the budget does go in the FISCAL YEAR and not the calendar year.. and that is how historical data goes in terms of the nation's financial state including surplus or deficit numbers

 

[DiveCon]

the dems complained about the spending by bush... we complained that he was bankrupting the country.

the right sure wasn't... and they sure weren't holding tea parties and protesting his being the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime.

Conservatives certainly did exclaim about wasteful government spending.... to state otherwise is a flat out lie... Now we conservatives did not complain about extra military and defense spending during a war.. but did complain that other useless programs and government spending was not eliminated when the defense spending was increased

And they key is not taxing more, but cutting back the govt to spend less... and that complaint was continually spouted by conservatives

The biggest growth areas during the Bush years were military. The military budget more than doubled while he was president, and that is not including the $125 billion a year spent on the wars.

I saw few conservatives squawking about that.

the military NEEDED to be built back up after the fallacy of the Clinton years and the phoney "peace dividend"
(and yes, i include the Congress in that mess as well, since they had to approve the changes)

 

[DiamondDave]

the military NEEDED to be built back up after the fallacy of the Clinton years and the phoney "peace dividend"
(and yes, i include the Congress in that mess as well, since they had to approve the changes)

Yes.. I had to live and suffer thu the military cuts that Clinton put on our military.. and yes, congress had a lot of blame in that as well...

What I did not agree with Bush on was increasing the military spending while NOT cutting spending elsewhere...

Did I think Bush was going to come anywhere close to balancing the budget?? Hell no... But I had hoped he would be more fiscally conservative than he ended up being

Do I think Obama will come anywhere close to balancing a budget?? There is NO way in HELL that this spendaholic will do anything like that.. He will make Bush look like a miser in comparison

 

[Iriemon]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

For those who will try and spout off about some mythical Clinton surplus.. for we know it is gonna come

And yes.. the budget does go in the FISCAL YEAR and not the calendar year.. and that is how historical data goes in terms of the nation's financial state including surplus or deficit numbers

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

 

[DiveCon]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

For those who will try and spout off about some mythical Clinton surplus.. for we know it is gonna come

And yes.. the budget does go in the FISCAL YEAR and not the calendar year.. and that is how historical data goes in terms of the nation's financial state including surplus or deficit numbers

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

the treasury says there wasnt

 

[Iriemon]

Conservatives certainly did exclaim about wasteful government spending.... to state otherwise is a flat out lie... Now we conservatives did not complain about extra military and defense spending during a war.. but did complain that other useless programs and government spending was not eliminated when the defense spending was increased

And they key is not taxing more, but cutting back the govt to spend less... and that complaint was continually spouted by conservatives

The biggest growth areas during the Bush years were military. The military budget more than doubled while he was president, and that is not including the $125 billion a year spent on the wars.

I saw few conservatives squawking about that.

the military NEEDED to be built back up after the fallacy of the Clinton years and the phoney "peace dividend"
(and yes, i include the Congress in that mess as well, since they had to approve the changes)

It was actually Bush Sr who started cutting the military. Without having to face another military super power like the SU it made little sense to continue bankrupting our nation to pay for military forces we didn't need.

By 2000 we were still paying $300 billion a year on the military -- many multiples more than the next nation. The "Clinton" military kicked ass in Afgahnistan, and totally crushed one of the worlds largest military forces in Iraq in just a few weeks.

Today we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined; 6 times more than the runner up, China.

If our military leaders can't figure out how to defend the country with spending as much as the rest of the world combine, that's saying something piss poor about the quality of our military leadership, I'm afraid.