What happened to the tea party?

[Edgetho]

...

So if the tea party was not a racist movement, where are all the protests now? The same people protesting Obamas spending when it was necessary, support and defend Trumps spending now which is not.

Got any actual example of that? Or do you just think of all white people as one entity?

The Tea Party ended because, unlike dimocrap scum movements, once they accomplished their goals (Trump) they went about the business of providing for their family and working.

dimocrap scum just simply move on to the next phony outrage.

dimocrap scum are the party of permanent outrage. Not us.

We actually contribute. We actually make the Country better.

All dimocrap scum do is complain, riot, assault, lie and attempt to seize power they have NO idea how to use properly.

 

[Marion Morrison]

White "conservatives" were all enraged because Obama started his administration by spending big bucks. A move that saved the economy. They claimed their movement was not about race even as we saw all manner of racist signs and sentiment. The opposition was said to be about spending by Obama.

Trump goes silent on national debt while racking up $1 trillion in 14 months

President Trump has now amassed his first $1 trillion in debt, crossing that ignominious mark late last week — and analysts said it’s just a taste of what’s to come after the tax-cuts and spending spree of recent months.

Indeed, his next $1 trillion could come within a year, and one analyst said he could soon be staring at $3 trillion annual deficits if things go particularly badly in interest rates.

It’s a major reversal for a president who during the campaign had said given eight years he could eliminate the debt entirely, but is instead looking at setting records for red ink.

Trump goes silent on national debt while racking up $1 trillion in 14 months

The US national debt just pushed past $22 trillion — here's how Trump's $2 trillion in debt compares with Obama, Bush, and Clinton

The US national debt passed $22 trillion on February 11, the first time the federal debt had breached that threshold.

The landmark came just over two years after President Donald Trump, who once promised to eliminate the federal debt in eight years, took over the Oval Office.

The US Treasury has been tracking day-by-day debt accumulation since the start of 1993, meaning daily debt figures are available for the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump.

In raw terms, Trump added the second-most debt of any recent president. According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)

That is less than the $3.46 trillion added between Obama's inauguration in January 2009 and February 11, 2011, but it is more than the $676 billion added under Bush and the $617 billion added under Clinton in their first 752 days as president.

One important difference between Trump's debt figures and Obama's is that Trump has added a massive amount of debt while the US economy has been strong, whereas Obama took over during the depths of the financial crisis.

Economists typically recommend that the federal government increase spending, and thus add more debt, during times of economic struggles and then pay down that debt when the economy recovers. So while economic theory would support Obama's spending to help support the economy, Trump's recent debt binge has less support among economists.

The US national debt just pushed past $22 trillion — here's how Trump's $2 trillion in debt compares with Obama, Bush, and Clinton

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt

In a statement, the CRFB said the budget deal "may be the worst in history," given the country's current precarious fiscal condition.

"Members of Congress should cancel their summer recess and return to the negotiating table for a better deal. If they don't, those who support this deal should hang their heads in total shame as they bolt town," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB. "This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage."

If President Donald Trump signs the deal into law, he will have authorized a 22 percent increase in federal discretionary spending during his first term in office—having signed a March 2018 budget deal that similarly jacked up both domestic and military spending.

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt – Reason.com

So if the tea party was not a racist movement, where are all the protests now? The same people protesting Obamas spending when it was necessary, support and defend Trumps spending now which is not.

They won Congress then Trump won. Next!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Economists typically recommend that the federal government increase spending, and thus add more debt, during times of economic struggles and then pay down that debt when the economy recovers. So while economic theory would support Obama's spending to help support the economy, Trump's recent debt binge has less support among economists.

Well, that's the problem. There's never any paying down. There's only adding to the national debt.

People want to bitch about "tax cuts for the rich" but when there is no effort to pay down on the money borrowed, the relationship between taxing government and higher tax payers becomes Parent-Child in nature. The child is getting cut off for irresponsible spending and failure to pay back what child borrowed.

.

 

[Seawytch]

...

So if the tea party was not a racist movement, where are all the protests now? The same people protesting Obamas spending when it was necessary, support and defend Trumps spending now which is not.

Got any actual example of that? Or do you just think of all white people as one entity?

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

It's certainly proof that the Tea Party movement was partisan, rather than sincere.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

It's certainly proof that the Tea Party movement was partisan, rather than sincere.

.

Gee, ya think? I guess we will find out if they were also racist when a white Democrat sits in office. Will they resurface?

 

[Correll]

Got any actual example of that? Or do you just think of all white people as one entity?

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

They said it was about taxes and the deficit.

And we don't have to wait to see who REpublicans feel about those issues, under a white Dem president, we can look back not far to one.


Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia


"After Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, incoming Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich promised a conservative "revolution" that would implement tax cuts, welfare reform, and major domestic spending cuts.[35] Gingrich failed to deliver major conservative reforms in the first hundred days of the 104th Congress, but many observers continued to wonder if the Speaker would seize stewardship over domestic policy from the office of the president.[36] Meanwhile, with conservatism on the rise and New Dealliberalism in retreat, Clinton hoped to forge a new consensus that did not totally reject government interventionism.[37] In reaction to his party's electoral defeat, Clinton hired consultant Dick Morris, who advocated that Clinton pursue a policy of triangulation between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. By co-opting some of Republican ideas, Morris argued that Clinton could boost his own popularity while blocking the possibility of the drastic reforms advocated by some conservatives.[37]

The Republican Congress presented Clinton with a budget plan that cut Medicare spending and instituted major tax cuts for the wealthy, giving him a November 14, 1995 deadline to approve the bill. After the deadline, the government would be forced to temporarily shut down due to a lack of funding. In reaction, Clinton presented his own plan that did not include spending cuts to Medicare, but would balance the budget by 2005. As Clinton refused to sign the Republican bill, major portions of the government suspended operations until Congress enacted a stopgap measure.[38] The government shut down again on December 16 after Clinton vetoed a Republican budget proposal that would have extended tax cuts to the wealthy, cut spending on social programs, and shifted control of Medicaid to the states. After a 21-day government shutdown, Republicans, in danger of being seen as extremists by many in the public, accepted Clinton's budget"

 

[Seawytch]

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

editing.

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

They said it was about taxes and the deficit.

And we don't have to wait to see who REpublicans feel about those issues, under a white Dem president, we can look back not far to one.


Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia


"After Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, incoming Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich promised a conservative "revolution" that would implement tax cuts, welfare reform, and major domestic spending cuts.[35] Gingrich failed to deliver major conservative reforms in the first hundred days of the 104th Congress, but many observers continued to wonder if the Speaker would seize stewardship over domestic policy from the office of the president.[36] Meanwhile, with conservatism on the rise and New Dealliberalism in retreat, Clinton hoped to forge a new consensus that did not totally reject government interventionism.[37] In reaction to his party's electoral defeat, Clinton hired consultant Dick Morris, who advocated that Clinton pursue a policy of triangulation between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. By co-opting some of Republican ideas, Morris argued that Clinton could boost his own popularity while blocking the possibility of the drastic reforms advocated by some conservatives.[37]

The Republican Congress presented Clinton with a budget plan that cut Medicare spending and instituted major tax cuts for the wealthy, giving him a November 14, 1995 deadline to approve the bill. After the deadline, the government would be forced to temporarily shut down due to a lack of funding. In reaction, Clinton presented his own plan that did not include spending cuts to Medicare, but would balance the budget by 2005. As Clinton refused to sign the Republican bill, major portions of the government suspended operations until Congress enacted a stopgap measure.[38] The government shut down again on December 16 after Clinton vetoed a Republican budget proposal that would have extended tax cuts to the wealthy, cut spending on social programs, and shifted control of Medicaid to the states. After a 21-day government shutdown, Republicans, in danger of being seen as extremists by many in the public, accepted Clinton's budget"

Where were the protests about the spending? No guys in funny hats back then? All we heard about for months were the Tea Party protests.

We already know the opposition to spending and ballooning our debt and deficits is purely partisan for Republicans, what is in question is if it was also racist. Signs say yes. (Actual signs depicting president Obama with a bone in his nose.)

Are Tea Partiers Racist?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gee, ya think? I guess we will find out if they were also racist when a white Democrat sits in office. Will they resurface?

That would be hard to say. The "movement" started over 10 years ago and only lasted about 3-4 years.

But, I do note how quick you are to jump on the "racism" bandwagon whenever opportunity knocks.

Would all the barking the Ds have done about Trump be racism if he were not white?

.

 

[Dragonlady]

...

So if the tea party was not a racist movement, where are all the protests now? The same people protesting Obamas spending when it was necessary, support and defend Trumps spending now which is not.

Got any actual example of that? Or do you just think of all white people as one entity?

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Bullshit. Newt Gingerich was braying about deficit spending all of his political career.

Newt Gingrich repeats claim about his record of balancing budget, reducing debt.

But even Newt shut up when W was President. Everyone was too busy gettiNg rich off the Housing Bubble and Defense Contracts to care about what it was all costing.

Today, it's more of the same. The rich are grabbing all they can before the inevitable collapse, and God help the working class. Trump promised to run the country the way he runs his businesses, and he has. The only problem is that all of Trump's businesses have lost money and/or gone bankrupt. Everyone who has ever invested with or trusted him, has gone broke, while Trump skates away with millions in his own pocket.

Under Trump, who promised better trade deal, trade deficits with China have increased:

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China

Exports to Europe have been cut in half, while the trade deficit has expanded:

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with European Union

And the trade surplus with Canada has been completely wiped out as Canada posted a TRADE SURPLUS WITH THE USA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY. Canada is celebrating BIGLY!!!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trade-surplus-may-1.5198339

This is all thanks to Dumb Donald's nifty new trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

Everything Trump Touches Dies.

 

[Correll]

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

editing.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Our eyes and ears. We watched the Tea Party protesting the second Obama took office. They said it was about the debt and deficit. If that was true, we'd still be hearing from them. They haven't said dick about Trump's exploding both.

Deficit Don? Red ink gushes in Trump era

They said it was about taxes and the deficit.

And we don't have to wait to see who REpublicans feel about those issues, under a white Dem president, we can look back not far to one.


Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia


"After Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, incoming Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich promised a conservative "revolution" that would implement tax cuts, welfare reform, and major domestic spending cuts.[35] Gingrich failed to deliver major conservative reforms in the first hundred days of the 104th Congress, but many observers continued to wonder if the Speaker would seize stewardship over domestic policy from the office of the president.[36] Meanwhile, with conservatism on the rise and New Dealliberalism in retreat, Clinton hoped to forge a new consensus that did not totally reject government interventionism.[37] In reaction to his party's electoral defeat, Clinton hired consultant Dick Morris, who advocated that Clinton pursue a policy of triangulation between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. By co-opting some of Republican ideas, Morris argued that Clinton could boost his own popularity while blocking the possibility of the drastic reforms advocated by some conservatives.[37]

The Republican Congress presented Clinton with a budget plan that cut Medicare spending and instituted major tax cuts for the wealthy, giving him a November 14, 1995 deadline to approve the bill. After the deadline, the government would be forced to temporarily shut down due to a lack of funding. In reaction, Clinton presented his own plan that did not include spending cuts to Medicare, but would balance the budget by 2005. As Clinton refused to sign the Republican bill, major portions of the government suspended operations until Congress enacted a stopgap measure.[38] The government shut down again on December 16 after Clinton vetoed a Republican budget proposal that would have extended tax cuts to the wealthy, cut spending on social programs, and shifted control of Medicaid to the states. After a 21-day government shutdown, Republicans, in danger of being seen as extremists by many in the public, accepted Clinton's budget"

Where were the protests about the spending? No guys in funny hats back then? All we heard about for months were the Tea Party protests.

We already know the opposition to spending and ballooning our debt and deficits is purely partisan for Republicans, what is in question is if it was also racist. Signs say yes. (Actual signs depicting president Obama with a bone in his nose.)

Are Tea Partiers Racist?

The push back took a different form, but it was even stronger. Newt Gingrich was the first republican Speaker of the House in generations. They shut down the government, TWICE, trying to get, reduced taxes and spending and deficits.

 

[IM2]

Gee, ya think? I guess we will find out if they were also racist when a white Democrat sits in office. Will they resurface?

That would be hard to say. The "movement" started over 10 years ago and only lasted about 3-4 years.

But, I do note how quick you are to jump on the "racism" bandwagon whenever opportunity knocks.

Would all the barking the Ds have done about Trump be racism if he were not white?

.

Why do you guys keep trying to make the reaction and response to white racism into racism?

 

[Correll]

Got any actual example of that? Or do you just think of all white people as one entity?

Name one Republican who has complained about the size of the deficit since Trump was elected. Just one. Paul Ryan was speaker of the House for two years. Not one whimper.

The Tea Party was a grass roots movement. Calling for names of Congressmen as representatives of it, makes no sense.

The Tea Party caucus is still in Congress. Today they're called the "Freedom Caucus", and they're the ones who shut down the government last fall after the mid-terms, after Trump renegged on his deal with Mitch McConnell.

And just like every other Republican in Congress or the Senate, if they dare to criticize Trump or his policies, they have been primaried, regardless of how odious those policies have been. Republicans have a choice. They either back the President as he leads the US government into debt and bankruptcy just as he has done in business all of his adult life.

US government debt is rapidly approaching a tipping point. The US government will soon be spending taxpayer dollars on interest, than they currently do on programs for the nation's poorest children. The Fed has been raising interest rates under a booming economy, and this means that interest costs on federal debt are rising faster than inflation.

Capitalist economies are subject to periods of growth and contraction. The USA has enjoyed the longest period of growth in history. Trump has tried to prolong this recovery period by goosing it with tax cuts and increased spending, but in doing so, Trump has exaserbated both the depth of the next recession, and stripped the government of any tools to help the next President deal with that recession.

If the USA is pulling it's military back, and disengaging from the rest of the world, why do you need to increase military spending?

The movement was not lead by the Tea Party caucus. The Tea Party Caucus was FOLLOWING the Tea Party.


You got anything to back up the claim of the OP?

Bullshit. Newt Gingerich was braying about deficit spending all of his political career.
.....

Your conflating the Tea Party with all anti-deficit Republicans.


That is dishonest. In the extreme.

 

[IM2]

White "conservatives" were all enraged because Obama started his administration by spending big bucks. A move that saved the economy. They claimed their movement was not about race even as we saw all manner of racist signs and sentiment. The opposition was said to be about spending by Obama.

Trump goes silent on national debt while racking up $1 trillion in 14 months

President Trump has now amassed his first $1 trillion in debt, crossing that ignominious mark late last week — and analysts said it’s just a taste of what’s to come after the tax-cuts and spending spree of recent months.

Indeed, his next $1 trillion could come within a year, and one analyst said he could soon be staring at $3 trillion annual deficits if things go particularly badly in interest rates.

It’s a major reversal for a president who during the campaign had said given eight years he could eliminate the debt entirely, but is instead looking at setting records for red ink.

Trump goes silent on national debt while racking up $1 trillion in 14 months

The US national debt just pushed past $22 trillion — here's how Trump's $2 trillion in debt compares with Obama, Bush, and Clinton

The US national debt passed $22 trillion on February 11, the first time the federal debt had breached that threshold.

The landmark came just over two years after President Donald Trump, who once promised to eliminate the federal debt in eight years, took over the Oval Office.

The US Treasury has been tracking day-by-day debt accumulation since the start of 1993, meaning daily debt figures are available for the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump.

In raw terms, Trump added the second-most debt of any recent president. According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)

That is less than the $3.46 trillion added between Obama's inauguration in January 2009 and February 11, 2011, but it is more than the $676 billion added under Bush and the $617 billion added under Clinton in their first 752 days as president.

One important difference between Trump's debt figures and Obama's is that Trump has added a massive amount of debt while the US economy has been strong, whereas Obama took over during the depths of the financial crisis.

Economists typically recommend that the federal government increase spending, and thus add more debt, during times of economic struggles and then pay down that debt when the economy recovers. So while economic theory would support Obama's spending to help support the economy, Trump's recent debt binge has less support among economists.

The US national debt just pushed past $22 trillion — here's how Trump's $2 trillion in debt compares with Obama, Bush, and Clinton

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt

In a statement, the CRFB said the budget deal "may be the worst in history," given the country's current precarious fiscal condition.

"Members of Congress should cancel their summer recess and return to the negotiating table for a better deal. If they don't, those who support this deal should hang their heads in total shame as they bolt town," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB. "This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage."

If President Donald Trump signs the deal into law, he will have authorized a 22 percent increase in federal discretionary spending during his first term in office—having signed a March 2018 budget deal that similarly jacked up both domestic and military spending.

Possible Budget Deal Will Add $2 Trillion to the National Debt – Reason.com

So if the tea party was not a racist movement, where are all the protests now? The same people protesting Obamas spending when it was necessary, support and defend Trumps spending now which is not.

It certainly reeks of hypocrisy.

I don't think you can call it racism without more. They would have bitched loud and often, no matter who the Democrats had in the White House, because the Tea Party was a partisan "coalition" of allegedly pissed off tax payers who were tired of the spending, but it was really nothing more than a bunch of GOP underlings with little power trying to gain power.


.

I think I can call it racist because it was. This would not have happened had a white democrat been elected.

 

[Correll]

Gee, ya think? I guess we will find out if they were also racist when a white Democrat sits in office. Will they resurface?

That would be hard to say. The "movement" started over 10 years ago and only lasted about 3-4 years.

But, I do note how quick you are to jump on the "racism" bandwagon whenever opportunity knocks.

Would all the barking the Ds have done about Trump be racism if he were not white?

.

Why do you guys keep trying to make the reaction and response to white racism into racism?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why do you guys keep trying to make the reaction and response to white racism into racism?

I am not. I only said that to demonstrate how the behavior was partisan, and not necessarily racist.

That's not to say that people didn't opposed Obama at least partially on the basis of his race. I think that was certainly true. But that's an individual issue, not something I could positively associate with a partisan movement.

.

 

[IM2]

Economists typically recommend that the federal government increase spending, and thus add more debt, during times of economic struggles and then pay down that debt when the economy recovers. So while economic theory would support Obama's spending to help support the economy, Trump's recent debt binge has less support among economists.

Well, that's the problem. There's never any paying down. There's only adding to the national debt.

People want to bitch about "tax cuts for the rich" but when there is no effort to pay down on the money borrowed, the relationship between taxing government and higher tax payers becomes Parent-Child in nature. The child is getting cut off for irresponsible spending and failure to pay back what child borrowed.

.

Actually Obama did pay down some of it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Economists typically recommend that the federal government increase spending, and thus add more debt, during times of economic struggles and then pay down that debt when the economy recovers. So while economic theory would support Obama's spending to help support the economy, Trump's recent debt binge has less support among economists.

Well, that's the problem. There's never any paying down. There's only adding to the national debt.

People want to bitch about "tax cuts for the rich" but when there is no effort to pay down on the money borrowed, the relationship between taxing government and higher tax payers becomes Parent-Child in nature. The child is getting cut off for irresponsible spending and failure to pay back what child borrowed.

.

Actually Obama did pay down some of it.

I didn't see that.

From what I observed, Obama and the Republican-lead Congress (they get the blame too) only added to the national debt. But, I will review any information you have on it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think I can call it racist because it was. This would not have happened had a white democrat been elected.

Possibly. But, it's all speculation at this point.

I think it was pretty clear how pissed off the "tea party" movement was at all Dems when Nancy Pelosi marched through the middle of their protest holding the House gavel.

.

 

[my2¢]

From all I've read the Tea Party's downfall was the Koch brothers using it for their extended conservative agenda rather than an inclusive force exclusively focused on the out of control federal spending.