Gee, only 14 Stupid Tea Party Threads since Yesterday

[Zona]

I don't know about that....

unemployment was about 8.25% as a high under Bush 1, and it hit 8.6% under president gw bush....

that's only about a percent higher for what it is now....

Was nearly 1/6th of the nation really not in peril under President Bushes? Not even during President Bush 1's Housing crisis and Savings and Loan scandal/bailout?

Probably not, as you state but to PRETEND that this mess or the economy in jeopardy is NOT something inherited from gwb and was not trending towards more and more Peril under GWB is intellectually dishonest....if that is what you are implying Lonestar?

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
yes, president Bush's 2009 budget was increased by obama...but just as Clinton's 2001 budget was increased by president bush's actions...it still is president bush's budget deficit and in 2001, the fiscal budget still gets given to Clinton.

so 2009 budget IS the fiscal budget of president bush

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

2009 is president bush's budget

•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

it is what it is....he only has the 2009 budget to work with as a starting point...

•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

what is the public national debt vs the National debt? when president bush took office the National debt left him was $5.6 trillion, when he left office, it was $11.4 TRILLION? so what is this public debt figure they are pulling out?

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

He just makes numbers up and he actually said the bush surplus was a myth. After that, there is no reasoning with this idiot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
yes, president Bush's 2009 budget was increased by obama...but just as Clinton's 2001 budget was increased by president bush's actions...it still is president bush's budget deficit and in 2001, the fiscal budget still gets given to Clinton.

so 2009 budget IS the fiscal budget of president bush

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

2009 is president bush's budget

•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

it is what it is....he only has the 2009 budget to work with as a starting point...

•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

what is the public national debt vs the National debt? when president bush took office the National debt left him was $5.6 trillion, when he left office, it was $11.4 TRILLION? so what is this public debt figure they are pulling out?

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

He just makes numbers up and he actually said the bush surplus was a myth. After that, there is no reasoning with this idiot.

Not only did I say the surplus was a myth I've presented facts to support that position. Just click the link and educate your stupid ass.

 

[Zona]

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

He just makes numbers up and he actually said the bush surplus was a myth. After that, there is no reasoning with this idiot.

Not only did I say the surplus was a myth I've presented facts to support that position. Just click the link and educate your stupid ass.

NO I am not going to click on your BLOG AS PROOF. Now educate yourself with real facts, not blogs.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He just makes numbers up and he actually said the bush surplus was a myth. After that, there is no reasoning with this idiot.

Not only did I say the surplus was a myth I've presented facts to support that position. Just click the link and educate your stupid ass.

NO I am not going to click on your BLOG AS PROOF. Now educate yourself with real facts, not blogs.

Show item in that "blog" that isn't a fact.

I find it intellectually lazy for people to say "it's just a blog" as an excuse to ignore the possible validity of the content. But you've never been accused of being an intellectual, quite the opposite actually.

Fact is every source is cited in the "blog". But hey stay ignorant your entire life for all I care. But don't dimiss the facts without some facts of your own.

So where are your facts? I mean if mine are so wrong., then surely you have the REAL Facts. So either put up or shut up.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let me guess 6 to call them racists, 5 to call them terrorists, 2 to call them idiots, and 1 to tell the truth?

We aren't racist, we aren't violent, we just have a different opinion than you!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't really have anythng of importance to add.

I just didn't want to get left out of (yet another) Tea Party thread.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I don't really have anythng of importance to add.

I just didn't want to get left out of (yet another) Tea Party thread.

Yeah the anti-tea party types are definately into full fight mode now. They are done ignoring us and laughing at us and are now seeing our size and power (sounds like an enzyte ad) grow at an incredibly fast rate.

Sorry you can't silence the truth therefore the teaparties can only grow people.

keep fighting though, sooner or later you will lay down or join us.

 

[teapartysamurai]

i dont think we should pretend 9/11 never happened nor do i think we should make all decisions based on 9/11...

when facism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross...sinclair lewis

the tea party seems a good example of this guote....

Yeah because free speech is sooooooooooooooooo oppressive.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Here is the deal righty's. You dont like whats happeneing in the white house, vote. We did two novembers ago and it turned out great for us.


You vote, we counter and the one with the most votes wins. Woohooo. Isn't America great!

Whiny little bitches.

Who's whining???????????

Have you looked at the title of this thread???????

I swear liberals are so damn dense! The entire premise of this thread is WHINING about the tea party!

Who's WHINING????????

And I hate to break it to you, but WE CAN VOTE BACK.

November is coming baby, and guess who is already WHINING ABOUT THAT!

 

[teapartysamurai]

i dont think we should pretend 9/11 never happened nor do i think we should make all decisions based on 9/11...

when facism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross...sinclair lewis

the tea party seems a good example of this guote....

The tea party is fascist?????? Funny can you explain then why these signs come from the left?????????

Anti-Semitic sign at the February 16, 2003 "anti-war" rally.

Funny!!!!!!!!!! That looks pretty Nazi to me and it's from a LEFT WING rally!!!!!!

This man at the "Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally on August 12, 2006 wants the Nazi kikes to get out of Lebanon.

Wow that looks pretty anti-Jew as well!

Another message at the June 5 event.

Uh oh! Another anti-semtic sign at a left wing rally

Young child holding a sign accusing Jews of stealing organs from dead Palestinians, at the Bus 19 anti-terror rally in Berkeley on January 16, 2005.

Another anti-Jewish sign!!!!!!!!! And at a left wing rally! How can this be????

I thought the tea party was fascist 'cause the left said so!

Justifying anti-Semitism at the June 5, 2004 march.

More anti-semitism!

Anti-Israel protester at the rally preceding the June 5, 2004 march.

More anti-semitism!

Anti-Israel protester at the "Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally on August 12, 2006.

Gosh, this doesn't seem the least bit intolerant from the left does it???????

Equating the Star of David and the swastika at the "Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally on August 12, 2006.

The evidence for the left being the real fascist is mounting!!!!!!!

The zombietime Hall of Shame

Gee I thought you guys said it was the tea party that was fascist. How come all this hatred of Jews is coming from the left then?



Wait for the left to have a fit and say these signs down't count. NOOOOOOOO, of course not. ONLY WHAT THEY SAY COUNTS. Despite the lack of evidence.

 

[Gunny]

To paraphrase Pogo, T's are the people are parents warned us against

Aren't you and your ilk supposed to live under a bridge? You just got pwned.

 

[Gunny]

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
yes, president Bush's 2009 budget was increased by obama...but just as Clinton's 2001 budget was increased by president bush's actions...it still is president bush's budget deficit and in 2001, the fiscal budget still gets given to Clinton.

so 2009 budget IS the fiscal budget of president bush

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

2009 is president bush's budget

•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

it is what it is....he only has the 2009 budget to work with as a starting point...

•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

what is the public national debt vs the National debt? when president bush took office the National debt left him was $5.6 trillion, when he left office, it was $11.4 TRILLION? so what is this public debt figure they are pulling out?

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

He just makes numbers up and he actually said the bush surplus was a myth. After that, there is no reasoning with this idiot.

Deny the facts, loser.

 

[Gunny]

Here is the deal righty's. You dont like whats happeneing in the white house, vote. We did two novembers ago and it turned out great for us.


You vote, we counter and the one with the most votes wins. Woohooo. Isn't America great!

Whiny little bitches.

Who's whining???????????

Have you looked at the title of this thread???????

I swear liberals are so damn dense! The entire premise of this thread is WHINING about the tea party!

Who's WHINING????????

And I hate to break it to you, but WE CAN VOTE BACK.

November is coming baby, and guess who is already WHINING ABOUT THAT!

Really. SO what exactly are you calling ME. I started this thread.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I don't really have anythng of importance to add.

I just didn't want to get left out of (yet another) Tea Party thread.

Yeah the anti-tea party types are definately into full fight mode now. They are done ignoring us and laughing at us and are now seeing our size and power (sounds like an enzyte ad) grow at an incredibly fast rate.

Sorry you can't silence the truth therefore the teaparties can only grow people.

keep fighting though, sooner or later you will lay down or join us.

The left are too stupid and fixed in their thinking to realize the more they try to smear the tea party the more people are inspired to join the tea party to fight such fascism from the left.

They can't understand freedom. They know with freedom they lose, because their kind of government only works when the other side is shut up.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Here is the deal righty's. You dont like whats happeneing in the white house, vote. We did two novembers ago and it turned out great for us.


You vote, we counter and the one with the most votes wins. Woohooo. Isn't America great!

Whiny little bitches.

Who's whining???????????

Have you looked at the title of this thread???????

I swear liberals are so damn dense! The entire premise of this thread is WHINING about the tea party!

Who's WHINING????????

And I hate to break it to you, but WE CAN VOTE BACK.

November is coming baby, and guess who is already WHINING ABOUT THAT!

Really. SO what exactly are you calling ME. I started this thread.

Simmer down. Even if you started it in support of the tea parties, you KNOW the lefties joined this thread just to whine.

I was noting the title, not the op.

 

[midcan5]

... Funny can you explain then why these signs come from the left?????????

WTF, these sign carriers are nut cases, since I have no clue who they are or even if the signs are real, I would think it kinda stupid to label them anything at all. You seem to know what they believe, you are just one amazing person.

 

[tigerbob]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

I can't speak for others, but I didn't live in the US at the time so it wasn't my tax dollars they were spending.

I realize that's a bit of a copout, so I'll tell you that I supported the invasion of Iraq. But I'm unfamiliar with the "squandering a surplus to make the rich richer' contention. Is this fact or hyperbole?

If he squandered a surplus to make the rich richer than I am against it. I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as that, but I stand willing to be corrected.

We had a projected 10yr budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when president Bush took office....he said, the gvt should not keep that and gave a tax cut, the wealthiest getting the most money....the cons said they deserved more of a tax break and deserve their money back that they pay in income tax....thus the tax breaks favoring the wealthy.

The problem with all of that, IS THAT the $5.6 trillion dollar estimated 10 year surplus was Social Security Surplus, NOT INCOME TAX SURPLUS.....

So President Bush, TOOK from the working class who pays social security on every dime they make, and primarily gave it in tax cuts to where the wealthiest got the most of it, to who did not pay a dime in SS taxes over their first 100k.....

Reverse Robinhood.....for the most part.

Then instead of a surplus we ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, at the time....even with using all of the surplus social security to pay for what INCOME TAXES should have been paying...

I have some degree of sympathy with the argument that the rich shoulder too much of the tax burden. Not because I like the rich, not because I am rich, not because I have many rich friends, but because I saw what a ridiculously high tax rate did 40 years ago in Britain.

If however you are correct that the surplus was SS surplus and was used to fund tax breaks which favored the wealthiest members of society, then I would not have supported it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can't speak for others, but I didn't live in the US at the time so it wasn't my tax dollars they were spending.

I realize that's a bit of a copout, so I'll tell you that I supported the invasion of Iraq. But I'm unfamiliar with the "squandering a surplus to make the rich richer' contention. Is this fact or hyperbole?

If he squandered a surplus to make the rich richer than I am against it. I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as that, but I stand willing to be corrected.

We had a projected 10yr budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when president Bush took office....he said, the gvt should not keep that and gave a tax cut, the wealthiest getting the most money....the cons said they deserved more of a tax break and deserve their money back that they pay in income tax....thus the tax breaks favoring the wealthy.

The problem with all of that, IS THAT the $5.6 trillion dollar estimated 10 year surplus was Social Security Surplus, NOT INCOME TAX SURPLUS.....

So President Bush, TOOK from the working class who pays social security on every dime they make, and primarily gave it in tax cuts to where the wealthiest got the most of it, to who did not pay a dime in SS taxes over their first 100k.....

Reverse Robinhood.....for the most part.

Then instead of a surplus we ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, at the time....even with using all of the surplus social security to pay for what INCOME TAXES should have been paying...

I have some degree of sympathy with the argument that the rich shoulder too much of the tax burden. Not because I like the rich, not because I am rich, not because I have many rich friends, but because I saw what a ridiculously high tax rate did 40 years ago in Britain.

If however you are correct that the surplus was SS surplus and was used to fund tax breaks which favored the wealthiest members of society, then I would not have supported it.

What she's failing to tell you is that Bush also inherited a recession of which that surplus was going ot be used to shore up the economy. So Bush has this surplus but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. Bush had to rebuild what Clinton tore down the CIA had to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over.

The truth is there never really was a surplus. In fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000, the amount of public debt went down for a total of 421.9 billion dollars. That's where we get the Clinton Surplus mantra that the left hammers Bush with, but that's not the rest of the story. During that same time period, the Intergovernmental Holdings went up 844.7 billion dollars for a difference of a 422.8 billion dollar deficit. So how did Clinton get a "surplus?" He took the money from Social Security and wrote them an IOU.

This "Bush had a surplus" is a myth that is easily debunked if you go to the U.S. Treasury's Web site and not only look at the numbers, but understand what the numbers mean.

 

[teapartysamurai]

... Funny can you explain then why these signs come from the left?????????

WTF, these sign carriers are nut cases, since I have no clue who they are or even if the signs are real, I would think it kinda stupid to label them anything at all. You seem to know what they believe, you are just one amazing person.

This liberal tactic is known as distancing.

A) I included the source for these signs. There are hundreds of them. They aren't isolated incidents. You can see them all here:

zombietime

This website does nothing but document left wing protests.

B)They maybe stupid but this is Obama's left wing base. These are the people who voted for him.

 

[teapartysamurai]

We had a projected 10yr budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when president Bush took office....he said, the gvt should not keep that and gave a tax cut, the wealthiest getting the most money....the cons said they deserved more of a tax break and deserve their money back that they pay in income tax....thus the tax breaks favoring the wealthy.

The problem with all of that, IS THAT the $5.6 trillion dollar estimated 10 year surplus was Social Security Surplus, NOT INCOME TAX SURPLUS.....

So President Bush, TOOK from the working class who pays social security on every dime they make, and primarily gave it in tax cuts to where the wealthiest got the most of it, to who did not pay a dime in SS taxes over their first 100k.....

Reverse Robinhood.....for the most part.

Then instead of a surplus we ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, at the time....even with using all of the surplus social security to pay for what INCOME TAXES should have been paying...

I have some degree of sympathy with the argument that the rich shoulder too much of the tax burden. Not because I like the rich, not because I am rich, not because I have many rich friends, but because I saw what a ridiculously high tax rate did 40 years ago in Britain.

If however you are correct that the surplus was SS surplus and was used to fund tax breaks which favored the wealthiest members of society, then I would not have supported it.

What she's failing to tell you is that Bush also inherited a recession of which that surplus was going ot be used to shore up the economy. So Bush has this surplus but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. Then 9/11 happened and everything changed. Bush had to rebuild what Clinton tore down the CIA had to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over.

The truth is there never really was a surplus. In fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000, the amount of public debt went down for a total of 421.9 billion dollars. That's where we get the Clinton Surplus mantra that the left hammers Bush with, but that's not the rest of the story. During that same time period, the Intergovernmental Holdings went up 844.7 billion dollars for a difference of a 422.8 billion dollar deficit. So how did Clinton get a "surplus?" He took the money from Social Security and wrote them an IOU.

This "Bush had a surplus" is a myth that is easily debunked if you go to the U.S. Treasury's Web site and not only look at the numbers, but understand what the numbers mean.

That's quite correct.

Clinton "cooked the books" including Social Security and other funds to "create" a surplus that never really existed.