National Tea Party Leadership Team Accepts President Obama's Invitation

[NOBama]

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

I stand by my comment.

We the people, albeit by proxy, approved through our elected officials that the government take on debt. Therefore, since we the people are, in the truest since of the words "the government", we are indeed responsible for the debt we allowed our elected officials to take on on our behalf, hence granting the government to collect additional monies through taxation to cover the debt we incurred.

Divecon is talking about a budgetary surplus, you seem to be using the term in the sense of the Govt having excess assets as opposed to debt.

You need a budget surplus to pay down a debt.

Divecon is a big boy and if he thought what you say I was implying, I'm sure he would have mentioned it. I spoke to the issue of the we the people being responsible for the additional debt, above the annual operating budget of the federal government, which we allowed the government to incur.

 

[NOBama]

See Divecon's response. He's right.

Again, I stand by my comment.

Barf as you will. Nevertheless, had we not fought back, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today, because there would be no America.

Yeah, that mighty Al Quedian navy with its hordes of LCs threatening the East Coast was a real worry. Thanks goodness we've spent a few scores of billions on the F-22. The old F-15s just weren't going to stand up to that new Al Quedian jet fighter -- what was it called again?

Perhaps highlighting the pivotal qualifier of my conclusion of our prior conversation will help you to comprehend it. I'd try to break things down into multiple posts for you if that would help. However, I'm afraid the administrator wouldn't appreciate the waste of band width. You're just going to have to try harder to keep up. Best wishes.

By the way, I gave you a pass with respect to your comment to which I was replying. People, like you for instance, were calling for GW's head ever since no WMD's were found in Iraq, but I’m reserving further comment regarding that matter in the interest of getting back to the topic at hand.

 

[Iriemon]

I stand by my comment.

We the people, albeit by proxy, approved through our elected officials that the government take on debt. Therefore, since we the people are, in the truest since of the words "the government", we are indeed responsible for the debt we allowed our elected officials to take on on our behalf, hence granting the government to collect additional monies through taxation to cover the debt we incurred.

Divecon is talking about a budgetary surplus, you seem to be using the term in the sense of the Govt having excess assets as opposed to debt.

You need a budget surplus to pay down a debt.

Divecon is a big boy and if he thought what you say I was implying, I'm sure he would have mentioned it. I spoke to the issue of the we the people being responsible for the additional debt, above the annual operating budget of the federal government, which we allowed the government to incur.

Fine, if we the people are responsible for the debt how would we pay it down without a surplus?

 

[DiamondDave]

This is why this twit is on the ignore list ...

Surplus during Clinton's term proved here, if anyone is interested.

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

That thread was specifically about the surplus during the Clinton admin and contains all the links and data from the Govt proving there was a surplus. If anyone has any new arguments about it they can post it there.

I'm not going to repost that entire thread again here which is about tea parties.

no it wasnt
you are a liar

Ahhhhh hahahahaha

The moron STILL insists on the myth even after being shown the facts and explained everything behind them... the sign of true insanity

I gave the idiot the links and the actual data and the motherfucking understanding how the government books being calculated and the budgets spanning the FISCAL year.... the ****** is as persistent as he is stupid and partisan

 

[Xenophon]

VICTIMHOOD... the pea brain mantra...

Which is why people like you live by it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Am reluctant to say this, but it is still my gut reaction after sitting here for awhile thinking about it. As stated, this looks like a potential trap that could marginalize the nascent Tea Party movement.

Obama has a huge well of knowledge available from his policy people (whether one agrees with them or not) that, at least right now, the Tea Party leaders are unlikely to possess. If they go out and prepare themselves, that may be help.

It is also in a town hall atmosphere where true debate over complex issues is not possible. Lastly, Obama is the most skilled orator of our time and the public is emotionally involved in these issues but not particularly well informed. And the public is still in his thrall. No one in the Tea Party movement will have that level of currency with a national audience.

It is a mud cocktail by my lights.

diamonddave: "Just in the way Obama stated it, shows that it is a trap...

man, you teabaggers are paranoid.

Let me get this straight. You were upset that obama wasn't taking your point of view into account, but then you're also afraid to accept his invitation to debate your views?

First, let me ask, what are you afraid of? I've spent months having teabaggers tell me Obama is the least qualified man ever to run for president, and that he can barely get a paragraph of english out without a teleprompter. Now, he has a depth of knowledge that would blow any Teabag national leader out of the water, and he's the "most skilled orator of our time"?


You tea baggers are being very paranoid. The article said nothing about obama wanting to meet teabaggers in a town hall debate. You just imagined the article said that. there is no way a president of the United States is going to have a town hall debate against some obscure tea bagger. That's not the way the system works. The article only says obama is willing to have a coversation with teabaggers or anyone else. That doesn't have anything to do with townhall debates.

I think you need to actually read the orginal article from Politico before you start getting paranoid about tea baggers being caught in Obama's clever trap, and getting destroyed in townhall debates.