bye bye to era of civility: Biden and other Dems call Tea Party terrorists

[Biggs3535]

It's hard to believe there are numbskulls that buy into this language, especially when the language is put out there by a group of people who had complete control of Congress and the Executive branch and sat on their ass on this issue for 2 years.

[kevabuc]

"Terrorist" must be the new "Nazi" - both incredibly stupid and inaccurate when used.

Terrorism is clearly defined as using harmful action against a civilian population to further political goals or aims.

Sounds like the EPA, Cass Susstein, the 82,000 pages of business regulations in place and the UAW are closer to this definition then the Teaparty supporters.

[kevabuc]

I didn't say that was my plan Kev. That's a straw man argument. I simply pointed out that using a budget from 15 years ago as a reference point for cuts is disingenuous, because that amount would be higher if adjusted to reflect inflation and population growth.

As you pointed out Kev, your budget estimate for what the level of spending should be to keep up with inflation and population growth in 2011 was eclipsed in 2006 by G.W. Bush. You know, the guy that was in office when the debt ceiling was raised 7 times in 8 years with a straight up or down vote? If this was anything more than political, why was it not an issue when spending increased to 3.1 trillion in 2009?

And what about revenues? You've never heard me arguing against spending cuts. I simply said that ignoring revenues isn't going to fix anything, and it's not. Even Obama agreed to cuts that dropped spending down to 1996 levels (inflation adjusted, of course), that shaves 1.2 trillion off of the budget. Tax receipts for 2010 were about $400 billion dollars LESS than that. We would still be running a deficit.

My second post was clearly a strawman, and a sarcastic one at that, however, my first post most certainly was not. I never misrepresented any of your positions in my first post. You may not like the results, but they were your components to the proposition. 

I also agree totally that using a budget from 15 years ago would be disingenuous without adjusting for inflation and population growth so I did the required adjustments to your specifications. The only argument I could make for the differences between raising the debt ceiling today against the circumstances during the Bush years would be the level of debt today is about 35% higher then when Bush left office. A debt to GDP ratio of about 66% is significantly different then a debt to GDP ratio of neary 100%, for many reasons. I will not defend Bush for any other reason because he is clearly a globalist statist and merely the flip side of the coin to Obama in my book. Remember also, that a $3.1 trillion budget is closer to 20% of the economy when measured to the GDP while a $3.7 trillion budget comes in at about 25%. This is a huge difference, politically speaking.

Even you should be able to see through any "cuts" Obama may haven given lip service to. Obama speaks a good game ( translated to, a good liar), but we must remember the rules of Washington's game. By Washington accounting rules if you want a 9 trillion dollar increase in the budget over ten years and then say you will accept a 7 trillion dollar increase that is broadcast loudly that it is not a spending increase of 7 trillion, but a spending cut of 2. Smoke and mirrors.   

[John Galt?]

This is nothing new, one party has been using hyperbole against the other for decades. The Ds call the conservative Rs "Nazis", the Rs call the Ds "communists", then the Ds accuse the Rs of "pushing grandma off a cliff to cut SS or medicare" then the Rs call the Ds "socialists out to destroy the free market", now the Ds are calling the "tea party" terrorists".

Both sides call the other names in public, then in private slap each other on the back and laugh at all the money stuffed in their pockets.

Now both sides realize that a grass roots group of voters is standing up to their "business and politics as usual" so now both are attacking their biggest threat, the grass roots Tea Party.

[dbucfan]

and hopefully both D's and R's will continue to make such fools of each other AND folks will recognize them to be what they are

[jbear]

Manufactured crisis? $14 trillion in debt is a manufactured crisis? A $1.6 trillion deficit is a manufactured crisis? Medicare going bankrupt in 2018 is a manufactured crisis? You think we are just making that stuff up?

So to organize and speak up against this out of control spending makes you a terrorist? Speaking up against government corruption makes you a terrorist?
Didnt George Orwell warn people about this? That one day speaking up against your government would make you a "thought criminal?"

If all they did was speak up, we wouldn't have been where we were.

And lets not pretend that this was about spending cuts, because the Dems were willing to cut spending. This was about them wanting cuts on their terms and them NOT wanting to raise revenues. We have a mixed government. We have a Democratic President and a Democratic lead senate. Given that fact, negotiation would seem to be the will of the people. The teabaggers were unwilling to negotiate. Not cutting spending will hurt the economy down the road. Not raising the debt ceiling would cripple the economy right now. They made demands, and held the economy hostage unless they got them. That's what terrorists do.

Raising revenues as you put it, in the middle of a recession might not be the best idea out there.  Can't you at least see that some people have different opinions on how to handle this?  I'm pretty sure there is evidence, even if not conclusive that raising taxes, especially in the middle of a downturn may have adverse effects on the economy.  I'm convinced that it's at least more likely that it does negatively effect the economy than say cutting government spending.    Obama's big infrastructure plan was one of the most boneheaded economic programs thats ever been attempted.  You guys scoffed at the Bush tax cuts but at least they produced some economic results. 

Personally I think government should stay out of "stimulating" the economy anyway but I'm just saying...   Some people are really serious about cutting spending and while I'm not in the T party I can at least see where they're coming from.  I think you'd have to be blind to not at least be able to admit that.

[wreck ship]

This is nothing new, one party has been using hyperbole against the other for decades. The Ds call the conservative Rs "Nazis", the Rs call the Ds "communists", then the Ds accuse the Rs of "pushing grandma off a cliff to cut SS or medicare" then the Rs call the Ds "socialists out to destroy the free market", now the Ds are calling the "tea party" terrorists".

Both sides call the other names in public, then in private slap each other on the back and laugh at all the money stuffed in their pockets.

Now both sides realize that a grass roots group of voters is standing up to their "business and politics as usual" so now both are attacking their biggest threat, the grass roots Tea Party.

Great post!
Except for the last line. The tea party was a grass root campaign and make no mistake, they've gone corporate. Or should I say they were corporate all along disguised as grassroots?
The goal of the tea party is to reign back the Rs to their conservative standards. Good for them but they still don't represent the majority of americans.
The tea party has the influence to make the irs fold but they don't. They cry about economics and what Obama is doing instead of boycotting foreign made products.
Just another special interest you ask me

[dbucfan]

If the Tea Party has gone 'corporate' or was 'corporate' from the start they sure have hidden it well from its' membership.  I know a group of folks who are a part of the Tea Party and are active within it - they share thoughts and information - but they are nowhere near the D's or R's.

[jbear]

I believe that for a very long time there have been a lot of R's who are R's for only fiscal reasons.  Almost everyone I know is a fiscal conservative. Keep government small, tax as little as possible and don't penalize success, or run up big debt...   Unfortunately, a lot of these people, myself included are not really conservative when it comes to other things.  Thats why I can't sign on with the tea party.  I get the feeling they are pandering to the religious/morals aspect of conservatisim as much as they are to the fiscal side.  Its unfortunate because I feel like thats the side thats under represented.  The tea party trying to presure republicans to be more conservative misses the mark and its a shame. 

I know there are elements involved in the movement who are there only because of the fiscal side its just unfortunate that the Sarah Palins and Bachman's came along and started preaching family values or whatever it is there doing.  What I want someone to say always seems to get lost in the politics of it all.  Or maybe I just can't stand Sarah Palin.  Whatever it is I just don't want to associate myself with them even though I'm sypathetic to some of what they have to say. 

[spartan]

I believe that for a very long time there have been a lot of R's who are R's for only fiscal reasons.  Almost everyone I know is a fiscal conservative. Keep government small, tax as little as possible and don't penalize success, or run up big debt...   Unfortunately, a lot of these people, myself included are not really conservative when it comes to other things.  Thats why I can't sign on with the tea party.  I get the feeling they are pandering to the religious/morals aspect of conservatisim as much as they are to the fiscal side.  Its unfortunate because I feel like thats the side thats under represented.  The tea party trying to presure republicans to be more conservative misses the mark and its a shame. 

I know there are elements involved in the movement who are there only because of the fiscal side its just unfortunate that the Sarah Palins and Bachman's came along and started preaching family values or whatever it is there doing.  What I want someone to say always seems to get lost in the politics of it all.  Or maybe I just can't stand Sarah Palin.  Whatever it is I just don't want to associate myself with them even though I'm sypathetic to some of what they have to say.

Palin and Bachman support the Tea Party because they are fiscal conservatives. They are also social conservatives but that has nothing to do with the Tea Party. At least not to my knowledge and not the TP around here. It sounds like you have either been fed some false information or you seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Let's say for arguments sake Palin and Bachman are the fools some make them out to be, just remember that even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and if something is a good idea, (i.e. try and balance the dang budget), support the good idea, not the fact that someone you don't like also thinks it is a good idea.

[dbucfan]

I believe that for a very long time there have been a lot of R's who are R's for only fiscal reasons.  Almost everyone I know is a fiscal conservative. Keep government small, tax as little as possible and don't penalize success, or run up big debt...   Unfortunately, a lot of these people, myself included are not really conservative when it comes to other things.  Thats why I can't sign on with the tea party.  I get the feeling they are pandering to the religious/morals aspect of conservatisim as much as they are to the fiscal side.  Its unfortunate because I feel like thats the side thats under represented.  The tea party trying to presure republicans to be more conservative misses the mark and its a shame. 

I know there are elements involved in the movement who are there only because of the fiscal side its just unfortunate that the Sarah Palins and Bachman's came along and started preaching family values or whatever it is there doing.  What I want someone to say always seems to get lost in the politics of it all.  Or maybe I just can't stand Sarah Palin.  Whatever it is I just don't want to associate myself with them even though I'm sypathetic to some of what they have to say.

That is certainly your choice - perhaps you will find a D or R with whom you agree on every issue.

[Col. Klink]

They are also social conservatives but that has nothing to do with the Tea Party. At least not to my knowledge and not the TP around here.

What is you definition of "social conservative"?

[John Galt?]

They are also social conservatives but that has nothing to do with the Tea Party. At least not to my knowledge and not the TP around here.

What is you definition of "social conservative"?

WASP male stuck in the 50s.

[Col. Klink]

They are also social conservatives but that has nothing to do with the Tea Party. At least not to my knowledge and not the TP around here.

What is you definition of "social conservative"?

WASP male stuck in the 50s.

And that has nothing to do with the Tea Party? ... I guess, as usual, I'm missing something.

[John Galt?]

They are also social conservatives but that has nothing to do with the Tea Party. At least not to my knowledge and not the TP around here.

What is you definition of "social conservative"?

WASP male stuck in the 50s.

And that has nothing to do with the Tea Party? ... I guess, as usual, I'm missing something.

Yes you are. The Tea Party was a grass roots movement of everyday people that were fed up with Congress's biz as usual borrow tax and spend ways. It originally had NOTHING to do with any social issues and was strictly concerned with borrowing/spending and passing bills w/o even reading them (Obamacare). The original Tea Party was fiscally conservative and libertarian.

Now some politicians (Palin, Bachman, Armey) have usurped the name "Tea Party" and have identified themselves with it. But they are really the old school far-right wing Rs.