Budget deficit jumps to $779 billion

[Jhhnn]

That's simply incorrect... The creation of the Tea Party was in response to ridiculous spending. There's a reason people thought the GOP was dead. I don't have a clue why you think what you posted is true...

The Tea Party is astroturf by big money right wing players. It's never been about spending but rather about taxes, anyway. It's the same people who finance the cut taxes & spend more money GOP of today.

 

[Majes]

It's hard for me to imagine it was primarily a financial movement considering it was just basically the Republican base. They never had problems with deficits before Obama and they don't have problems with them after Obama.

It was a reactionary movement to a perceived loss of social status.

It's hard for me to understand this since I went to the rallies and I know that the one thing people had in common was a desire to get the spending under control. I personally was more upset with President Bush for beginning the bailouts...

You think that it was more of a reaction to President Obama getting elected? That's not really what I remember.

 

[fskimospy]

Politics as usual I suspect.

Sure, because conservatives never actually gave a shit about the budget deficit.

Conservatives care about cutting taxes for rich people, cutting regulations on business, and perhaps spending on the military. They do not care about the deficit. Please note that they will once again try to pretend to care about the budget deficit when Democrats get back in power. The media will likely pretend to believe them. This will be very annoying.

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard for me to understand this since I went to the rallies and I know that the one thing people had in common was a desire to get the spending under control. I personally was more upset with President Bush for beginning the bailouts...

You think that it was more of a reaction to President Obama getting elected? That's not really what I remember.

I guess my question would be if it was in anger about Bush's bank bailouts why is it the first Tea Party rallies didn't happen until more than four months later?

 

[UberNeuman]

It's hard for me to understand this since I went to the rallies and I know that the one thing people had in common was a desire to get the spending under control. I personally was more upset with President Bush for beginning the bailouts...

You think that it was more of a reaction to President Obama getting elected? That's not really what I remember.

Liars tend to have problems with memory.

 

[SMOGZINN]

At first I was pissed off about the idea of cutting "entitlements" that have been coming out of my paycheck for the past 34 years. But I have worked hard and finally funded my own retirement to the point where SSI isn't a factor. So I say fuck the ignorant deplorable bastards that voted for this shit. Good luck with your new job as a Walmart greeter when your 68 years old, I'll be out hunting and fishing.

You don't actually believe they will let you keep your savings do you? They are working on the problem of 'middle class' people with savings. That is a known reserve of money the truly wealthy wants to get control of, and since they make the rules they will. We have already heard talk of changes to Roth and IRA accounts to rob them of any value, and they are steadily working on eating away small investments portfolios with the crash/boom market cycle that heavily favors large dividend investors. As for cash, well inflation will take care of that.

You will be sacking groceries right next to all the rest of the 'let them eat cake' middle class morons who think they can ignore what is going on because they believe they have theirs.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, because conservatives never actually gave a shit about the budget deficit.

Conservatives care about cutting taxes for rich people, cutting regulations on business, and perhaps spending on the military. They do not care about the deficit. Please note that they will once again try to pretend to care about the budget deficit when Democrats get back in power. The media will likely pretend to believe them. This will be very annoying.

Like I said, politics as usual.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...y-are-democrats-complaining-about-them-216946

 

[Jhhnn]

It's hard for me to understand this since I went to the rallies and I know that the one thing people had in common was a desire to get the spending under control. I personally was more upset with President Bush for beginning the bailouts...

You think that it was more of a reaction to President Obama getting elected? That's not really what I remember.

You were deceived then & now, as are a lot of people. Dems aren't afraid to spend to see to the welfare of the people, nor are they afraid to tax the wealthy to do it. The GOP is all about indulging the unfathomable greed at the top. It's how they get their money.

 

[Majes]

I guess my question would be if it was in anger about Bush's bank bailouts why is it the first Tea Party rallies didn't happen until more than four months later?

That's an excellent point. My opinion was it took longer to get organized into anything resembling a movement
.
The following link sums it up. While you make your point that things didn't get rolling until the start of President Obama's term the sentiment was in place before that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/a-history-of-the-tea-party-movement-3303278

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, politics as usual.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...y-are-democrats-complaining-about-them-216946

sigh. I have lost track of how many times it has been explained how running up debt during bad economic times is a good idea and running up debt during good economic times is a bad idea.

Some of the worst political writing in the world is where people like this idiot try and make everything about politics and playing the game without ever taking even a second to, you know, determine if one side is actually right.

 

[Engineer]

Sure, because conservatives never actually gave a shit about the budget deficit.

Conservatives care about cutting taxes for rich people, cutting regulations on business, and perhaps spending on the military. They do not care about the deficit. Please note that they will once again try to pretend to care about the budget deficit when Democrats get back in power. The media will likely pretend to believe them. This will be very annoying.

They pretend to care when talking that they need to be cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[fskimospy]

That's an excellent point. My opinion was it took longer to get organized into anything resembling a movement
.
The following link sums it up. While you make your point that things didn't get rolling until the start of President Obama's term the sentiment was in place before that.

https://www.thoughtco.com/a-history-of-the-tea-party-movement-3303278

But then where did that anti-spending sentiment go? It seems to have disappeared as soon as Republicans got back into power. It's hard to see that as a coincidence.

 

[Majes]

But then where did that anti-spending sentiment go? It seems to have disappeared as soon as Republicans got back into power. It's hard to see that as a coincidence.

There's no definitive answer. Looking election wise the Tea Party won a few seats but never enough to actually implement nationwide policy, then effectively just absorbed back into the GOP... I've seen numbers in the 20-30% range for how many republicans identify with Tea Party values. You and I know that's not enough to control the party...

So you honestly think that the Tea Party was just an "anti-Obama" movement? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's hard for me to understand this since I went to the rallies and I know that the one thing people had in common was a desire to get the spending under control

I believe that a large number of people that attended the Tea Party rallies and voted for Tea Party candidates really did want that, but the vast majority of the candidates were never genuine in their desire for it and the followers never seemed to care. The candidates kept voting against the Tea Party's stated goals and the followers kept voting them back in because of other issues. So, it is hard to consider the Tea Party's stated priorities as genuine when they continually supported people that did not act on them.

 

[fskimospy]

There's no definitive answer. Looking election wise the Tea Party won a few seats but never enough to actually implement nationwide policy, then effectively just absorbed back into the GOP... I've seen numbers in the 20-30% range for how many republicans identify with Tea Party values. You and I know that's not enough to control the party...

So you honestly think that the Tea Party was just an "anti-Obama" movement? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

I first want to say I appreciate your honest examination of your own beliefs and that movement you appear to identify with (or at least did identify with). It's refreshing!

Yes though, I believe the Tea Party was almost entirely an anti-Obama movement. While it is true that the Tea Party went after Republican incumbents, I believe they did so because those incumbents were insufficiently combative towards Obama. I'm sure there were members who genuinely cared about deficits more than anything else and still do. (it sounds like you might be one of them!) I do not believe that represented the median Tea Party Member. Sure they might have SAID that's why, but the proof is in the pudding. Republicans had the opportunity to massively cut spending and not only did they decline to do so, they went the other way, ramping up spending and exploding the deficit. I haven't heard a peep from the Tea Party about that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

There's no definitive answer. Looking election wise the Tea Party won a few seats but never enough to actually implement nationwide policy, then effectively just absorbed back into the GOP... I've seen numbers in the 20-30% range for how many republicans identify with Tea Party values. You and I know that's not enough to control the party...

So you honestly think that the Tea Party was just an "anti-Obama" movement? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

The tea party, without a doubt, harbored animosity towards Obama as a black man.

 

[Jhhnn]

There's no definitive answer. Looking election wise the Tea Party won a few seats but never enough to actually implement nationwide policy, then effectively just absorbed back into the GOP... I've seen numbers in the 20-30% range for how many republicans identify with Tea Party values. You and I know that's not enough to control the party...

So you honestly think that the Tea Party was just an "anti-Obama" movement? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

The Tea Party became the Freedom Caucus. They have ~50 members in the HOR. No Republican can be Speaker w/o their support. The Speaker controls the agenda.They hold the Party hostage. They're why Boehner quit & walked away.

 

[Majes]

I first want to say I appreciate your honest examination of your own beliefs and that movement you appear to identify with (or at least did identify with). It's refreshing!

Yes though, I believe the Tea Party was almost entirely an anti-Obama movement. While it is true that the Tea Party went after Republican incumbents, I believe they did so because those incumbents were insufficiently combative towards Obama. I'm sure there were members who genuinely cared about deficits more than anything else and still do. (it sounds like you might be one of them!) I do not believe that represented the median Tea Party Member. Sure they might have SAID that's why, but the proof is in the pudding. Republicans had the opportunity to massively cut spending and not only did they decline to do so, they went the other way, ramping up spending and exploding the deficit. I haven't heard a peep from the Tea Party about that.

I can't really say that you're wrong. There was plenty of anti-Obama sentiment out there at the time, and the Tea Party really didn't accomplish anything by itself or with the Republican party. Where we differ is that I think the majority of the people who identified with the Tea Party genuinely wanted to pay down the debt and balance the budget. I think the leadership wanted to as well. I just think there weren't enough of us, and there are a lot of current Republicans that aren't happy with the party but really don't want to vote Democrat either.

 

[Majes]

The Tea Party became the Freedom Caucus. They have ~50 members in the HOR. No Republican can be Speaker w/o their support. The Speaker controls the agenda.They hold the Party hostage. They're why Boehner quit & walked away.

That puts them at around 11% of the HOR. You think that's enough to implement the national spending cuts needed to balance the budget?

 

[fskimospy]

I can't really say that you're wrong. There was plenty of anti-Obama sentiment out there at the time, and the Tea Party really didn't accomplish anything by itself or with the Republican party. Where we differ is that I think the majority of the people who identified with the Tea Party genuinely wanted to pay down the debt and balance the budget. I think the leadership wanted to as well. I just think there weren't enough of us, and there are a lot of current Republicans that aren't happy with the party but really don't want to vote Democrat either.

Why not vote for Democrats though? Serious question. If fiscal responsibility is your thing it’s not hard to see which party has been more fiscally responsible.

 

[thilanliyan]

I can't really say that you're wrong. There was plenty of anti-Obama sentiment out there at the time, and the Tea Party really didn't accomplish anything by itself or with the Republican party. Where we differ is that I think the majority of the people who identified with the Tea Party genuinely wanted to pay down the debt and balance the budget. I think the leadership wanted to as well. I just think there weren't enough of us, and there are a lot of current Republicans that aren't happy with the party but really don't want to vote Democrat either.

People (I mean the majority, not the 1%ers) really need to stop identifying with a particular party and vote for the one that might actually help them and make their lives better.

 

[senseamp]

See again just an attack. Let's try this.
Hey, you are wrong on SSI, it's not the same as SS. Here's a link.
That might have a positive effect. Someone may learn something. It's ok I know you don't see this my way. You like the feeling you get from insulting people. It helps you feel big inside and fills that hole in your heart. I'll block you now.

You might actually qualify for SSI with that mental capacity.

 

[Majes]

Why not vote for Democrats though? Serious question. If fiscal responsibility is your thing it’s not hard to see which party has been more fiscally responsible.

I probably will vote for at least one local democrat because I know the guy and he works hard and wants whats best for the area. I'll be voting for Larry Hogan again as governor. I've been impressed by what he has accomplished in the area and I personally think that Ben Jealous is mostly empty promises. I haven't done much research on the other candidates yet, but generally I'm all for less taxes on citizens and businesses and less government. This puts me mostly right on a lot of candidates.

Now, for the next presidential race I'll have to see who the left puts forward. But I won't be voting for President Trump. It will likely be third party for me again.

 

[fskimospy]

I probably will vote for at least one local democrat because I know the guy and he works hard and wants whats best for the area. I'll be voting for Larry Hogan again as governor. I've been impressed by what he has accomplished in the area and I personally think that Ben Jealous is mostly empty promises. I haven't done much research on the other candidates yet, but generally I'm all for less taxes on citizens and businesses and less government. This puts me mostly right on a lot of candidates.

In state races this makes sense as states are in fact deficit constrained as they can’t print money. Even though I think their policies are often bad I find Republican promises for less government on a state level to be reasonably credible, unlike their federal promises.

In a federal sense though I guess it depends on which you think is more important, lower taxes or lower debt. If lower taxes trump all (heh) then I guess voting republican makes sense. If the debt is a bigger concern though you should seriously consider voting for Democrats as the Republicans haven’t been fiscally responsible for 40 years.

Now, for the next presidential race I'll have to see who the left puts forward. But I won't be voting for President Trump. It will likely be third party for me again.

Fair enough.

 

[IronWing]

In state races this makes sense as states are in fact deficit constrained as they can’t print money. Even though I think their policies are often bad I find Republican promises for less government on a state level to be reasonably credible, unlike their federal promises.

In a federal sense though I guess it depends on which you think is more important, lower taxes or lower debt. If lower taxes trump all (heh) then I guess voting republican makes sense. If the debt is a bigger concern though you should seriously consider voting for Democrats as the Republicans haven’t been fiscally responsible for 40 years.

Fair enough.

I don't and the reason I don't is that state level Republicans preach and enact less government knowing full well that the Republicans at the federal level will keep printing and shooting money their way to mitigate the impacts of their bad policies. Then the state level pols run for federal office on a platform of bringing the "sound" fiscal management they implemented at the state level to Washington. Rinse, repeat.