I was at the DC tea party yesterday...

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: alchemize
LOL

Which lie to begin with first...hmm...

1) 2009's budget was almost completely attributable to Bush; Obama's first real budget won't be until 2010. Yet the chart lists 2009 as Obama's budget.

2) Bush didn't give Obama a clean slate to start with; the last budget provided by Bush (2009) was already heavy in the red. There isn't a magic button in the Oval Office that can reset everything to zero so we can start all over.

3) If Bush left office with the federal deficit at nearly $10 trillion, how is $14.9 trillion "nearly triple the amount of public debt"? Might I suggest investing in this?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
LOL

Which lie to begin with first...hmm...

1) 2009's budget was almost completely attributable to Bush; Obama's first real budget won't be until 2010. Yet the chart lists 2009 as Obama's budget.

2) Bush didn't give Obama a clean slate to start with; the last budget provided by Bush (2009) was already heavy in the red. There isn't a magic button in the Oval Office that can reset everything to zero so we can start all over.

3) If Bush left office with the federal deficit at nearly $10 trillion, how is $14.9 trillion "nearly triple the amount of public debt"? Might I suggest investing in this?

Hmm, I'm sure Bush just wrote up the bill, passed it, and signed it as an executive order or something, so I can understand how you'd feel it was "almost completely attributable" to him. Same story the previous two years...

While Bush undoubtedly started the whole process of the final fucking of the next three generations, the dems and Obama are fully committed to finishing, sans lube.

I can't wait to see how you explain it away next year. And the year after. And the year after...etc.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I found this handy chart of interest:

2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._States_federal_budget

Where were you tea-bagging morons when Bush took the federal budget from $1.9 Trillion to $3.1 Trillion while simultaneously waging two wars off the books and while cutting taxes? That's outrageously irresponsible, and I don't recall any tea-bagging during any of those 8 years.

LOL

See that little Heritage.org thing in the lower-right? Can you possibly find a more biased source?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I found this handy chart of interest:

2010 United States federal budget - $3.60 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._States_federal_budget

Where were you tea-bagging morons when Bush took the federal budget from $1.9 Trillion to $3.1 Trillion while simultaneously waging two wars off the books and while cutting taxes? That's outrageously irresponsible, and I don't recall any tea-bagging during any of those 8 years.

LOL

See that little Heritage.org thing in the lower-right? Can you possibly find a more biased source?

LOL

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
LOL

Which lie to begin with first...hmm...

1) 2009's budget was almost completely attributable to Bush; Obama's first real budget won't be until 2010. Yet the chart lists 2009 as Obama's budget.

2) Bush didn't give Obama a clean slate to start with; the last budget provided by Bush (2009) was already heavy in the red. There isn't a magic button in the Oval Office that can reset everything to zero so we can start all over.

3) If Bush left office with the federal deficit at nearly $10 trillion, how is $14.9 trillion "nearly triple the amount of public debt"? Might I suggest investing in this?

Hmm, I'm sure Bush just wrote up the bill, passed it, and signed it as an executive order or something, so I can understand how you'd feel it was "almost completely attributable" to him. Same story the previous two years...

I can't wait to see how you explain it away next year. And the year after. And the year after...etc.

If Obama's second term ends in January 2017, how does he make the 2019 budget?

Now re-read your post above after you answer that question.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
LOL

Which lie to begin with first...hmm...

1) 2009's budget was almost completely attributable to Bush; Obama's first real budget won't be until 2010. Yet the chart lists 2009 as Obama's budget.

2) Bush didn't give Obama a clean slate to start with; the last budget provided by Bush (2009) was already heavy in the red. There isn't a magic button in the Oval Office that can reset everything to zero so we can start all over.

3) If Bush left office with the federal deficit at nearly $10 trillion, how is $14.9 trillion "nearly triple the amount of public debt"? Might I suggest investing in this?

LOL

 

[jpeyton]

I guess if Obama is making the 2019 budget, then Bush must be making the 2011 budget?

:laugh:

Anyway, the bottom line is that if Obama was never elected and Bush was still President, Bush's projected federal budgets (and tax cuts for the highest income brackets) would have left us in trillions more debt by 2020 than Obama's budgets.

 

[alchemize]

I guess also if you sucked a unicorn schlong and captured the sperm in the holy grail, we could just wish away the debt.

 

[DealMonkey]

Might I add that Bush's budget magic added more than $1 Trillion to the already massively expanding federal budgets he proposed, by hiding the true cost of the wars via his BS "emergency appropriations" nonsense.

President-elect Barack Obama's administration needs to monitor war spending much more closely than the current White House has, according to a new study that criticizes President Bush's approach to funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- a bill that is projected to approach nearly $1 trillion next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5/AR2008122500757.html

And yet no f'ing tea-bagging for 8 f'ing years. That's why, it's abundantly clear to the rest of us voters, that this tea bag crap is yet another stupid partisan effort and nothing more.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I was there. I marched from near the White House to the Capitol building in a constant stream of people along Pennsylvania Ave. that lasted for four house.

These were people from all fifty states who came on their own volition. They were young, middle-aged, and old. While mostly Caucasian, there were quite a few African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and so forth.

People marched in peace. The signs were hilarious.

Basically everything boiled down to a distrust of government in general.

A few counter-demonstrators were encountered, mostly people claiming we were all racists. One protester claimed to be selling "white hoods" for $4.00. He was then confronted by several other African-American males who attempted to explain that the protest was about issues and not skin color.

Overall, an exciting and energizing event with the overriding purpose to remind Congress that WE THE PEOPLE are in control.


CNN Article
Fox News Article
Dailymail Article
WSJ Article

Thats a stretch on the truth. I have seen literally dozens of photos and there were damn near zero minorities. I have seen one picture of 1 black woman. No other blacks, asians, or hispanics. This is nothing more than a bunch of angry white people. Most of that stuff I have seen, has nothing to do with healthcare and people know it. They are just a bunch of motherf'in racists. But this ain't the 50s.

 

[DealMonkey]

And furthermore:

Over eight years under President George W. Bush, the debt also nearly doubled from $5.8 trillion in FY2001 to $10 trillion in FY2008. Under President Ronald Reagan, it nearly tripled from $998 billion to $2.6 trillion.

http://factcheck.org/2009/03/debtor-nation/

And yet NO tea-bagging during Bush's 2 terms nor Reagan's. It's OK until the other guy does it, seems to be the MO here.

Lame. :thumbsdown:

 

[alchemize]

So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the last 8 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin.

:thumbsup:

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

So you're OK with it too, just like jpeyton and dealmonkey. Got it, you bleeping.

 

[Hecubus2000]

Looked like a HUGE turnout. I wish i could have been there.:thumbsup:

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

So you're OK with it too, just like jpeyton and dealmonkey. Got it, you bleeping.

You are a moron. Many, Many, Many people were outraged, and said it, about Bush's insane spending. The point is, (are you ready) the people outraged and teabagging now ARE NOT the people outraged and Bush insulting back then.

They could care less about out of control spending when Bush was doing it and only care now because they are racist partisans. Now believe me, I find it just as deplorable that all the partisan democrats who lambasted Bush's spending are not doing the same with Obama and the Do-Nothings (Congress for the last 20 years).

It is just absurd that these people pretend this is about anything other than being scared and outraged of the half-black democrat in office. It has nothing to do with debt or spending and everything to do with simple-minded people. Just be fucking honest for once.

My biggest problem is that they are wasting our time with their racism and getting in the way of progress and fixing shit.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

So you're OK with it too, just like jpeyton and dealmonkey. Got it, you bleeping.

You are a moron. Many, Many, Many people were outraged, and said it, about Bush's insane spending. The point is, (are you ready) the people outraged and teabagging now ARE NOT the people outraged and Bush insulting back then.

They could care less about out of control spending when Bush was doing it and only care now because they are racist partisans. Now believe me, I find it just as deplorable that all the partisan democrats who lambasted Bush's spending are not doing the same with Obama and the Do-Nothings (Congress for the last 20 years).

It is just absurd that these people pretend this is about anything other than being scared and outraged of the half-black democrat in office. It has nothing to do with debt or spending and everything to do with simple-minded people. Just be fucking honest for once.

My biggest problem is that they are wasting our time with their racism and getting in the way of progress and fixing shit.

If I pull up say...5 posts where I complained about Bush's spending, will you teabag me?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

Obama's budger deficites are more than $100billion a year. They are are in the $500billion-$1trillion range, without "healthcare" reform, were again Obama is fudging numbers as he always does. So add on another $250billion to that $500b-$1trillion yearly deficit.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you're OK with the next 3.5 years of insane deficit spending that dwarfs any previous spending (GOP or DEM), cause there wasn't any teabagging during the bush admin. Got it.

Insane spending? He is talking about spending 100 billion a year to protect the health of OUR entire fvcking nation. He wants to improve and save lives. Bush spent more than that just in Iraq alone on a hunt that ended with no WMDs and thousands dead for nothing. Did you GET that, you bleeping

So you're OK with it too, just like jpeyton and dealmonkey. Got it, you bleeping.

You are a moron. Many, Many, Many people were outraged, and said it, about Bush's insane spending. The point is, (are you ready) the people outraged and teabagging now ARE NOT the people outraged and Bush insulting back then.

They could care less about out of control spending when Bush was doing it and only care now because they are racist partisans. Now believe me, I find it just as deplorable that all the partisan democrats who lambasted Bush's spending are not doing the same with Obama and the Do-Nothings (Congress for the last 20 years).

It is just absurd that these people pretend this is about anything other than being scared and outraged of the half-black democrat in office. It has nothing to do with debt or spending and everything to do with simple-minded people. Just be fucking honest for once.

My biggest problem is that they are wasting our time with their racism and getting in the way of progress and fixing shit.

If I pull up say...5 posts where I complained about Bush's spending, will you teabag me?

Lol. Believe me, I realize there are a select few, aka Ron Paul supporters, who generally care about the fact that our country blows money like me around hookers and coke; However, you have to admit that the vast majority of these teabagger care nothing about spending unless a democrat is doing it. They just want their opportunity to protest and make a scene and do whatever they can to waste our tme and let shit get worse.



I have to say my absolute favorite part of all this garbage is my one uncle. I can not tell you the countless times he has belittled college kids protesting things. Talking about how pathetic they were. About they guys being all "whinny faggots" and the girls a bunch of overprivilaged dykes. He went to a Teabagging event a few months ago and was telling me all aobut how moved and empowered and blah blah he was. Nothing was better than the change of expression he had when I pointed out he sounded like Haley Koch.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
And furthermore:

Over eight years under President George W. Bush, the debt also nearly doubled from $5.8 trillion in FY2001 to $10 trillion in FY2008. Under President Ronald Reagan, it nearly tripled from $998 billion to $2.6 trillion.

http://factcheck.org/2009/03/debtor-nation/

And yet NO tea-bagging during Bush's 2 terms nor Reagan's. It's OK until the other guy does it, seems to be the MO here.

Lame. :thumbsdown:

Do you not see a huge fucking difference between $2 trillion and $5trillion and what will likely be $10trillion if Obama serves 8 years.

2018 is when the real piling on will begin when SS and Medicare will start running deficits.

We are looking at a $30trillion+ deficit by 2030, when we SS and Medicare will run close to a combined $1trillion deficit on a yearly basis.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Lol. Believe me, I realize there are a select few, aka Ron Paul supporters, who generally care about the fact that our country blows money like me around hookers and coke; However, you have to admit that the vast majority of these teabagger care nothing about spending unless a democrat is doing it. They just want their opportunity to protest and make a scene and do whatever they can to waste our tme and let shit get worse.



I have to say my absolute favorite part of all this garbage is my one uncle. I can not tell you the countless times he has belittled college kids protesting things. Talking about how pathetic they were. About they guys being all "whinny faggots" and the girls a bunch of overprivilaged dykes. He went to a Teabagging event a few months ago and was telling me all aobut how moved and empowered and blah blah he was. Nothing was better than the change of expression he had when I pointed out he sounded like Haley Koch.

Well of course. It's really not that most americans care about deficit spending. It's about two things 1) personal greed (what's in it for them) and 2) what the government spends it on. So the dems were outraged by war spending, medicare part D, tax cuts for the wealthy. GOP is outraged by what looks like to be a giant social program and higher taxes on the wealthy. Dems now strangely quiet on war spending, cutting deals with the pharmacy companies. Republicans now playing on the fringes of the truthers.

Not terribly complicated. Money, and the power that comes from it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
We are looking at a $30trillion+ deficit by 2030, when we SS and Medicare will run close to a combined $1trillion deficit on a yearly basis.

I've got the perfect solution to that. Cut taxes for the wealthy and block health care reform.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Lol. Believe me, I realize there are a select few, aka Ron Paul supporters, who generally care about the fact that our country blows money like me around hookers and coke; However, you have to admit that the vast majority of these teabagger care nothing about spending unless a democrat is doing it. They just want their opportunity to protest and make a scene and do whatever they can to waste our tme and let shit get worse.



I have to say my absolute favorite part of all this garbage is my one uncle. I can not tell you the countless times he has belittled college kids protesting things. Talking about how pathetic they were. About they guys being all "whinny faggots" and the girls a bunch of overprivilaged dykes. He went to a Teabagging event a few months ago and was telling me all aobut how moved and empowered and blah blah he was. Nothing was better than the change of expression he had when I pointed out he sounded like Haley Koch.

Well of course. It's really not that most americans care about deficit spending. It's about two things 1) personal greed (what's in it for them) and 2) what the government spends it on. So the dems were outraged by war spending, medicare part D, tax cuts for the wealthy. GOP is outraged by what looks like to be a giant social program and higher taxes on the wealthy. Dems now strangely quiet on war spending, cutting deals with the pharmacy companies. Republicans now playing on the fringes of the truthers.

Not terribly complicated. Money, and the power that comes from it.

I 100% agree with you. I think that you should also add in personal fears/indoctrinated ideas. When the first two can't be easily related to the topic they fall on this one.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Doesn't look like too many people on this forum were actually at the march and are getting most of their (mis)information from the media talking heads and reiterating Democrat talking points.

I live and work in the DC area and I HATE protests as they tie up traffic. I hate crowds as well as they have a tendency to take on an unpleasant life of their own.

Of course, a friend invited me to see a film retrospective of Alain Resnais playing at the National Gallery of Art right around the time the march was wrapping up. I couldn't pass up the chance to see the collection of Resnais shorts and "Muriel, ou Le temps d'un retour" so I drove down there and wound up intermingling with the huge crowds.

And let me assure you, this was no small gathering. It was one of the largest and most geographically diverse crowds I have seen in DC in the past 20 years. These were not locals, they were people who traveled very long distances at significant personal cost and time to make a statement. No matter what they were advocating, they were committed to their causes and their positions. In my opinion, this fervor will not fizzle away any time soon.

Most of the time we see the same motley collection of the Mid-Atlantic East coast unwashed in DC. It is so easy for them to get to town and get loud. The group yesterday was mostly white and middle aged, lots and lots of families with teenagers and young kids, lots of senior citizens, everyone was carrying signs and everyone that I saw was unfailingly polite. Almost sheepish in finding themselves there as part of a movement. Definitely not used to being demonstrators.

This was definitely not a Republican rally but it was definitely anti Democrat leadership (Obama/Reid/Pelosi), if anything the overriding theme was anti big government and anti deficit spending.

Lots of causes being advocated but the most common flag being carried was the Gadsden flag - a historical American flag with a yellow field depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike. Positioned below the snake is the legend "Don't Tread on Me".

Obama and Biden both left town, they should have stayed to understand the diversity and the intensity of opposition they are now facing.

Thank you.

I saw one person carrying a "combo" flag featuring a combination of the "Don't Tread on Me" and Confederate (Stars and Bars) flag. I kindly walked up to the person and told him that he was doing a disservice to the cause by waving that flag, that he was only aiding the Left in their cause to depict us all as racists. He told me that he understood my point but continued marching with it anyway. I was disappointed by that.

By and large, this was a protest made up of Christians who were overly kind and polite to each other throughout the day.