After having read a BRILLIANT post by another member here I decided to post this thread. First here's the BRILLIANT post. MAN! This must have taken hours to come up with. Such wit, such biting sarcasm such, well, blatant stupidity. Now another viewpoint. I invite you to watch the video. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047&sc=emaf Yes, a tad bit over the edge for sure but amusing. So amusing in fact that the guy that made this has received death threats. BY GOD THAT'S HOW AMERICA SHOULD WORK. Oh wait, isn't it kinda Muslim? You know, when a guy like Salmon Rushdie writes a book and Muslims call for his death? I'll let you decide.
Actually took bout 1 minute as I was in a hurry. Was thinking more of another poster when I tried to get down to his whining level.Waaaa...bush. Now a couple will come to mind when I go there again. Tried your link, but the ellipical vignette, yet catchy' is not the type of background you want on your website. After five minutes I gave up. But what can you expect from NPR and a journalist from San Francisco. I'll try later.
Is this the guy who had death threats made against him because of this vid?? I am fairly sure it was Oh and not by Muslims either
A quickie before I head off to work.... As Americans do you stand for #1) Less deficit spending ? #2) Reading the bills before you vote on them ? #3) Read the bills in a public forum such as CSPAN ? Ok, congrats, if you argee, you are a teabagger. Those are the top 3 issues on the tbag platform. Dont be against the movement just because it is a " righty " thing. I'll catch the link later, thanks Clembo
Dems Raise debt ceiling 1.9 trillion (1,900,000,000,000) After reading this I found myself speaking TEABAG: socialist....ah..trillions of debt. By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jan 20, 6:39 pm ET WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion. The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation. It's hardly the debate Democrats want or need in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Arguing over the debt limit provides a forum for Republicans to blame Democrats for rising deficits and spiraling debt, even though responsibility for the government's financial straits can be shared by both political parties. The measure came to the floor under rules requiring 60 votes to pass. That's an unprecedented step that could mean that every Democrat, no matter how politically endangered, may have to vote for it next week before Brown takes office and Democrats lose their 60-vote majority. Democratic leaders are also worried that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who opposed the debt limit increase approved last month, will vote against the measure. The record increase in the so-called debt limit is required because the budget deficit has spiraled out of control in the wake of a recession that cut tax revenues, the Wall Street bailout, and increased spending by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Last year's deficit hit a phenomenal $1.4 trillion, and the current year's deficit promises to be as high or higher. Congress has never failed to increase the borrowing limit. "We have gone to the restaurant. We have eaten the meal. Now the only question is whether we will pay the check," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "We simply must do so." A White House policy statement said the increase "is critically important to make sure that financing of federal government operations can continue without interruption and that the creditworthiness of the United States is not called into question." Less than a decade ago, $1.9 trillion would have been enough to finance the operations and programs of the federal government for an entire year. Now, it's only enough to make sure Democrats can avoid another vote before Election Day. Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota immediately offered an amendment to end the bank and Wall Street bailout, officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Thune would prohibit further expenditure of TARP funds and would require that all funds paid back be used to retire debt. The latest increase comes on top of a stopgap $290 billion measure that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Given the country's finances, that measure would last only about six weeks, lawmakers said, requiring the far larger measure that's pending.
Here we go again blaming the Democrats alone for your finacial troubles!! even though responsibility for the government's financial straits can be shared by both political parties. From the above report The first rise in American debt since Truman was under Nixon/Ford Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 +0.1% Increase debt/GDP Carter D 1977-1979 -3.2% Increase debt/GDP Reagan1 R 1981-1985 +11.3% Increase debt/GDP Reagan2 R 1985-1989 +9.2% Increase debt/GDP Bush GHW R 1989-1993 +13.1% Increase debt/GDP Clinton1 D 1993-1997 -0.6% Increase debt/GDP Clinton2 D 1997-2001 -8.2% Increase debt/GDP Bush GW1 R 2001-2005 +6.9% Increase debt/GDP Bush GW2 R 2005-2009 +11.2% Increase debt/GDP The table lists the gross U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term
No problem Jack and although it may seem I'm "attacking" the teabaggers I'm really not. What I AM doing is pointing out how silly this whole mess becomes. Statements such as "typical Conservative", "typical Liberal" are beaten to death with very little, or no, thought. So why not "teabaggers". Hell, I work with a Libertarian and my boss actually does talk like a teabagger at times. We get along.
I agree with some of the Tea Party stuff (just as I agree with some of the Dem stuff and some of the Pub stuff). But, really, the Tea Party movement is mostly just a subset of the Republican Party. And I think it never would have come to exist if a Republican president was in power...spending and not reading bills and not having transparent legislation.
Geez...first Tom which is typical but now you.....perceiving my "finacal troubles". Again as posted before I blame congress for our financial troubles. Glad you brought up the stats. The national debt falls squarely on the shoulders of the House of Reps. ......origination of spending bills.... and the elite Senate gets to tack on the pork. The president should not be blamed until me signs the bill. So now lets look at who controlled congress during these years.I think the only time Republicans did was from 1994 to 1998(?) Was about that time that we finally showed some positive numbers. Power corrupts and both sides have there share of blame. Sometimes you just have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Sure...as long as the right doesn't "forget" those ideas when they are in the position of power. (something I'm sure they wouldn't do..of of course) .
