It's difficult to give a serious answer to someone with a handle like pimphand. My thumbs are now self-conscious. They don't know whether to go thumbs up or thumbs down. Well, anyway, had you been reading this thread or the Surprising Alamo Tea Party thread, you would know my response. The discontent has been "brewing" for years, but the economic downturn and 24/7 media coverage of the bailouts/excessive spending brought the discontent to a "boil." Obama just chose the wrong time to be President. Herbert Hoover had the similar misfortune of following Calvin Coolidge. Like Hoover, Obama's strategic and tactical solutions have not been well received by a significant number of people. Remember, almost half of the voters didn't vote for him (yesssss more than half did and that's why he is President). BTW, I am not ashamed of loving my country, but I defy you to quote a post of mine where I alluded to "my patriotism." Also, you must really be naive to think that Obama's "hand is forced by its predecessor to raise government spending in order to stimulate the economy due to lower consumer spending." He declared early and often that he was going to do massive spending on health care, education and other programs.
Nothing is wrong with spending on education. Personally, I would like to see the money going to teach children and not on more burdensome bureaucracy. Also, I was merely pointing out to a near rookie that Obama warned he was going to spend billions on his projects and that blaming his spending philosophy on Bush was really disingenuous.
My apologies for not wading through all that bs in this thread. Hopefully by repeating your position, you will come to some sort of self-enlightenment about the stupidity of your position. Your explanation is LESS than convincing. If it had been "brewing" over the years, I am certain we would have seen SOME noticeable discontent. Or was this a SECRET BREW? Calling it a TEA PARTY alludes to the patriots of the BOSTON TEA PARTY. These fools have put their agenda on the same level as those patriots, which quite frankly, is DISGUSTING given your "LESS than convincing" explanation of a "SECRET BREW." This should not have needed explanation . . . I'm not naive. While I am sure Obama had spending plans, it was not spending to this unheard of extent. The government spending today is uncharted waters and let me explain to you why it was necessary to get us out of our mess. (These ideas are not my own, it probably can be found in your high school economics book) Very simply put: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex - Im) Gross Domestic Product is the sum of all spending on goods and services in a nation's economy in a year. The formula for GDP is: GDP = C + I + G + (Ex - Im), where “C” equals spending by consumers, “I” equals investment by businesses, “G” equals government spending and “(Ex - Im)” equals net exports, that is, the value of exports minus imports. Net exports may be negative. The problem, friend, is this. Consumer spending was suffering, Investment was not going to happen because everyone was afraid of investing when the market was plummeting and companies were collapsing, and we were importing more than we were exporting. EVERYTHING was negative in this equation and our GDP was going to suffer. But hark, what's that voice? Republicans demanding huge tax cuts to fix the problem because tax cuts means increased spending and investing. Let me ask this, WHO is going to spend and invest in these times? Nobody, people SAVE money when the situation is as bad as this, thus not stimulating the economy at all. In other words, while some tax cuts may be necessary, huge tax cuts are NOT appropriate when people are scared to spend and invest, which is exactly the environment we were in. So what symbol in that equation must be positive to carry the day? It HAD to be Government spending. It was our only hope. If the Government did not spend, then the market further plummets, more jobs and companies are lost. If people are losing income, the IRS receives less and the Government has less to spend. (Government spending is a big part of any country's GDP.) Its a "death spiral" friend. Once the market gets harmed to this extent, it feeds itself and we all go down together. Our government would be poor which leads to a weak military and weak security.
I'm not seeing where the impact of Lehman was trillions of dollars? I'm not saying you're wrong, but they had a total balance of 639 billion in assets vs. 613 billion in debt; 60 billion of which was the toxic nasty debt. I'm not saying intervention wasn't needed, that's clearly not true. I'm saying it really accomplished nothing outside of keeping these banks slightly afloat. The lending markets have not really opened back up quite yet. Honestly, the market fell a lot, but how much of it was from assets and value not being near what was out there. It was all built on speculation. And a bailout ran the way this one was, a mortgage plan that doesn't make any sense, one can see how some people would protest. And they fully have that right.
By the way, I understand the purpose of this TEA PARTY. It would be DIFFICULT, to say the least, for a Republican who oversaw the past spending that got us in this mess, to complain about the current spending meant to get us out of our Republican mess. Such a Republican is easily dismissed. Instead, why not have a Tea Party with "no party affiliation" where, *surprise* *surprise* these same Republicans are given the pulpit to speak against the Democrats in power! How clever!!! A place where Republicans, er.. I mean, Tea Partiers can congregate to criticize Government for which they were responsible for. And while they are at this Party, they are not called to answer for their mistakes or provide solutions. Its like a masquerade party where people can pretend to be somebody else for a day and take no responsibility for their actions! How Glorious!
Oh thumbs, remember when the Republicans called a press conference to unveil their solution to the economic crisis? How much of a laugh did you get when the folder holding their "solution" was EMPTY? This is why they must turn to a tea party. When you are responsible for this mess, hide in a masquerade party and criticize. When you have no solutions for this mess . . . hide in a masquerade party and criticize. Your call for small government is about 8 years too late. You and your friends squandered the balanced budget President Clinton provided you. Perhaps small government will be possible once we fix this mess, but not right now (See the GDP equation I provided you). I think I speak for all the economically-sane when I say, "Thanks, but we'll take it from here."
Whew. Thank goodness I am dismissed. I don't have to lower myself into that smelly morass of half-truth and outright delusion. I now understand your rationale for your moniker.
Hey thumbs, you searched real hard for a way to avoid explaining yourself to us. However you can't escape the explaining you have to do to yourself. For instance thumbs, what kind of protest has keynote speakers who were RESPONSIBLE for or HEAVILY SUPPORTED the very thing being protested? Furthermore, how do these protesters deal with themselves for "secretly brewing" their anger, pausing to re-elect Bush, then continue their "secret brew" only to realize later that they just re-elected the person they were "secretly brewing" anger about? Was their anger so secret that they themselves didn't know of it? Should the protesters . . . dare I say, protest themselves? Very difficult questions you must face thumbs. I wish you didn't have to face yourself on your own. That's a scary thing. I wish I could be there for you, but I cannot help someone who continually lies to himself.
Who is making 250,000+ ? Most of our bosses. If they are going to get taxed more, one could assume that they are going to lay people off...... How does that really help the unemployment rate??? The "rich" are the reasons people have jobs. JMO
thumbs, could you humor me and inform those of us who may not fully understand what part of that post were half-truths and which part was delusion? surely if it is so far off-base, it should be child's play to clarify what it *should* say for us. TIA
