california tax revolt: attend a TEA PARTY!

[partypup]

[quote=afx114]I’m opposed to the bailouts too, but let’s have some intellectual honesty here — which administration started TARP? Where was all the outrage over the last 8 years when the deficit was doubled? Where was all the outrage at spending 12 billion a month for six years on an unecessary war? The point is that everyone is to blame. Can you explain all of the “Impeach the Kenyan” and “Monkey see, monkey spend” signs too?

Why now? Why not 6 months ago or 6 years ago? The answer is that taxes are a convnient excuse to complain about losing an election. How many of the protesters make over $250k? Since when is a 3% tax increase — to what it was under Clinton and still lower than it was under Reagan — socialism and “taxation without representation?” Was Reagan a socialist? Who was it that said deficits don’t matter? Why were protesters of Bush v. Gore considered whiners and sore losers while tea protesters are “true Americans?”

I’m all for protesing and dissent — but at least be honest about what you’re protesting. You’re pissed that you lost — and that’s fine. I was pissed when I lost in 2000/2004, so I feel your pain. But at least man up and realize that elections have consequences. And if you don’t like those consequnces you can make your voice heard — where it counts — in four years.

The opposition has blown their load way too prematurely. What are they going to do when Obama proposes health care? What are they going to do when he proposes energy reform? How about stem cells? What about social security reform? Will there be any heads left to explode?

Or maybe you’re right and it’s all the fraudulent socialist Muslim Kenyan’s fault. Or maybe I’ve just had one too many Lost Abbey Judgement Day ales.[/quote]

And nothing in this post addresses the fact that large numbers of tea party protesters are actually Democrats.

Regardless of whether you make 250K/yr or 30K/yr, you are being SCREWED by a Fed that prints endless reams of fiat money, courtesy of Bush AND Obama. And a $600 so-called tax “reduction” isn’t going to make the screwing more palatable.

You are correct: Bush started the TARP thievery.

And Obama is finishing it.

Blame Americans for being naive and slow on the uptake. Common sense should have told them 5 years ago that the country was on the path to destruction. But silly monkeys that they are, they failed to realize the train was hurtling over the cliff until the economic hit home in a very personal way. You know how it goes: when your neighbor loses his job, it’s a recession. When you lose your job, it’s a depression.

You ask which administration started TARP? That would be Bush, yes. But you’re only looking at one frame of a movie that has been playing for nearly 100 years. The better question to ask is which administration permitted the creation of the Federal Reserve that ENABLED Bush’s TARP.

And that, my friend, would be Woodrow Wilson – a Democrat.

No one on this board is placing the blame for our current predicament squarely at Obama’s feet. Only a fool would do that. But Bush and Obama are simply mouthpieces for a two-headed, one-party political system. Just because one thief passes the goods along to another thief, let’s not overlook the fact that they are both thieves.

You recommend that we make out voice heard — where it counts — in four years. Afx114, we don’t have that kind of time. This country is going to be toast in half that time if we don’t stand up and take action, and sashaying to the ballot box to install another career criminal working for the Fed is not exactly going to “make our voice heard”.

[afx114]

Good, then we agree! Although I still think you’re deluding yourself if you think that the tea parties were some sort of bi-partisan effort. They may have started out that way, but were quickly hijacked by the GOP and Fox News as a convenient excuse to vent their frustrations over their loss of the election and power. Sure there were maybe a few Dems there, but there were a few Repubs at the war protests too — would you call those bipartisan then?

Screw tea, let’s go have a beer.

[afx114]

Good, then we agree! Although I still think you’re deluding yourself if you think that the tea parties were some sort of bi-partisan effort. They may have started out that way, but were quickly hijacked by the GOP and Fox News as a convenient excuse to vent their frustrations over their loss of the election and power. Sure there were maybe a few Dems there, but there were a few Repubs at the war protests too — would you call those bipartisan then?

Screw tea, let’s go have a beer.

[afx114]

Good, then we agree! Although I still think you’re deluding yourself if you think that the tea parties were some sort of bi-partisan effort. They may have started out that way, but were quickly hijacked by the GOP and Fox News as a convenient excuse to vent their frustrations over their loss of the election and power. Sure there were maybe a few Dems there, but there were a few Repubs at the war protests too — would you call those bipartisan then?

Screw tea, let’s go have a beer.

[afx114]

Good, then we agree! Although I still think you’re deluding yourself if you think that the tea parties were some sort of bi-partisan effort. They may have started out that way, but were quickly hijacked by the GOP and Fox News as a convenient excuse to vent their frustrations over their loss of the election and power. Sure there were maybe a few Dems there, but there were a few Repubs at the war protests too — would you call those bipartisan then?

Screw tea, let’s go have a beer.

[afx114]

Good, then we agree! Although I still think you’re deluding yourself if you think that the tea parties were some sort of bi-partisan effort. They may have started out that way, but were quickly hijacked by the GOP and Fox News as a convenient excuse to vent their frustrations over their loss of the election and power. Sure there were maybe a few Dems there, but there were a few Repubs at the war protests too — would you call those bipartisan then?

Screw tea, let’s go have a beer.

[Coronita]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress.

[Coronita]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress.

[Coronita]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress.

[Coronita]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress.

[Coronita]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton with a Republican Congress.

[Arraya]

[quote=flu]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton….[/quote]

The funny thing about that, and I am not partisan at all, is that it was done under the Republican manta of “deregulation for the free market”, that’s how they sold it. See what happens when the work together.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

[Arraya]

[quote=flu]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton….[/quote]

The funny thing about that, and I am not partisan at all, is that it was done under the Republican manta of “deregulation for the free market”, that’s how they sold it. See what happens when the work together.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

[Arraya]

[quote=flu]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton….[/quote]

The funny thing about that, and I am not partisan at all, is that it was done under the Republican manta of “deregulation for the free market”, that’s how they sold it. See what happens when the work together.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

[Arraya]

[quote=flu]

You should add, partypup, that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law by *cough* Bill Clinton….[/quote]

The funny thing about that, and I am not partisan at all, is that it was done under the Republican manta of “deregulation for the free market”, that’s how they sold it. See what happens when the work together.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting).

[Author]

Posts