View Single Post
May24-10, 02:03 AM
P: 18
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger.
That's always the leftist line of thought. When it's leftists protesting, they are "patriotic" and it's grassroots supposedly.

When it's people against a leftwing President protesting, they're "angry" and "irrational."

When the people kick the Republicans out and vote in Democrats, they are sensible. When they kick the Democrats out, they're angry and irrational (1994 was known as the year of the "angry white man" when the Democrats got slaughtered in Congress).

The fears are not irrational. With the country in a steep recession, Obama has decided to gun up spending, ramming through a massive healthcare bill which the evidence shows will not work and will cost an extraordinary amount of money. He also wants to ram through carbon cap-and-trade and so forth.

The way the healthcare bill was done and the levels of debt this country is racking up with no apparent intention of trying to bring spending under control, is a very legitimate concern. Once a nation's debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 100%, that begins to have a negative effect on economic growth.

The larger the debt gets, the larger a portion of the federal budget must be devoted to paying the interest on the debt as well.

Moody's has hinted that it may have to downgrade the U.S. debt eventually even. The way this administration is seeking to enlarge the government, the debt, this administration's handling of terrorism issues, the administration's completely soft stance on Iran, etc...have a lot of people extremely concerned.

Have you looked at the financial and economic health of left-leaning states like California, Massachusettes, New York, and New Jersey recently? Or the financial and economic health of the European nations which Obama is trying to model the U.S. after?

The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.
Depends. The Tea Party represents much of what the Republican party is supposed to be, but is not. The people voted for Obama for change; what they were too ignorant to realize was Obama was going to be more of the same. The Republicans spent their eight years under Bush spending a ton of money. People were tired of that, and in their ignorance, elected in Obama, not paying attention to what his beliefs were.

And now they are shocked, SHOCKED, that he is outspending the Republicans. Jay Leno has a new skit he's been running called "What Did You Think Was Gonna Happen!?" which shows people doing very stupid things, then seemingly stunned when what should have been obvious happens.

With Obama, I feel this way towards many people. I mean you have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid heading a Democrat Congress and then they elect in Barack Obama, and are now shocked at how he is governing, to which I say, "WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GONNA HAPPEN!?" That the Democrats and Obama would spend less than Bush and the Republicans!? BWAHAHAHAHA!!

The Democrats, and Obama, however, completely mis-read his election as a signal to govern to the Left. It was either Newsweek or Time that had a cover title: "We're All Socialists Now: The Perils and Promises In the New Era of Big Government. Sean Wilentz, the historian, wrote a book: The Age of Reagan: 1974 - 2008 The media talked of how we had reached the "end" of the era of Reagan. The book Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown talks about how every thirty to fifty years or so, the pendulum seems to swing towards the other direction. With FDR, it swung left and stayed there for about fifty years.

With Ronald Reagan, it swung to the right. With the financial crash and election of Obama, the Democrats and the media took it that the pendulum had swung to the Left, that the people had elected in Obama to usher in a new era of FDR-style big government.

But they were wrong, very wrong. The people did not elect in Obama or the Democrats for any such thing. The era of Reagan did not end, it's that the Republicans, who always claim Reagan as their icon, went and spent like drunken sailors, then had a bunch of corruption issues (also just anti-Bush sentiment from many because of the Iraq War).

So the people elected in Democrats in Congress then elected in Obama by a standard margin (moderates who decided to take a gamble and elect Obama, assuming he was far more moderate than he is).

Well Obama has since been trying to govern to the hard Left. And you can't govern to the hard Left in what is a center-right country. Obama would be fine in France, but this is the United States. If you try to govern to the hard Left here, you're going to get a reaction, and that is what the Tea Parties are.