Rockdoc Franz wrote: Archer, I'm a bit surprised you endorse this kind irresponsible rhetoric. Is it necessary to liable another organization because they vehemently opposed your and your parties point of view? I suppose karma will act on this.
You shouldn't be surprised rockdoc.......it's how I feel, I see the American people betrayed by some ideologues who have placed their own agenda above what was good for the country.....and now we are seeing the fallout of that. The rhetoric is hardly irresponsible when it's true. I have never been so angry at a bunch of lawmakers as I am now.......what THEY have done is irresponsible, and evil, and may well have doomed this nation and it's people to years recession/depression because we can't get our fiscal house in order responsibly.
Any number of assassins!!!! (so, what again you know not f what you speak)
What the tea party has done will effect nearly every citizen in this country......and into the future for many years.....not indirectly but directly.... wages are stagnant, I expect they will stay that way, unemployment is up....I would expect it to go higher, our credit rating may go down, that effects anyone with a credit card or needing a loan, especially small business. The arrogance of a small group of lawmakers....to hold this country hostage because they want it done THEIR way is appalling. The economists, their own Republican party, the American people, the rating agencies.....all say we need to balance spending cuts with revenue increases to bring down our deficit and $4 trillion is the minimum......so what does the tea party do? dig in their heels. throw a few temper tantrums and make that kind of bill impossible. Would you feel better if we said they waged war on America? or how about a coup.....that is PS's favorite term, and this sure fits the criteria he laid out.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: Archer, I'm a bit surprised you endorse this kind irresponsible rhetoric. Is it necessary to liable another organization because they vehemently opposed your and your parties point of view? I suppose karma will act on this.
You shouldn't be surprised rockdoc.......it's how I feel, I see the American people betrayed by some ideologues who have placed their own agenda above what was good for the country.....and now we are seeing the fallout of that. The rhetoric is hardly irresponsible when it's true. I have never been so angry at a bunch of lawmakers as I am now.......what THEY have done is irresponsible, and evil, and may well have doomed this nation and it's people to years recession/depression because we can't get our fiscal house in order responsibly.
Oh I understand both parties are to be lambasted for their irresponsible handling of the debt and spending issues, but the quote singles out the tea party and associates them with Jihad, clearly not appropriate. I don't think the tea party passed this measure, not did they write it. Place blame where it truly belongs. What am I missing? If the tea party had its way there would be no increase in expenditures. It's simple economics. Ya can't keep spending when you haven't got it.
archer wrote: What the tea party has done will effect nearly every citizen in this country......and into the future for many years.....not indirectly but directly.... wages are stagnant, I expect they will stay that way, unemployment is up....I would expect it to go higher, our credit rating may go down, that effects anyone with a credit card or needing a loan, especially small business. The arrogance of a small group of lawmakers....to hold this country hostage because they want it done THEIR way is appalling. The economists, their own Republican party, the American people, the rating agencies.....all say we need to balance spending cuts with revenue increases to bring down our deficit and $4 trillion is the minimum......so what does the tea party do? dig in their heels. throw a few temper tantrums and make that kind of bill impossible. Would you feel better if we said they waged war on America? or how about a coup.....that is PS's favorite term, and this sure fits the criteria he laid out.
The problem is not the Tea Party. The problem is the Financial Liberals that bought into Keynes' crap about how to get out of the recession caused by the pork-filled spending of previous years.
I agree that revenues need to rise. I disagree that they should be balanced with the cuts. The cuts should be orders of magnitude higher than the increased revenues.
Start with congressional and white house budgets, benefits and retirements.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
I don't agree with the author of the article in comparing Tea Party tactics over the deficit debate.
However, I do wonder if there isn't a bit of jihad in the whole idea of the Tea Party movement. All the talk of "taking back our country" distinctly smacks of a religious flavor to this movement. Which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I do think some of the more "out there" dominionists could do severe damage to freedom in this country if they get their way. They seem determined to rewrite not only history but our Constitution to match their religious standards.
AspenValley wrote: I don't agree with the author of the article in comparing Tea Party tactics over the deficit debate.
However, I do wonder if there isn't a bit of jihad in the whole idea of the Tea Party movement. All the talk of "taking back our country" distinctly smacks of a religious flavor to this movement. Which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I do think some of the more "out there" dominionists could do severe damage to freedom in this country if they get their way. They seem determined to rewrite not only history but our Constitution to match their religious standards.
The Tea Party started out simple... push a financially conservative agenda. "Take back the country" meant to take it back from the financial liberals.
Unfortunately, as with many good and simple things, people have officially and unofficially expanded the goals of the Tea Party to include social conservative goals.
It's like pork, only with issues instead of dollars.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
"You know what they say; one man's terrorist is another man's democratically elected congressman."......................................."
If you're wondering why these elected officials, representing their constituents within the system, are the equivalent of terrorists, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania bores to the heart of the matter: "This small group of terrorists," Mike Doyle explained, "have made it impossible to spend any money."
Well, damn near impossible. Washington will have to squeeze by on $43,900,000,000,000 over the next decade while wrestling with real cuts that are likely to rise to zero -- or maybe less. If we can't spend money, who are we as a people?
