had a guy tell me that the Tea Party is America's...

[BDKJMU]

Again, GWB's fiscal irresponsibility isn't close to the level of BHO's.

But, he was still fiscally irresponsible. Obama's spending has been worse, but why are they ok with some runaway spending, but not all runaway spending? You're making excuses for them.

Where did I say I was ok with some runaway spending?? I was bitching about Bush's spending as far back as 04' with the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind, massive new prescription drug program (which looks tiny compared to Obamacare), massive agriculture bill, discretionary non defense spending going up faster than inflation + population growth 1st term. My bitching reached new heights in late 08'/early 09'. That's when I became aware how bad this country was screwed financially long term. Emailed & called my Senator's & Congressman. Vowed to start regularly voting in local & state elections.

[kalm]

But, he was still fiscally irresponsible. Obama's spending has been worse, but why are they ok with some runaway spending, but not all runaway spending? You're making excuses for them.

Where did I say I was ok with some runaway spending?? I was bitching about Bush's spending as far back as 04' with the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind, massive new prescription drug program (which looks tiny compared to Obamacare), massive agriculture bill, discretionary non defense spending going up faster than inflation + population growth 1st term. My bitching reached new heights in late 08'/early 09'. That's when I became aware how bad this country was screwed financially long term. Emailed & called my Senator's & Congressman. Vowed to start regularly voting in local & state elections.

Hope you've been voting independent.

[Ibanez]

But, he was still fiscally irresponsible. Obama's spending has been worse, but why are they ok with some runaway spending, but not all runaway spending? You're making excuses for them.

Where did I say I was ok with some runaway spending?? I was bitching about Bush's spending as far back as 04' with the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind, massive new prescription drug program (which looks tiny compared to Obamacare), massive agriculture bill, discretionary non defense spending going up faster than inflation + population growth 1st term. My bitching reached new heights in late 08'/early 09'. That's when I became aware how bad this country was screwed financially long term. Emailed & called my Senator's & Congressman. Vowed to start regularly voting in local & state elections.

Interesting. You got serious in 2009 when a person with views contrary to your own was in office.

[JohnStOnge]

Interesting. You got serious in 2009 when a person with views contrary to your own was in office.

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

[kalm]

Interesting. You got serious in 2009 when a person with views contrary to your own was in office.

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

Oh good god.

That event had wheels and the initial response was under Bush in 2008. You can play armchair QB all you want at this point, but the reality is we were loosing 700,000 jobs a month in 2009. Nobody had to deal with that kind of financial crisis in recent memory.

I know you conks suck at history in general, but this was within the last decade for goodness sake.

[Ibanez]

Interesting. You got serious in 2009 when a person with views contrary to your own was in office.

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

Run away spending started before Obama and Bush. Obama inherited a shit storm.

[AshevilleApp]

I can't help if they don't like gays, a womans right to choose, deny global warming and attack and unseat Republicans that had the nerve to work with Democrats.

Keep parroting the likes of those on the left:
-Those who simply believe marriage should be between a man and a woman hate gays.
-If you dare to question the validity of man made global warning you are an extremeist.
-If for religious reasons you are against abortion or if you point out there is no such right spelled out in the constitution and should be left up to the states you are somehow anti woman..
-If you have the nerve to challenge RHINO, establishment Republicans you are an extremeist.
-If you protest Obama its not just because of his policies & because he's a democrat but its because he's black.

You blink a lot. Should probably have that checked out.

[ASUMountaineer]

But, he was still fiscally irresponsible. Obama's spending has been worse, but why are they ok with some runaway spending, but not all runaway spending? You're making excuses for them.

Where did I say I was ok with some runaway spending?? I was bitching about Bush's spending as far back as 04' with the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind, massive new prescription drug program (which looks tiny compared to Obamacare), massive agriculture bill, discretionary non defense spending going up faster than inflation + population growth 1st term. My bitching reached new heights in late 08'/early 09'. That's when I became aware how bad this country was screwed financially long term. Emailed & called my Senator's & Congressman. Vowed to start regularly voting in local & state elections.

Read my post again more carefully. Where did I say you were? I said, "they." A little defensive over nothing, eh?

My question was extremely simple. Why did the Tea Party folks only become concerned about runaway spending when it was Obama's runaway spending as opposed to Bush's?

[CID1990]

Where did I say I was ok with some runaway spending?? I was bitching about Bush's spending as far back as 04' with the Bush/Kennedy No Child Left Behind, massive new prescription drug program (which looks tiny compared to Obamacare), massive agriculture bill, discretionary non defense spending going up faster than inflation + population growth 1st term. My bitching reached new heights in late 08'/early 09'. That's when I became aware how bad this country was screwed financially long term. Emailed & called my Senator's & Congressman. Vowed to start regularly voting in local & state elections.

My question was extremely simple. Why did the Tea Party folks only become concerned about runaway spending when it was Obama's runaway spending as opposed to Bush's?

That isn't the case. There is a tea party chapter in Fairfax Va that was organizing in 2004, only it wasnt called tea party. Most folks were conservatives that were anti Iraq war, anti big spending (which Bush was- just not as big as Obama). A lot of people, myself included, had serious issues with Bush's willingness to cut deals for expansive government programs in return for the political capital to do what he wanted overseas.

Electing Obama, a known big government liberal, was just the last straw. But keep on believing the media meme that the Tea Party exists solely because of Obama. If Romney had won he would now be having to deal with the tea party as well. As we stumble and spend our way towards having future fiscal decisions forced on us, you will see the tea party gain strength regardless of who is in office. They are a heck of a lot harder on republicans than they are on Dems.

[ASUMountaineer]

My question was extremely simple. Why did the Tea Party folks only become concerned about runaway spending when it was Obama's runaway spending as opposed to Bush's?

That isn't the case. There is a tea party chapter in Fairfax Va that was organizing in 2004, only it wasnt called tea party. Most folks were conservatives that were anti Iraq war, anti big spending (which Bush was- just not as big as Obama). A lot of people, myself included, had serious issues with Bush's willingness to cut deals for expansive government programs in return for the political capital to do what he wanted overseas.

Electing Obama, a known big government liberal, was just the last straw. But keep on believing the media meme that the Tea Party exists solely because of Obama. If Romney had won he would now be having to deal with the tea party as well. As we stumble and spend our way towards having future fiscal decisions forced on us, you will see the tea party gain strength regardless of who is in office. They are a heck of a lot harder on republicans than they are on Dems.

Welcome to the conversation CID. I was dealing with the construct of BDK's point. Nevertheless, I agree with you that there were many conservatives that were anti-Bush's policies, including me. But, keep on believing that anyone critical of the Tea Party is a sheep of the "liberal media" that is only out to usher in Marxism.

See, I can throw out baseless and ridiculous generalizations too. Stick around, you may see that many of us true conservatives don't feel the need to associate with a party of any kind, especially one that accepts non-conservative extremist hacks. And, before you say it, I feel the same way about OWS.

[CID1990]

That isn't the case. There is a tea party chapter in Fairfax Va that was organizing in 2004, only it wasnt called tea party. Most folks were conservatives that were anti Iraq war, anti big spending (which Bush was- just not as big as Obama). A lot of people, myself included, had serious issues with Bush's willingness to cut deals for expansive government programs in return for the political capital to do what he wanted overseas.

Electing Obama, a known big government liberal, was just the last straw. But keep on believing the media meme that the Tea Party exists solely because of Obama. If Romney had won he would now be having to deal with the tea party as well. As we stumble and spend our way towards having future fiscal decisions forced on us, you will see the tea party gain strength regardless of who is in office. They are a heck of a lot harder on republicans than they are on Dems.

Welcome to the conversation CID. I was dealing with the construct of BDK's point. Nevertheless, I agree with you that there were many conservatives that were anti-Bush's policies, including me. But, keep on believing that anyone critical of the Tea Party is a sheep of the "liberal media" that is only out to usher in Marxism.

See, I can throw out baseless and ridiculous generalizations too. Stick around, you may see that many of us true conservatives don't feel the need to associate with a party of any kind, especially one that accepts non-conservative extremist hacks. And, before you say it, I feel the same way about OWS.

Your question was pointed and no different than the thousands of times it has been brought up- that the tea party is only in existence because the President is black and their fiscal complaints are just a smokescreen for racism.

I never said I was affiliated with the tea party. I do sympathize with their complaints about how we are spending money.

Glad to see you hold the scepter of determining who is a true conservative and who is not. Keep up the good work.

[Ibanez]

Welcome to the conversation CID. I was dealing with the construct of BDK's point. Nevertheless, I agree with you that there were many conservatives that were anti-Bush's policies, including me. But, keep on believing that anyone critical of the Tea Party is a sheep of the "liberal media" that is only out to usher in Marxism.

See, I can throw out baseless and ridiculous generalizations too. Stick around, you may see that many of us true conservatives don't feel the need to associate with a party of any kind, especially one that accepts non-conservative extremist hacks. And, before you say it, I feel the same way about OWS.

Your question was pointed and no different than the thousands of times it has been brought up- that the tea party is only in existence because the President is black and their fiscal complaints are just a smokescreen for racism.

I never said I was affiliated with the tea party. I do sympathize with their complaints about how we are spending money.

Glad to see you hold the scepter of determining who is a true conservative and who is not. Keep up the good work.

I share their complaint about spending. But, I find it curious that the Taxed Enough Already party didn't unite under a President that had cut taxes. They united less than a month into a Presidency where the leader was a Democrat. A Democrat,mind you, that belongs to a party with a stigma for raising taxes and/or implementing taxes.

[CID1990]

Your question was pointed and no different than the thousands of times it has been brought up- that the tea party is only in existence because the President is black and their fiscal complaints are just a smokescreen for racism.

I never said I was affiliated with the tea party. I do sympathize with their complaints about how we are spending money.

Glad to see you hold the scepter of determining who is a true conservative and who is not. Keep up the good work.

I share their complaint about spending. But, I find it curious that the Taxed Enough Already party didn't unite under a President that had cut taxes. They united less than a month into a Presidency where the leader was a Democrat. A Democrat,mind you, that belongs to a party with a stigma for raising taxes and/or implementing taxes.

Unless you want to explain why it is curious, your post makes no sense.

[houndawg]

If the Tea Party was making noise during the Bush admin the liberal media would have been all over it blowing it out of proportion..

The timing might have been coincidental, but I don't think so; the amount of "he's a socialist, a Muslim, and not born in the USA" invective that spewed forth seemed much greater than the spending talk.


And why do so many of them look like they came from People of Wal-Mart?

[CID1990]

If the Tea Party was making noise during the Bush admin the liberal media would have been all over it blowing it out of proportion..

The timing might have been coincidental, but I don't think so; the amount of "he's a socialist, a Muslim, and not born in the USA" invective that spewed forth seemed much greater than the spending talk.


And why do so many of them look like they came from People of Wal-Mart?

Well you answered yourself there. I've seen some tea party gatherings (and there's fringe folks in every political movement) and I just have not seen or heard the high concentration of mouth breathing nuts that some people think are the bread and butter of the tea party.

You said it yourself- if they had been making noise during Bush's term (and they were in places- the media was a little slow on the uptake... big surprise) then the media would have been blowing it all out if proportion. Just like they are doing now, only now its the media's "guy" in office, so naturally they are all toothless klansmen and Birthers.

[kalm]

If the Tea Party was making noise during the Bush admin the liberal media would have been all over it blowing it out of proportion..

The timing might have been coincidental, but I don't think so; the amount of "he's a socialist, a Muslim, and not born in the USA" invective that spewed forth seemed much greater than the spending talk.


And why do so many of them look like they came from People of Wal-Mart?

Well you answered yourself there. I've seen some tea party gatherings (and there's fringe folks in every political movement) and I just have not seen or heard the high concentration of mouth breathing nuts that some people think are the bread and butter of the tea party.

You said it yourself- if they had been making noise during Bush's term (and they were in places- the media was a little slow on the uptake... big surprise) then the media would have been blowing it all out if proportion. Just like they are doing now, only now its the media's "guy" in office, so naturally they are all toothless klansmen and Birthers.

1) Their funding dramatically improved once Obama hit office.

2) Did I mention that Michelle Bachman is the head of their caucus?

[JohnStOnge]

That event had wheels and the initial response was under Bush in 2008. You can play armchair QB all you want at this point, but the reality is we were loosing 700,000 jobs a month in 2009. Nobody had to deal with that kind of financial crisis in recent memory.

I know you conks suck at history in general, but this was within the last decade for goodness sake.

I don't disagree with anything in the first paragraph though maybe I could check on the 700,000 jobs a month estimate. Wouldn't matter because I know a lot of jobs were being lost.

What I'm talking about is that it was a historical significant event and it prompted a massive acceleration in government spending. And it coincided with a transition in power. By the time people who had a chance to organize and respond Obama was in power. And he did some things that were different. Like the effort to bail out homeowners who had gotten themselves into mortgages they couldn't afford.

All I'm saying is that the Tea Party thing began with kind of an unprecedented situation going on so there's an obvious answer to the "why didn't they do this before?" question.

[CID1990]

Well you answered yourself there. I've seen some tea party gatherings (and there's fringe folks in every political movement) and I just have not seen or heard the high concentration of mouth breathing nuts that some people think are the bread and butter of the tea party.

You said it yourself- if they had been making noise during Bush's term (and they were in places- the media was a little slow on the uptake... big surprise) then the media would have been blowing it all out if proportion. Just like they are doing now, only now its the media's "guy" in office, so naturally they are all toothless klansmen and Birthers.

1) Their funding dramatically improved once Obama hit office.

2) Did I mention that Michelle Bachman is the head of their caucus?

Of COURSE their funding increased when Obama took office. Surely it had nothing to do with the most liberal, big government politician to ever sit in the White House taking office.

The foundation for the tea party was laid in 2004-ish, and it would not be quite as loud now if McCain had won, but there's a beef with him too, and there would certainly be a tea party today.

As for Bachmann, she's not necessarily the enduring face of the tea party. I'd probably say that's quickly becoming Rand Paul. Either way, the tea party is way too loosely organized to claim a titular head. That's one of the reasons the media is able to have their feeding frenzy- too many outliers in the group, and too many different "voices" of the tea party.

[Ibanez]

1) Their funding dramatically improved once Obama hit office.

2) Did I mention that Michelle Bachman is the head of their caucus?

Of COURSE their funding increased when Obama took office. Surely it had nothing to do with the most liberal, big government politician to ever sit in the White House taking office.

The foundation for the tea party was laid in 2004-ish, and it would not be quite as loud now if McCain had won, but there's a beef with him too, and there would certainly be a tea party today.

As for Bachmann, she's not necessarily the enduring face of the tea party. I'd probably say that's quickly becoming Rand Paul. Either way, the tea party is way too loosely organized to claim a titular head. That's one of the reasons the media is able to have their feeding frenzy- too many outliers in the group, and too many different "voices" of the tea party.

How could he be the "most liberal, big government politician to ever sit in the White House" if he had only been in office for less than a month?

[kalm]

Of COURSE their funding increased when Obama took office. Surely it had nothing to do with the most liberal, big government politician to ever sit in the White House taking office.

The foundation for the tea party was laid in 2004-ish, and it would not be quite as loud now if McCain had won, but there's a beef with him too, and there would certainly be a tea party today.

As for Bachmann, she's not necessarily the enduring face of the tea party. I'd probably say that's quickly becoming Rand Paul. Either way, the tea party is way too loosely organized to claim a titular head. That's one of the reasons the media is able to have their feeding frenzy- too many outliers in the group, and too many different "voices" of the tea party.

How could he be the "most liberal, big government politician to ever sit in the White House" if he had only been in office for less than a month?

That's when the campaign started to get him out of office as soon as possible. If McCain had one the Koch's wouldn't have had to spend as much. Not that McCain would have been much different with his spending.

[mrklean]

Interesting. You got serious in 2009 when a person with views contrary to your own was in office.

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

SPENDING!!!, we were in the middle of two wars. How do you think we pay for the cool weapons, guns and bombs??? And you bitch about Obama Care.
Someone answer this, Who will foot the bill for a 10 year war???

[houndawg]

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

SPENDING!!!, we were in the middle of two wars. How do you think we pay for the cool weapons, guns and bombs??? And you bitch about Obama Care.
Someone answer this, Who will foot the bill for a 10 year war???

Well, it won't be the oil companies.

[Ibanez]

Oh c'mon IB. You know that what happened after the financial crisis of 2008 put things at a different level. There was a very significant event and a very significant government response. It coincided with a transition in power. But "runaway spending" reached an entirely different level after that financial crisis.

SPENDING!!!, we were in the middle of two wars. How do you think we pay for the cool weapons, guns and bombs??? And you bitch about Obama Care.
Someone answer this, Who will foot the bill for a 10 year war???

I forgot, oil was going to pay for it. Oil that didn't belong to us was going to pay for it.

[mrklean]

SPENDING!!!, we were in the middle of two wars. How do you think we pay for the cool weapons, guns and bombs??? And you bitch about Obama Care.
Someone answer this,

I forgot, oil was going to pay for it. Oil that didn't belong to us was going to pay for it.

OK, answer this, How much money do you think we have spent on this war, and who will pay for it?

[kalm]

I forgot, oil was going to pay for it. Oil that didn't belong to us was going to pay for it.

OK, answer this, How much money do you think we have spent on this war, and who will pay for it?

It's already been paid for with the Bush tax cuts...duh.