The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I like beer!!!

You don't even read my posts. You get all confused when someone doesn't fit into your generalizations of how people are supposed to be.

And I would definitely also be in favor of higher taxes on "luxury" items - kind of like a progressive sales tax.

It's not about morals for me, whether or not you believe it.

It is a moral decision though. Every decision is in one way or the other.

But if you don't want to call it a moral decision, you don't have to. It's still you dictating how other people should live their lives based on your "non-moral" belief system. It's still you picking and choosing items on the market that you feel we should make people buy less of or be punished for consuming.

[Big Fo]

It's a tough call on the idea of sin taxes. I can see why they make sense in terms of generating revenue in a time of massive deficits and rising health care costs/potential reforms extending or mandating coverage for more people and I can also see people's problems with them in terms of being worried about who decides what is/isn't a sin and stuff like what if a healthy person wants an occasional ice cream cone or beer. Very complicated.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Almost everything in your home is a non-necessity. We don't need a 52 inch LCD TV, nor do we need the computer we're typing on. Outside of some heat in the winter, some basic food for survival, water, electricity, and some basic clothes to cover ourselves, everything else is a luxury.

This isn't about necessity vs non-necessity. If it was, we'd be taxing designer jeans at the same rate we tax booze. It's about people in society demanding others live by their moral codes. It's about people who get off on telling other people what they can do.

exactly!

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is a moral decision though. Every decision is in one way or the other.

But if you don't want to call it a moral decision, you don't have to. It's still you dictating how other people should live their lives based on your "non-moral" belief system. It's still you picking and choosing items on the market that you feel we should make people buy less of or be punished for consuming.

It's not about punishing to me. The motivation is NOT to curb a behavior. The motivation is trying to find fair alternatives to mitigate the income tax, which I see as an abomination.

One can reasonably and fairly disagree all they want, just don't tell me I want a high liquor tax because I have moral issues with alcohol.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Why is the income tax an abomination?

Just a personal gut feeling, the entire lack of choice, that the government takes away a dollar that you earned, before it even gets to you. And they actually take a higher % the more you earn.

Rainmaker wants to know what my "problem" is with booze - I wonder what his problem is with earning money. Some find taxes on objects so distasteful, because it "punishes" that activity - but an income tax "punishes" making a living! That's a very specific activity (say, like drinking beer) that the government has picked out and decided to make a huge chunk of its money off of. If a country can make say, $X billion dollars either taxing booze, or taking a cut of everyone's paycheck off the top, I'd strongly prefer the former, because though I have no problem with drinking, I have even less problem with working.

I just have a so much greater tolerance for taxes on things I consume, on things I own, on even wealth I hoard.

It's the spirit of the thought, I realize that some income tax is necessary, at least on the federal level. But I generally am in favor of higher taxes in every other area, really just as that alternative.

The only place I'd truly be motivated to punish or reward behavior is regarding environment issues (ie., I think gas taxes should be higher across the board).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not about punishing to me. The motivation is NOT to curb a behavior. The motivation is trying to find fair alternatives to mitigate the income tax, which I see as an abomination.

One can reasonably and fairly disagree all they want, just don't tell me I want a high liquor tax because I have moral issues with alcohol.

Why alcohol as opposed to cola or fruit juice? Is it just about closing your eyes and throwing a dart against a wall to decide what gets a high tax and what doesn't?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Rainmaker wants to know what my "problem" is with booze - I wonder what his problem is with earning money. Some find taxes on objects so distasteful, because it "punishes" that activity - but an income tax "punishes" making a living! That's a very specific activity (say, like drinking beer) that the government has picked out and decided to make a huge chunk of its money off of. If a country can make say, $X billion dollars either taxing booze, or taking a cut of everyone's paycheck off the top, I'd strongly prefer the former, because though I have no problem with drinking, I have even less problem with working.

I have no problem with earning money. I've in fact stated multiple times that I think the tax structure is currently unfair to the wealthy. Unfortunately though, we can't provide the services we desire through taxes on alcohol and cigs.

[flere-imsaho]

Sounds like a bunch of you guys might be able to get behind the idea of Value Added Tax.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sounds like a bunch of you guys might be able to get behind the idea of Value Added Tax.

I don't personally like VAT systems because of the way they incrementally tax raw materials and second-level goods. So, if I make steel cylinders for example, sell them to various companies that integrate them for various reasons and products...my price ends up slightly higher than another company in another country that does not use the VAT (if you assume ALL other labor, materials, etc. to be equal).

You could wave the VAT on exports I suppose, but this is exactly how that slippery slope we get into with everything where we complicate a very solvable issue so intelligent people can't understand it as we.... throw more administrative obstacle requirements at the issue (thus diverting our workforce time/money to "unproductive" tasks IMO), we politicize the topic by assigning fundamental right/left characteristics to it, then we decide to correct the fallout of the bad decisions by creating new requirements that compensate, but not correct, the shortcomings of the old requirements. Stuff like this seems to be our status quo and why we never seem to have the time, money, resources, etc. to solve real problems like energy (I know...the record skipped again on me).

But it's sort of like saying I want to trim down to 190 lbs...so instead of excercising and eating better I just start tweaking the scale to read something else...nothing has changed but the number on the scale and I am still fat...but, it does say I weigh 190 now.

[JPhillips]

Is there anything that sums up the bullshit and hypocrisy of a lot of the GOP better than this?

Asked whether states should use the 10th Amendment to prevent health care reform from taking effect, he replied that an assertion of states’ rights was “probably the only way we’re going to stop this reckless spending.” He continued, “There’s no constitutional authority for the government to actually do [the reform proposed by Democrats], but whether the courts take it up is a different matter.”

The rules change, however, when it comes to Medicare.

DeMint expressed doubts as to the legality of Medicare under the Constitution, but said, “Regardless of constitutionality, it is a promise that we have to keep. … I think Medicare and Social Security have to be protected.”

[SteveMax58]

Why is that bullshit or hypocritical? He didnt help to start, fund, and promise Medicare or Social Security...but we(i.e. the US) have already institued it for decades now. Pulling the plug on it overnight would be erratic at best, and show government at it's worst.

All he is saying is that funding a new initiative is reckless at this time, in his opinion. You might disagree with that assessment...but it doesn't mean these are mutually exclusive concepts.

No different than Obama staying the course in Iraq (and yes, the course was strategically staged drawback of troops). But if pulling troops out instantly means recklessly causing more problems for us (or the Iraqis) unnecessarily...we expect our President to do the right thing...and he has. Doesn't mean he ever agreed with the invasion, just being pragmatic.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Why is that bullshit or hypocritical? He didnt help to start, fund, and promise Medicare or Social Security...but we(i.e. the US) have already institued it for decades now. Pulling the plug on it overnight would be erratic at best, and show government at it's worst.

All he is saying is that funding a new initiative is reckless at this time, in his opinion. You might disagree with that assessment...but it doesn't mean these are mutually exclusive concepts.

No different than Obama staying the course in Iraq (and yes, the course was strategically staged drawback of troops). But if pulling troops out instantly means recklessly causing more problems for us (or the Iraqis) unnecessarily...we expect our President to do the right thing...and he has. Doesn't mean he ever agreed with the invasion, just being pragmatic.

No, that's not what he said. He said that if healthcare reform passes through the democratic process that states should claim that the 10th amendment nullifies the law because the federal government doesn't have the jurisdiction to pass a national healthcare plan. When asked if the same applied to Medicare he said in essence, maybe, but it's really popular and we'd get killed at the polls for even mentioning it.

Nullification is by itself crazy talk as it's essentially secession by another name, but it's pure hypocrisy to say it applies to healthcare reform but not Medicare.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nullification is by itself crazy talk as it's essentially secession by another name, but it's pure hypocrisy to say it applies to healthcare reform but not Medicare.

I can't speak to this guy's thoughts or reasoning, or his general hyperbole...but healthcare "reform" is essentially "new healthcare spending"...or "new healthcare funding". Or if you disagree with that, then at least acknowledge that this guy would call it that.

He's actually being much more candid than most politicians by even stating the obvious here...they would, of course be killed if they tried to impose nullification on Medicare/SS. Is that his only reason for not doing it? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see how that is hypocritical.

[JPhillips]

Length of time has nothing to do with whether he believes something is constitutional or not. If whatever version of healthcare passes is unconstitutional Medicare would also have to be unconstitutional. His statement shows that his "principles" end when it comes to the votes of seniors.

Why wasn't he saying the same thing about Medicare part D that passed just a few years ago?

This is also a guy that wants to eliminate all but the weakest state regulation of healthcare by federal dictate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I can't speak to this guy's thoughts or reasoning, or his general hyperbole...but healthcare "reform" is essentially "new healthcare spending"...or "new healthcare funding". Or if you disagree with that, then at least acknowledge that this guy would call it that.

He's actually being much more candid than most politicians by even stating the obvious here...they would, of course be killed if they tried to impose nullification on Medicare/SS. Is that his only reason for not doing it? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see how that is hypocritical.

The guy is saying that a public health care plan is unconstitutional. Then comes back and says that while something is unconstitutional, we have to keep the promise. It's selective use of constitutionality. You can't say that something is unconstitutional and shouldn't be passed while at the same time saying the constitution doesn't matter.

[RainMaker]

The tea parties and whatever else I'm sure have people who are mad about spending (who magically weren't mad the last 8 years of it). But these events and rhetoric also seem to have a lot of vague racial overtones to it. It seems that these people aren't as upset about spending, but about a darker colored skin person doing that spending.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It seems that these people aren't as upset about spending, but about a darker colored skin person doing that spending.

Good Lord. We playing the race card already? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this was a misstep rather than something you actually believe. Because if some Obama supporters start playing the race card less than a year into his presidency, we're going to have a new president in three years.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The tea parties and whatever else I'm sure have people who are mad about spending (who magically weren't mad the last 8 years of it). But these events and rhetoric also seem to have a lot of vague racial overtones to it. It seems that these people aren't as upset about spending, but about a darker colored skin person doing that spending.

I think you are grossly overestimating the average American's attention level over the last 8 years (which we say figuratively...but of course, Dems were empowered the past 2, now going on 3) when times were better...and underestimating their attention level now that we've hit a brick wall. This brick wall has awakened the awareness of our society's ability to collapse on itself to a lot of people. Maybe they should have been paying attention earlier...great, they are uninformed assholes...how does that change the fact that yesterday's purchase/debt impact today's ability to spend and payback debt?

They also hear that the reason the economy collapsed was because people borrowed lots of money, couldn't pay it back, lots of companies leveraged that borrowed money and nearly collapsed the entire financial system and our way of life as we know it. They don't understand the dynamics of such things...they are busy working(or trying to).

Most of these people don't (or didn't) give a crap that Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, the Socialist Party, The Labor Party, The Russians, the 3rd Infantry...whoever...was in power. They allowed the more politically-interested population to pay attention and vote, debate, etc. for them. And they trusted that our government structure and checks/balances would keep things moving forward without their paying attention. After all...does the CEO, Directors, Managers, etc. for their company ask for feedback on the things they DO KNOW for a living (outsid eof token suggestion boxes)? Now that they are paying attention...yes, you are going to see increased levels of scrutiny on everything the government does and with a degree of uninformed outrage. Sucks for them...but this is how the Dems got into power. They have been tasked with solving these problems and if they truly have the best answers to these problems...then they need to make more compelling arguments to the avergae American. No issue is too complex for somebody with a mastery of the subject to explain to an average intelligence person with no prior background.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think you are grossly overestimating the average American's attention level over the last 8 years (which we say figuratively...but of course, Dems were empowered the past 2, now going on 3) when times were better...and underestimating their attention level now that we've hit a brick wall. This brick wall has awakened the awareness of our society's ability to collapse on itself to a lot of people. Maybe they should have been paying attention earlier...great, they are uninformed assholes...how does that change the fact that yesterday's purchase/debt impact today's ability to spend and payback debt?

They also hear that the reason the economy collapsed was because people borrowed lots of money, couldn't pay it back, lots of companies leveraged that borrowed money and nearly collapsed the entire financial system and our way of life as we know it. They don't understand the dynamics of such things...they are busy working(or trying to).

Most of these people don't (or didn't) give a crap that Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, the Socialist Party, The Labor Party, The Russians, the 3rd Infantry...whoever...was in power. They allowed the more politically-interested population to pay attention and vote, debate, etc. for them. And they trusted that our government structure and checks/balances would keep things moving forward without their paying attention. After all...does the CEO, Directors, Managers, etc. for their company ask for feedback on the things they DO KNOW for a living (outsid eof token suggestion boxes)? Now that they are paying attention...yes, you are going to see increased levels of scrutiny on everything the government does and with a degree of uninformed outrage. Sucks for them...but this is how the Dems got into power. They have been tasked with solving these problems and if they truly have the best answers to these problems...then they need to make more compelling arguments to the avergae American. No issue is too complex for somebody with a mastery of the subject to explain to an average intelligence person with no prior background.

I think it's far more simple than that. A lot of the tea party crowd are angry that "they" are in charge now. That's why so many of them want to "take back the country". They aren't interested in explanations about solutions because they don't trust that "they" have their best interests at heart.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's far more simple than that. A lot of the tea party crowd are angry that "they" are in charge now. That's why so many of them want to "take back the country". They aren't interested in explanations about solutions because they don't trust that "they" have their best interests at heart.

Many of these same people were complaining about Bush's free spending late in his administration. It's not as simple as you'd like people to believe.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's far more simple than that. A lot of the tea party crowd are angry that "they" are in charge now. That's why so many of them want to "take back the country". They aren't interested in explanations about solutions because they don't trust that "they" have their best interests at heart.

I don't pay much attention to Tea Party gatherings so this might be true to some extent(as anti-war gatherings were a manifestation for some to proclaim their hate for Bush)...but if you mean "they" to mean Democrats...then wouldn't the next question (as a Dem supporter) be "why don't they believe/understand that our plan/ideology is better for them and the country"?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Many of these same people were complaining about Bush's free spending late in his administration. It's not as simple as you'd like people to believe.

Only when it didn't matter anymore. Not too many were making that argument about Medicare D or NCLB or the deficits caused by tax cuts when it mattered in 2004. Once he became a political liability he was cropped out of the picture, but the Senators and Representatives that voted for those bills are still largely the leaders of the party.

The tea party crowd would be much easier to take if there was some public recognition that much of the deficit was caused by the guys they voted for.

[CamEdwards]

I'm sure the tea party crowd will get right to work on making their message easier for people like you to take.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I don't pay much attention to Tea Party gatherings so this might be true to some extent(as anti-war gatherings were a manifestation for some to proclaim their hate for Bush)...but if you mean "they" to mean Democrats...then wouldn't the next question (as a Dem supporter) be "why don't they believe/understand that our plan/ideology is better for them and the country"?

Changing political philosophy really doesn't happen much. I don't think there's anything Democrats could do to appease people holding up signs that compare healthcare reform to 1939 Germany. The opposition isn't based on a desire to find common ground, but on a desire to destroy the opposition. Under those conditions the best you can do is move on. (Yes, I think Bush faced a similar situation and made the same decision.)

Now independent voters are a different matter and that's where Obama's communication shop has failed until recently. Polls still show a general support for much of Obama's healthcare goals, but he hasn't done a good job communicating those goals and their effects on the average person. Recent polls seem to show that changing, but he's still quite a way from the goalline and needs to keep at it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The tea parties and whatever else I'm sure have people who are mad about spending (who magically weren't mad the last 8 years of it). But these events and rhetoric also seem to have a lot of vague racial overtones to it. It seems that these people aren't as upset about spending, but about a darker colored skin person doing that spending.

Ignore my previous comment. I assumed that you actually thought this up on your own, but now noticed that Maureen Dowd insinuated this in her column today. Most won't be surprised that Maureen played this card already.

[ISiddiqui]

I seriously hate that the race card is being played. I hated it when Obama backers were playing it against Hillary (really, WTF), and I hate it now.

[Swaggs]

I really wish the Dems would focus on moving forward, rather than focusing on Joe freaking Wilson. The man briefly acted out of line, apologized, and now we are going to have 435 members of congress spending time on whether or not he should be more apologetic? Who gives a shit if representatives from California or New England think he is contrite enough? He's up for re-election every two years, let his constituency decide.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good Lord. We playing the race card already? Really? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this was a misstep rather than something you actually believe. Because if some Obama supporters start playing the race card less than a year into his presidency, we're going to have a new president in three years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Many of these same people were complaining about Bush's free spending late in his administration. It's not as simple as you'd like people to believe.

Really? Where were the protests? Why did they vote for him in 2004 despite massive deficits in his first term? Why did all the same pundits who bash Obama for spending praise Bush for his actions? How come you never made a single negative comment about Bush about spending during his Presidency but make daily ones on Obama?

This notion that people were pissed about Bush is moronic. None of these this "outrage" started till Obama took over.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Really? Where were the protests? Why did they vote for him in 2004 despite massive deficits in his first term? Why did all the same pundits who bash Obama for spending praise Bush for his actions? How come you never made a single negative comment about Bush about spending during his Presidency but make daily ones on Obama?

This notion that people were pissed about Bush is moronic. None of these this "outrage" started till Obama took over.

Nah, people started running down Bush with 2 years to go as it was politically expedient to do so. He was growing more unpopular by the minute and you could easily shift some of that blame to the newly minted Democratic congress so it was the perfect recipe. Go back and look- a lot of people started throwing him under the bus in 2006... 3/4ths through his presidency.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Nah, people started running down Bush with 2 years to go as it was politically expedient to do so. He was growing more unpopular by the minute and you could easily shift some of that blame to the newly minted Democratic congress so it was the perfect recipe. Go back and look- a lot of people started throwing him under the bus in 2006... 3/4ths through his presidency.

SI

Bush maintained an approval rating of around 30% till the end. My guess is that 30% probably isn't approving of Obama's work right now.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Really? Where were the protests? Why did they vote for him in 2004 despite massive deficits in his first term? Why did all the same pundits who bash Obama for spending praise Bush for his actions? How come you never made a single negative comment about Bush about spending during his Presidency but make daily ones on Obama?

This notion that people were pissed about Bush is moronic. None of these this "outrage" started till Obama took over.

The majority of outrage started last year when we were all told the world almost ended. Most were busy living their lives while they had jobs and false senses of financial stability up to then. You didn't see the real underlying financial problems, just like I didn't, just like anybody else on this board didn't, and just like 99% of the US population didn't...which includes the Democrats. The other 1%? Either lucky or ahead of us all...such are the breaks.

I'm not anti-everything-Obama-does-just-because-he-did-it...but my concern over the national debt and our ability to pay this back has been heightened by the past year. Just like most people who get into car accidents...before you get into one you aren't blind to the fact that it can happen. But afterwards you do pay extra attention to more drivers, you make more observations and judgments about the general safety of the roads, speed limits, properly posted signs, etc.

At the end of the day, we might very well be at the bottom of the recession and headed for some prosperous decade like we've never seen before or even merely a pretty decent one...but I don't trust anybody (Rep, Dem, economists, that kid who beat vegas, etc.) to go gambling away more money on speculation since EVERY single one of these people (with minor exception) missed the boat already. We just tried 8 years (6 years really) of borrowing debt to do things that we "had to do or else it will get much more costly"...whether that be costly in lives or money...and now here we are.

I would ask you this question...why do you trust increasing debtload as a matter of policy? Sure it can help to alleviate short term issues at times...but as a matter of yearly budget this makes you comfortable?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The majority of outrage started last year when we were all told the world almost ended. Most were busy living their lives while they had jobs and false senses of financial stability up to then. You didn't see the real underlying financial problems, just like I didn't, just like anybody else on this board didn't, and just like 99% of the US population didn't...which includes the Democrats. The other 1%? Either lucky or ahead of us all...such are the breaks.

I'm not anti-everything-Obama-does-just-because-he-did-it...but my concern over the national debt and our ability to pay this back has been heightened by the past year. Just like most people who get into car accidents...before you get into one you aren't blind to the fact that it can happen. But afterwards you do pay extra attention to more drivers, you make more observations and judgments about the general safety of the roads, speed limits, properly posted signs, etc.

At the end of the day, we might very well be at the bottom of the recession and headed for some prosperous decade like we've never seen before or even merely a pretty decent one...but I don't trust anybody (Rep, Dem, economists, that kid who beat vegas, etc.) to go gambling away more money on speculation since EVERY single one of these people (with minor exception) missed the boat already. We just tried 8 years (6 years really) of borrowing debt to do things that we "had to do or else it will get much more costly"...whether that be costly in lives or money...and now here we are.

I would ask you this question...why do you trust increasing debtload as a matter of policy? Sure it can help to alleviate short term issues at times...but as a matter of yearly budget this makes you comfortable?

You have to look at it in two segments, short term deficit and structural deficit. The stimulus, short term deficit, was pretty standard economic policy when demand is low and if it's less successful than it could have been it will be in part because too much went to tax cuts and not enough to job creating short-term projects.

The bigger problem is the structural deficit, or the deficit built into the budget that carries over from year to year. That does bother me and IMO any solution is going to have to include slowing the rate of spending as well as tax increases. The Bush tax cuts aren't sustainable and I'd prefer that we roll back to the Clinton rates when the Bush cuts are set to expire. I don't see any realistic way to cut spending to cover the structural deficit.

Added to that are the commitments made by the Fed that scare the hell out of me, but they're still secret enough that I can't make a real judgment.

Outside of all that, the increases in healthcare spending are going to crush Medicare within a decade. Social Security also has problems, but those are fairly easy to fix if the political will is there. Medicare costs have to stop growing at the current rate plain and simple. I don't think Obama's plan goes far enough, but it's a hell of a lot better than the new GOP mantra of no Medicare cuts ever.

So, yes, I'm mildly worried about the deficit. I don't think we're at a dangerous level, and I recently saw some data that says we won't be in as bad a position as we were in the mid-fifties, but we should look at reducing it. That being said, following the GOP plan is a sucker's game. Their plan is to cut taxes whenever possible and force crises so spending will be reduced. If you believe that there are places where government can help improve the lives of citizens following the GOP outrage over spending now will only lead to more big tax cuts and even bigger deficits later. Hell even this year the GOP favored tax cuts that would add more than three times as much to the deficit as the stimulus. It's why I don't buy any of this phony populism from GOP elected officials.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Really? Where were the protests? Why did they vote for him in 2004 despite massive deficits in his first term? Why did all the same pundits who bash Obama for spending praise Bush for his actions? How come you never made a single negative comment about Bush about spending during his Presidency but make daily ones on Obama?

This notion that people were pissed about Bush is moronic. None of these this "outrage" started till Obama took over.

1. Obviously, your post depicting idiots is laughable. That has nothing to do with my comment, but I'm not surprised you missed the point.

2. I was a critic of Bush's spending over the last year of his presidency. Your simply wrong on that point.

3. There was outrage before Obama took over. The difference is that the outrage grew when they started seeing some of his policy proposals once in office.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. Obviously, your post depicting idiots is laughable. That has nothing to do with my comment, but I'm not surprised you missed the point.

2. I was a critic of Bush's spending over the last year of his presidency. Your simply wrong on that point.

3. There was outrage before Obama took over. The difference is that the outrage grew when they started seeing some of his policy proposals once in office.

1) They weren't idiots in that bunch. You see no one telling them to get out or criticizing their protest. They fit in just nicely. In fact, the Obama picture of him dressed up as an African Witch Doctor was a flier passed around advertising the tea party rallies. You can go through YouTube or just search images on the Tea Party events and you'll have a tough time finding many that don't have some racist overture in it.

2) Not one single post about it on this forum during his Presidency. Daily ones about Obama. Actions speak louder than words.

3) You mean essentially the same policies Bush enacted? Tax cuts, massive spending plans, and socialized medicine?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The majority of outrage started last year when we were all told the world almost ended. Most were busy living their lives while they had jobs and false senses of financial stability up to then. You didn't see the real underlying financial problems, just like I didn't, just like anybody else on this board didn't, and just like 99% of the US population didn't...which includes the Democrats. The other 1%? Either lucky or ahead of us all...such are the breaks.

I'm not anti-everything-Obama-does-just-because-he-did-it...but my concern over the national debt and our ability to pay this back has been heightened by the past year. Just like most people who get into car accidents...before you get into one you aren't blind to the fact that it can happen. But afterwards you do pay extra attention to more drivers, you make more observations and judgments about the general safety of the roads, speed limits, properly posted signs, etc.

At the end of the day, we might very well be at the bottom of the recession and headed for some prosperous decade like we've never seen before or even merely a pretty decent one...but I don't trust anybody (Rep, Dem, economists, that kid who beat vegas, etc.) to go gambling away more money on speculation since EVERY single one of these people (with minor exception) missed the boat already. We just tried 8 years (6 years really) of borrowing debt to do things that we "had to do or else it will get much more costly"...whether that be costly in lives or money...and now here we are.

I would ask you this question...why do you trust increasing debtload as a matter of policy? Sure it can help to alleviate short term issues at times...but as a matter of yearly budget this makes you comfortable?

First off, are you telling me that the first 13 trillion in debt put up by the last 3 Republican Presidents didn't matter? That magically was the buffer zone between acceptable and outrage?

I have no problem with being against spending. In fact, I'm against a lot of it myself. I hate the spending going on and the waste from government. I also hated it under Bush, Clinton, and the other Bush. I don't judge my outrage by the letter next to the person's name. I'm calling out hypocrisy. People who didn't mind going trillions in debt over the last 8 years but all of a sudden are storming the capital over it once a Democrat/Black man is in power.

And while I'm against the spending and many of Obama's economic policies, I think I can state that these "tea parties" have a lot of racial overtones to them. Watching videos or pictures that are coming out from them, it's clear that a good percentage of the people there are not the kind of folks you are going to find from a diverse city. It's like a NASCAR event let out. When you see racist signs flying everywhere with a spattering of Muslim and birth certificate crap, the rally turns out to be less about spending and more about not wanting a dark skinned man in charge of the country.

The whole thing is embarassing if you ask me. The screaming and unruly behavior isn't helping the discussion. The disrespect for the President and the office he holds is pathetic in my opinion. I said the same thing about the idiots dressing Bush up like Hitler. Be angry, call your representatives, write letters, and protest. But the nasty signs and misuse of basic government terminology by these inbreds just makes this country look dumb.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

1) They weren't idiots in that bunch. You see no one telling them to get out or criticizing their protest. They fit in just nicely. In fact, the Obama picture of him dressed up as an African Witch Doctor was a flier passed around advertising the tea party rallies. You can go through YouTube or just search images on the Tea Party events and you'll have a tough time finding many that don't have some racist overture in it.

I'm sure your outrage was just as large when similar idiots were depicting Bush in a derogatory manner. Using your logic, all liberals hated Bush for who he was rather than his policies. That's ignorance of the highest level.

It rings very hollow. I never endorsed any form of racism nor do most people. There's a few idiots that want to be jerks. That doesn't change the fact that the race card being played saying that anyone opposed to Obama is because they don't like him running the country and then characterizing those people with those pictures is totally misplaced. The vast majority of people in this country are bigger than those you depict. If you can't accept that, at least pretend for a bit and assume that the people involved in the discussion in this thread actually do care about the issues rather than the person proposing them. You might find out that pretend is actually reality.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure your outrage was just as large when similar idiots were depicting Bush in a derogatory manner. Using your logic, all liberals hated Bush for who he was rather than his policies. That's ignorance of the highest level.

It rings very hollow. I never endorsed any form of racism nor do most people. There's a few idiots that want to be jerks. That doesn't change the fact that the race card being played saying that anyone opposed to Obama is because they don't like him running the country and then characterizing those people with those pictures is totally misplaced. The vast majority of people in this country are bigger than those you depict. If you can't accept that, at least pretend for a bit and assume that the people involved in the discussion in this thread actually do care about the issues rather than the person proposing them. You might find out that pretend is actually reality.

I did think the Bush-Hitler crap was disgusting. I did think the caricutures and disrespect for the office were over-the-top. I don't chide anyone for being critical, but I don't think it serves anything positive to use deragatory material to portray the Office of President. That is the shit that goes on in 3rd world countries and we should be above it.

I in no way said everyone who is against Obama's policies are racist. I didn't even say that everyone at the tea party rallies were either. But I will say that I believe a lot of the tea party/townhall stuff has racial overtones to it. Just taking a look at the pictures and videos from these events, I'm not sure how you could not see the same thing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I in no way said everyone who is against Obama's policies are racist. I didn't even say that everyone at the tea party rallies were either. But I will say that I believe a lot of the tea party/townhall stuff has racial overtones to it. Just taking a look at the pictures and videos from these events, I'm not sure how you could not see the same thing.

Please. A small sample of photos = racial overtones by all? It doesn't add up. Using your logic, all Bush war protesters had racial overtones because a few idiots depicted him as Hitler. Your overgeneralizations know no bounds. But I guess it fits what you're trying to do, so proceed. You're more interested in mischaracterization and labeling of everyone who disagrees with you than you are about having a legitimate discussion. I obviously need to accept that and move on.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

He has never said "all" but you keep saying it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

He has never said "all" but you keep saying it.

His implication was there. The idiots are everywhere, hence, the message is not noteworthy. That's an overgeneralization that doesn't hold water. It seems to be a tactic that the administration is taking as well, which could prove to be very detrimental in the 2010 elections. You're telling a large chunk of voters, some of whom crossed party lines to vote for Obama, that they're not legitimate opposition because there's a few idiots in the bunch. That's a very dangerous assumption.

I'd note that the Republicans made a similar assumption a few years back and it cost them dearly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Please. A small sample of photos = racial overtones by all? It doesn't add up. Using your logic, all Bush war protesters had racial overtones because a few idiots depicted him as Hitler. Your overgeneralizations know no bounds. But I guess it fits what you're trying to do, so proceed. You're more interested in mischaracterization and labeling of everyone who disagrees with you than you are about having a legitimate discussion. I obviously need to accept that and move on.

I never said all.

But seriously, Google the photos of these tea parties and look on YouTube for the videos. Tell me you still don't think there are racial overtones to these. I mean the flyer advertising one of them was Obama dressed as an African Witch Doctor.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

His implication was there. The idiots are everywhere, hence, the message is not noteworthy. That's an overgeneralization that doesn't hold water. It seems to be a tactic that the administration is taking as well, which could prove to be very detrimental in the 2010 elections. You're telling a large chunk of voters, some of whom crossed party lines to vote for Obama, that they're not legitimate opposition because there's a few idiots in the bunch. That's a very dangerous assumption.

I'd note that the Republicans made a similar assumption a few years back and it cost them dearly.

What is the message? Just about every sign says something about socialism, communism, facism, and nazism. These are things that they clearly have no fucking idea what they are. Other signs talk about death camps and illegal immigrants getting health care which has been debunked by everyone.

So what is the message you are getting from them besides a bunch of older, white people making deragatory signs and chants about the President? I'm not really seeing a message from any of this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I never said all.

But seriously, Google the photos of these tea parties and look on YouTube for the videos. Tell me you still don't think there are racial overtones to these. I mean the flyer advertising one of them was Obama dressed as an African Witch Doctor.

You go ahead and continue to believe that the opposition is a bunch of fringe lunatics based on the fact that one organizer of a local protest is a dumbass. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You go ahead and continue to believe that the opposition is a bunch of fringe lunatics based on the fact that one organizer of a local protest is a dumbass. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

I never said any of that. You continue to make stuff up as you go along. I simply stated that there are racial overtones to these tea party rallies in my opinion.

Do you feel the people at the tea parties are representative of the opposition or are part of the fringe?

[Logan]

Oof...guess I'll stay out of this thread while I'm at work from now on.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What is the message? Just about every sign says something about socialism, communism, facism, and nazism. These are things that they clearly have no fucking idea what they are. Other signs talk about death camps and illegal immigrants getting health care which has been debunked by everyone.

So what is the message you are getting from them besides a bunch of older, white people making deragatory signs and chants about the President? I'm not really seeing a message from any of this.

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a much larger group of people who are not happy with the policies being implemented that aren't nearly as radical or outspoken as the people you use to characterize a large chunk of the voting public. It's a failing assumption by this adminstration and the congressional majority to assume that the outcry both publicly and privately is little more than a small group of hate-filled idiots. There are much larger seeds of dissent that aren't nearly as forthright nor do they have any relation to the idiots you depict. You feel just fine about dismissing the Bush/Hitler comparison and noting that most didn't agree with that, but appear to have no comprehension ability to figure out that similar things may be happening on the other side now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge that there is a much larger group of people who are not happy with the policies being implemented that aren't nearly as radical or outspoken as the people you use to characterize a large chunk of the voting public. It's a failing assumption by this adminstration and the congressional majority to assume that the outcry both publicly and privately is little more than a small group of hate-filled idiots. There are much larger seeds of dissent that aren't nearly as forthright nor do they have any relation to the idiots you depict. You feel just fine about dismissing the Bush/Hitler comparison and noting that most didn't agree with that, but appear to have no comprehension ability to figure out that similar things may be happening on the other side now.

I'm not talking about the opposition as a whole. I'm talking about the tea parties.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You go ahead and continue to believe that the opposition is a bunch of fringe lunatics based on the fact that one organizer of a local protest is a dumbass. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

i think the point is that it's far more than 1 and it's far more than local protest. it's a pattern of behavior.

that being said - i don't think it represents EVERYONE

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I never said any of that. You continue to make stuff up as you go along. I simply stated that there are racial overtones to these tea party rallies in my opinion.

Do you feel the people at the tea parties are representative of the opposition or are part of the fringe?

i know you weren't asking me, but i'll answer. i think they're part of the fringe, for sure. the problem is that there is no condemnation of them from the mainstream of the opposition, or any logical, policy-related counter. the mainstream GOP seems content to let the "fringe" stir these things up and be the vocal voice of the oppostion.

for that reason i think the mainstream of the GOP bears a certain culpability in it sure...(note: NOT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY), although I don't think it's necessarily the mainstream belief.