Will Beck run off the Teabaggers now?

[thaiboxerken]

Where were the TPartiers at when Bush created the deficit?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where were the TPartiers at when Bush created the deficit?

Lurker already addressed this.

 

[The Painter]

Where were the TPartiers at when Bush created the deficit?

OK, if what you say is true, please tell me why I didn't vote for Bush in '04. I'll bet you can't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidently the CBO thinks tea partiers have nothing to worry about.

these projections, encompassing two very different sets of policy assumptions, provide a clear indication of the serious nature of the fiscal challenge facing the nation.

In fact, CBO’s projections understate the severity of the long-term budget problem because they do not incorporate the significant negative effects that accumulating substantial amounts of additional federal debt would have on the economy

Oh, wait... did I say the tea partiers had nothing to worry about? Sorry, I meant that their concerns were quite valid.

 

[gnome]

I have seen people saying that position is stupid, but not racist.

This is, I think, the crux of the issue.

Sometimes a stupid argument seems like a cover for a less savory opinion (such as racism).

It's difficult to demonstrate, however, even if it might be the case. We're better off discussing the merits of the argument than poisoning the well, absent direct evidence of racism.

Implying racism because someone is making a bad argument is not really any better than implying that Dems want to destroy the country because the arguer thinks the foreign policy will end badly. Resist the temptation to assume your political opponent secretly agrees with your reasoning, and just has a hidden agenda.

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidently the CBO thinks tea partiers have nothing to worry about.



Oh, wait... did I say the tea partiers had nothing to worry about? Sorry, I meant that their concerns were quite valid.

Do the CBO figures include the effect of the end of the Shrub's tax give-aways?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am certainly not in agreement with the Tea Partiers but I do think we marginalize their concerns at our own peril. OK, Bush had deficits and they certainly increased under his administration. Tea Partiers did not protest so loudly then. Later Obama's deficits increased by an even higher rate.

I think it is disingenous of us liberals/Democrats to complain that the Tea Partiers did not act under Bush and are under Obama. It is not an equivalence of scale and protesters were clearly moved when teh spending got far beyond what tehy could tolerate. Fine by me. Stop attacking them for that. They have the right to protest and their logic is not ridiculous.

It is like me swimming the other day. The pool was a tepid 80F. Over time it heated up to about 85F and although a bit too warm for my tastes I did not complain. I went to the hot tub and it was a scalding 105F. Sorry, I could not take it and got out and my protest about it being too hot was a subjective decision on when the spending, oops I mean the heat, got too much for me.

All that being said, I think Tea Partiers are probably quicker to react to the spending now because it is a political opponent in charge.

MoveOn.org ran commercials during the 2004 election that showed children working in factories to pay off the obscene $300ish billion deficits that Bush was running.

The GOP, at the time, was arguing that $300 billion during a war and an economic recovery was reasonable. Some liberal groups thought otherwise. Now the Democrat president and congress are running deficits around $1,500 billion. Those liberal groups are oddly silent about the issue...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, there are many liberals and democrats that are critical of Obama's war in Afghanistan. I'm among them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do the CBO figures include the effect of the end of the Shrub's tax give-aways?

Why do you ask questions which are easily answered by actually reading the link?

"One scenario, the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. That set of policies would result in steadily higher average tax rates because they incorporate the assumptions that most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire and that the alternative minimum tax applies to more and more people each year...
... Despite those substantial revenue increases and constrained spending for a portion of the budget, the rising costs of health care programs and Social Security would lead to continued budget deficits, and federal debt held by the public would grow from an estimated 62 percent of GDP this year to about 80 percent by 2035."

Without major changes to cut back on spending, this is a best-case scenario, and events are unlikely to actually play out that well on the budget front (doc-fix, anyone?).

 

[Lurker]

Another analogy:

Capt. Bush is piloting a plane that begins to lose altitude. To pull it up, he begins to throttle up. When his shift is over, Capt. Obama takes the stick only to discover that the plane is losing altitude at a faster rate than it and throttles up even more to prevent the whole thing from crashing. Then, a small portion of the passengers complain that Capt. Obama expended a huge amount of resources and wasn't even gaining altitude.

I actually agree with this analogy but that is because I agree we were on the precipice of a depression and the spending was needed to keep us out of that abyss. Clearly conservatives disagree with the premise that we were on the edge and so for them the additional spending by Obama was wholely unnecessary.

 

[Lurker]

MoveOn.org ran commercials during the 2004 election that showed children working in factories to pay off the obscene $300ish billion deficits that Bush was running.

The GOP, at the time, was arguing that $300 billion during a war and an economic recovery was reasonable. Some liberal groups thought otherwise. Now the Democrat president and congress are running deficits around $1,500 billion. Those liberal groups are oddly silent about the issue...

I am hoping the obscene Obama deficit is an anomaly and not indicative of a longer trend. I think the spending was required due to economic conditions. It still has me quite concerned though. I say this as a liberal, and join you in noting the general silence of liberals on this issue.

 

[Upchurch]

Clearly conservatives disagree with the premise that we were on the edge and so for them the additional spending by Obama was wholely unnecessary.

Clearly.

There was no question that we were in a recession. That's just a matter of the numbers. It's really a contention of how to handle it.

To stretch my analogy a bit further, it's a choice between using fuel to gain speed to pull out of the dive or aiming into the dive with the hopes of gaining enough speed to pull out of it. ...or maybe just going ahead and hitting the ground and pick up the pieces to build a stronger plane, or something.

I agree that it is reasonable to be concerned about the amount of spending going on. I find it, however, dishonest to ignore the context in which that spending has occurred.

 

[Lurker]

I agree that it is reasonable to be concerned about the amount of spending going on. I find it, however, dishonest to ignore the context in which that spending has occurred.

And that is where I part ways with the Tea Partiers. But I do not overly fault them for their position as they do not seem to agree that we were on the edge of a depression. They point to economic figures under Reagan where unemployment and inflation were both higher and we came out of that recession. My usual response to them concerns interest rates but they don't usually listen.

 

[johnny karate]

And not to mention the small matter of the Tea Party's flagrant hypocrisy. They oppose government entitlement programs, except the ones from which they benefit. They oppose government-run healthcare, except their own.

Show me a Tea Partier willing to give up their Social Security benefits and Medicare out of principle, and I might be willing to see their platform as something other than myopic self-entitlement.

 

[Ziggurat]

Show me a Tea Partier willing to give up their Social Security benefits and Medicare out of principle, and I might be willing to see their platform as something other than myopic self-entitlement.

Hey, I'll gladly give up both social security and medicare, if you'll stop taxing me for those things. Then I can use all that money I would be saving to provide for myself, rather than suckling at the teat of the state.

If you're retired, though, that option isn't available to you. But there's no hypocrisy in wanting government programs you already paid for, but not wanting more government programs.

As for "self-entitlement", well, how does that NOT apply to many Obama-care supporters? Do you really think there isn't a large element of wanting other people to pay for your health insurance among that crowd?

 

[GreNME]

You can make whatever excuses you want to for why Obama is spending more money than Bush (well, actually, you aren't even doing a good job at that, since some of your examples have nothing to do with spending levels), but the fact remains: we're spending more, and with less revenue. And that IS a substantive issue. You can disagree with their assessment of that spending, but you're either being foolish or dishonest by dismissing it as irrelevant or trivial.

Fixing Bush's deficit by making it four times bigger is like fixing Bush's foreign policy by invading eight more countries.

It's like both of you started jerking at the knee once you got to my first comma in the post you're responding to.

I'm not accusing them of lacking substance because I disagree or because I think one guy is doing more than another. I'm saying that this excuse you guys are defending-- that the deficit is somehow now a valid excuse for Tea Party folks to hate the gub`mint-- lacks credibility because these folks have had the last 6-8 years to speak out about this, and not a damned peep came from them.

Before Obama was elected, do you know who complained the most about deficit spending? Liberals who were against the Iraq War. Where were the Teabaggers then? Oh, that's right: they were telling the anti-war folks to get the eff out of the country, "love it or leave it," weren't they?

I'm saying it's not substantive because the Tea Party tends to be hypocritical in its application of vitriol. Sure, there's plenty of after-the-fact "we didn't like it when Bush did it" statements now, but for the last half decade (at least) it's all been flag-waving and "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" slogans as the deficit climbed geometrically. And then, when the house of cards between three or four bungled policies crashes and threatens stability, all of the sudden they want to come in and say that what the government has done for years-- throw money at the problem-- is now all-of-the-sudden evil and "socialist" and dictatorial; and the only thing that's changed is the replacement of an [R] with a [D] in the Oval Office.

So, yeah, you show me where Sarah Palin or Dick Armey or Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any other notable folks who are currently courting the Tea Party had been attacking the previous administration like they're attacking this one; show me that these folks aren't ideological hypocrites who are seizing on whatever they can to attack a perceived enemy rather than help solve problems; show me how these folks are offering anything more than slogans and backwards-facing "ideas"-- like the tax cuts "miracle" (when things are good cut taxes, when things are bad cut taxes) or repackaged foreign policies from Ron Paul and similar paleo-conservative nutjobs-- and then we can discuss whether they are actually offering something of substance and not just a movement meant almost exclusively to oppose and resist anything and everything that the current administration might ever want to do, and package that resistance in an image of little short of a holy war.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not accusing them of lacking substance because I disagree or because I think one guy is doing more than another. I'm saying that this excuse you guys are defending-- that the deficit is somehow now a valid excuse for Tea Party folks to hate the gub`mint-- lacks credibility because these folks have had the last 6-8 years to speak out about this, and not a damned peep came from them.

Um... for the most part, the tea party folks don't "hate the gub`mint". And as I already pointed out, Lurker had a rather good explanation for why the tea party took off under Obama and not under Bush.

Before Obama was elected, do you know who complained the most about deficit spending? Liberals who were against the Iraq War. Where were the Teabaggers then? Oh, that's right: they were telling the anti-war folks to get the eff out of the country, "love it or leave it," weren't they?

You see this as evidence of tea party hypocrisy. Even though the deficits then were lower than they are now. Sorry, but that's a far better argument for the claim that liberal complaints under Bush were hypocritical.

So, yeah, you show me where Sarah Palin or Dick Armey or Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any other notable folks who are currently courting the Tea Party had been attacking the previous administration like they're attacking this one

Michelle Malkin, Feb. 2008:
"Suffice to say, the imminent signing of this borrow-and-spend behemoth pierces the myth in President Bush’s CPAC remarks–which I just previewed in this post–that tout his commitment to “personal responsibility.”

Myth, meet $168 billion-deficit-increasing reality."

Glen Beck, Jan. 2008:

" GLENN: And see, this is the problem. All the politicians make the deficit, the current deficit the issue and they say these deficit spendings, they're out of control. And I believe they are. And they've got to cut spending in Washington. But the biggest problem that we've had in the last eight years is adding another program like prescription drugs, correct?

WALKER: That was the most fiscally irresponsible act in decades."

Dick Armey, Nov. 2003
"This bill [Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefits] will add at least $400 billion in deficits over the coming decade... The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill."

That'll do for now. But I'm not sure the relevance. Those folks don't make up the tea party. In fact, with the exception of Palin (who wasn't even on the national scene prior to her selection as VP running-mate), they aren't even really participants in the tea party.

 

[johnny karate]

Hey, I'll gladly give up both social security and medicare, if you'll stop taxing me for those things. Then I can use all that money I would be saving to provide for myself, rather than suckling at the teat of the state.

If you're retired, though, that option isn't available to you. But there's no hypocrisy in wanting government programs you already paid for, but not wanting more government programs.

I don't recall any Tea Party protests when Bush initiated new spending to expand Medicare. That would have been an excellent opportunity for Tea Partiers to make a principled stand. But it seems it wasn't until spending for "the other guy" was legislated that they remembered they had those principles.

As for "self-entitlement", well, how does that NOT apply to many Obama-care supporters? Do you really think there isn't a large element of wanting other people to pay for your health insurance among that crowd?

I personally don't view someone who can't otherwise afford healthcare and wants their government to provide them access to it as "self-entitled", but perhaps this is where our world-views part ways.

I have private health insurance, and yet whole-heartedly support healthcare reform that provides access to healthcare for everyone. Just like I support other social programs from which I don't directly benefit, like public schools (I have no children), and social security (I am below the retirement age and financially secure enough to never need it). That's because I recognize that living in a civilized society means more than just saying "I want what's mine and everyone else can go screw".

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't recall any Tea Party protests when Bush initiated new spending to expand Medicare.

Lurker already addressed this. He's not even on the tea party side, but he recognizes how flawed your argument is.

I personally don't view someone who can't otherwise afford healthcare and wants their government to provide them access to it as "self-entitled", but perhaps this is where our world-views part ways.

And how would you describe these folks?

 

[GreNME]

Um... for the most part, the tea party folks don't "hate the gub`mint". And as I already pointed out, Lurker had a rather good explanation for why the tea party took off under Obama and not under Bush.

Good explanation to you, not me. I'll point out why in a minute.

You see this as evidence of tea party hypocrisy. Even though the deficits then were lower than they are now. Sorry, but that's a far better argument for the claim that liberal complaints under Bush were hypocritical.

Now you're clearly making post-hoc justifications. You see, during the Bush administration and before Obama was even elected into office, it was under our previous administration that the deficit was the highest it had ever been. Unless you're suggesting the Tea Party is made up of time travelers-- and I certainly doubt you'd make such a silly argument-- then your suggestion that because the current deficit is larger by far than the previous administration's deficit would still equally apply to the Bush administration. While you seem to think that Lurker's explanation provides sufficient perspective, the reality is that the Bush spending even before 2004 had already gotten to the point where the deficit had practically quadrupled as well. The hypocrisy I'm pointing out is clearly shown in graphs like this one which show how the description Lurker gave about going from 80 to 85 degrees during the Bush administration was simply not accurate. Within a year and a half Bush had practically quadrupled the deficit after Clinton, but jingoism and fear due to the attacks on 9/11, in conjunction with the ridiculously inaccurate and misleading run-up to the Iraq War, apparently were enough to keep the Teabagger crowd silent. Sure, you could argue that some of them began speaking out in 2007 and 2008 (like you do with your links), but they weren't speaking out at the POTUS but instead at the newly-Democratic-majority Congress. For example:

Michelle Malkin, Feb. 2008:
"Suffice to say, the imminent signing of this borrow-and-spend behemoth pierces the myth in President Bush’s CPAC remarks–which I just previewed in this post–that tout his commitment to “personal responsibility.”

Myth, meet $168 billion-deficit-increasing reality."

I love how so many folks here will rail against quote-mining from conspiracy theorists and then engage in the same crap themselves. Malkin not only was clearly blaming "the House" (Democratic majority) for the bill, she even makes a comment on it with a link in that same post:"Well, the House tonight just passed the gazillion-dollar economic stimulus package.
The vote was 380-34 in the wake of the stymied Senate lard-up that John McCain skipped out on last night."

I mean, did you even look at the title of your link?

Glen Beck, Jan. 2008:

" GLENN: And see, this is the problem. All the politicians make the deficit, the current deficit the issue and they say these deficit spendings, they're out of control. And I believe they are. And they've got to cut spending in Washington. But the biggest problem that we've had in the last eight years is adding another program like prescription drugs, correct?

WALKER: That was the most fiscally irresponsible act in decades."

More quote-mining. For anyone who has read that entire exchange, it was clearly a screed against Social Security. Since they're talking about Social Security then obviously the prescription drug spending (which I agree was a poorly-formed bill) would be counted among the evils of the subject matter Beck is covering. That prescription bill was tiny compared to the other deficit spending that I'm sure you will defend even today along with the Teabaggers.

Dick Armey, Nov. 2003
"This bill [Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefits] will add at least $400 billion in deficits over the coming decade... The conservative, free-market base in America is rightly in revolt over this bill."

Again, it's an anti-Social-Security commentary. It's not even an entire article (got a link to the full text?), and in the snippet you're linking Armey is speaking out at Newt Gingrich. " I have great respect for my friend and former colleague Newt Gingrich. But on the Medicare prescription drug legislation currently pending in Congress, he is dead wrong. The deal on prescription drugs struck this week is in fact bad news for senior citizens and possibly even worse political news for the Republican Party."

Can you be intellectually honest for once, please?

That'll do for now. But I'm not sure the relevance. Those folks don't make up the tea party. In fact, with the exception of Palin (who wasn't even on the national scene prior to her selection as VP running-mate), they aren't even really participants in the tea party.

Yeah, that'll do, since you quote mine and then play the no-true-scotsman (no true teabagger?) defense just for good measure.

The reality is that Bush quadrupled the debt from Clinton's administration and there was nary a peep from the folks who call themselves the Tea Party now. Sure, there were some paleo-conservative nutjobs (like Ron Paul and Alex Jones) who were running at the mouth, but they were largely ignored and considered uninformed, stupid, naive, or some combination of the three. And now, all of the sudden, the paleo-conservative song and dance comes back around sporting only a slightly less ridiculous outfit, calls itself the Tea Party, and we're supposed to consider the same arguments substantive now that there's a Democratic president?

Give me a flipping break. I haven't supported Bush since 2003, but that's not why I find the repackaged Ron Paul BS to be just as stupid and vapid now as I found it before.