• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I Agree with the Tea Party!

I can't agree with everything the Tea Party stands for, but I think there are some programs that need to get cut
 
They are a bit slow on the uptake - The Pentagon said there would be major budget cuts a month ago
 
Some (few, but still some) tea partiers are genuinely thoughtful and for-real about the whole limited government thing, which I respect and even agree with to a certain extent.
 
Well, something the Tea Parties said that I agree with. Obama already said that he plans on cutting the Defense budget by a bit, which is nice considering they get the lions share of the federal budget. Less to take out of healthcare, education, and the likes.
 
Wow, this is actually pretty cool. I honestly hope that this movement gains some traction :)
 
MattusMaximus said:
Wow, this is actually pretty cool. I honestly hope that this movement gains some traction :)
Click to expand...

Me, too. And I think it already has gained a lot of traction at the grassroots level. Over at firedoglake and at ronpaulforums.com, progressives and libertarians have been making peace and discussing common ground for years. We're just going to have to call a truce on Social Security and HCR. With pretty much everything else, we're in agreement, or find compromise painless.
 
kellyb said:
Well, that just makes me curious...
Click to expand...

I wrote that I would never vote for either Paul or Nader.

Do you know about the Ron Paul Newsletters?

But I take it back somewhat. I might still vote for them if they would make ending the war on drugs and legalizing prostitution and gambling top priorities. But not if they're just going to get 1% or 2% of the vote and possibly be a spoiler for Obama.
 
Puppycow said:
I wrote that I would never vote for either Paul or Nader.

Do you know about the Ron Paul Newsletters?

But I take it back somewhat. I might still vote for them if they would make ending the war on drugs and legalizing prostitution and gambling top priorities. But not if they're just going to get 1% or 2% of the vote and possibly be a spoiler for Obama.
Click to expand...

From what I understand about the Ron Paul Newsletters, most of the stuff written wasn't written by him. Not that that excuses the content.

They'd only get 1% or 2% of the vote if people like me and you and thinking tea partiers and libertarians don't support them.

At this point, I just want a president who will tell the truth about the inner workings of politics. When Clinton got elected on a very progressive agenda, he backed away after being schooled by the Fed guys:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/columns/bottomline/199/

Hard as it may be to believe right now, the most important thing Bill Clinton ever said was not "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Although that statement did have the virtue (from the perspective of memorability) of being, well, a bald-faced lie, there's nothing especially profound about it. Consider, by contrast, the passage from Bob Woodward's The Agenda in which Clinton asks the rhetorical question "You mean to tell me that the success of the economic program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of *********** bond traders?"
Click to expand...

Clinton never took these realities to the public for democratic solutions. I actually think people like Nader and Paul would.

Clinton didn't. Obama hasn't.

I'm ready to be governed by men and women who aren't Wall Street sell-outs.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
I'm ready to be governed by men and women who aren't Wall Street sell-outs.
Click to expand...
That's quite admirable...but I'd still prefer my candidates to have some kind of grounding in reality. That's something neither Paul nor Nader has.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
That's quite admirable...but I'd still prefer my candidates to have some kind of grounding in reality. That's something neither Paul nor Nader has.
Click to expand...

Do you even know about the multi-trillion dollar secret bailouts that the Paul/Sanders Fed audit exposed, that we taxpayers are on the hook for?
 
kellyb said:
Do you even know about the multi-trillion dollar secret bailouts that the Paul/Sanders Fed audit exposed, that we taxpayers are on the hook for?
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with homeopathy and the gold standard?

Just because they blew the whistle on secret bailouts doesn't mean they're grounded in reality... ;)

ETA: And, I've not been able to find any actual results from the audit, only that the amendment/bill requiring it was passed by Congress. All I've found is a blog claiming that GE received bailout funds, but nothing about how the taxpayer is supposedly on the hook for that money (and that's before even discussing how the bailout was accomplished). Perhaps you have some reputable sources you could provide for your claim?
 
Last edited:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-war-20100526

The most successful of the reform gambits was probably the audit-the-Fed movement led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. For nearly a century, the Federal Reserve has been, within our borders, a nation unto itself – with vast powers to shape the economy and no real limits to its authority beyond the president's ability to appoint its chairman. In the bubble era it has been transformed into a kind of automatic bailout mechanism, helping Wall Street drink itself sober by flooding big banks with cheap money after the collapse of each speculative boom. But suddenly, with both the Huffington Post crowd and the Tea Party raising their pitchforks in outrage, Sanders managed to pass – by a vote of 96-0 – an amendment to force the Fed to open its books to congressional scrutiny.

If Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke don't take that 96-0 vote as a kick-to-the-groin testament to the staggering unpopularity of the Fed, they should. When 96 senators agree on something, they're usually affirming their devotion to the flag or commemorating the death of Mother Teresa. But as it turns out, the more than $2 trillion in loans that the Fed handed out in secret after the 2008 meltdown is something that both the left and the right have no problem banding together to piss on. One of the most bizarre alliances of the bailout era took place when Sanders, a democratic socialist, and Sen. Jim DeMint, a hardcore conservative from South Carolina, went on the CNBC show hosted by crazy supply-sider Larry Kudlow – and all three found themselves in complete agreement on the need to force Fed loans into the open. "People who come from very different places agree that it ought not to be done in secret, that the Fed isn't Skull and Bones," says Michael Briggs, an aide to Sanders.
Click to expand...

What you, Bob, call a "grounding in reality", I and many, many others see as a threat to national security in terms of potential insolvency and a threat to our democracy.

And rational, intelligent, skeptical folks from both the left and the right are more than eager to leave the fools from both political persuasions behind as we band together to fight this disaster in the making.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
And that has what to do with homeopathy and the gold standard?

Just because they blew the whistle on secret bailouts doesn't mean they're grounded in reality... ;)

ETA: And, I've not been able to find any actual results from the audit, only that the amendment/bill requiring it was passed by Congress. All I've found is a blog claiming that GE received bailout funds, but nothing about how the taxpayer is supposedly on the hook for that money (and that's before even discussing how the bailout was accomplished). Perhaps you have some reputable sources you could provide for your claim?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking for evidence that US taxpayers have to pay (eventually) for debt the US treasury is responsible for?

Where do you think the secret multi-trillion dollar bailout money is supposed to come from? An army of pixie butts?
 
kellyb said:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-war-20100526



What you, Bob, call a "grounding in reality", I and many, many others see as a threat to national security in terms of potential insolvency and a threat to our democracy.

And rational, intelligent, skeptical folks from both the left and the right are more than eager to leave the fools from both political persuasions behind as we band together to fight this disaster in the making.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you've only shown a single article from Rolling Stone Magazine (which I will admit is a fairly reputable source), but nothing in there substantiates the claim of secret bailouts that the taxpayers are on the hook for.

If you consider rejection of homeopathy and the gold standard (i.e. a recognition of the way the current economy works/what it's based on/how returning to the gold standard would **** the world economy in the long run) a threat to national security, I have no option but to assume your world is not as grounded in reality as you might think.


ETA: You do realize the bailout money is being paid back to the Fed, right?

ETETA: Here's the wiki link that discusses the TARP and payback. Quite a few reputable sources, including the CBO, indicating that the actual cost of the bailout is far less than was initially estimated. Those were loans, for the most part, not grants. And for the most part, they're being paid back (to a loss of a mere 25B or so, rather than approx 700T). So, yes, there's some money coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Is it less than the damage that would have been caused by letting the market crash? Youbetcha. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom