Sorry I kept this a secret but I'm coming clean now.
The dems have a political platform that essentially revolves around building up their voting base through government programs. That requires a ton of deficit spending. They are smart enough to know that a large part of the voting public isn't going to like this. So, they put a plan in place, and thusfar it worked:
1. Obama won by saying whatever the public wanted to hear, knowing full well he would spend like crazy and as quickly as possible once in office. For he knew that midterm elections would take away his majority in Congress.
2. Obama made a deal with Hillary that required her to back out of the election in exchange for agreement that Obama would do the dirty work now and would not seek re-election. This paves the way for Hillary to be the Dems salvation for angry voters about what Obama did.
So you see that all our squabbling about Obama is non productive because they planned things the way they are and Obama doesn't give a rip what the public has to say because he already knows he doesn't plan to run again. His goal is to placate the dems voting block and then move out of the way for Hillary to come in under a more conservative approach since the Congress will be conservative by then as well.
The unknown is the impact of the Tea Pary folks. The Dems didn't count on any grassroots movement and that's why they are fighting them so hard now in the hope of discrediting them so that they don't interfere with their plan. And of course, they also do not expect the repubs to come up with any meaningful candidate (so far they are right about that).
doesn't mean that many folks don't think they're nuts-------------
I was at the tea party meeting in my town this Monday evening; and the primary focus was on putting a lid on our property taxes in that town -- which have gone up 30% just this year alone.
Not much paranoia or conspiracy stuff. Just good old down-home kicking of politician's asses and organizing a local voting block to get things under control.
who compares Obama to Hitler & Marxist Latin American dictators-----hell, even tho I voted for him & don't think he's done particularly good job in last year, that's a tad paranoid, doncha think ?---------LOL ! John, btw, you don't always have to be contrary & play "devil's advocate"---that poster on GD board who talked about taking "security backup" on seeing provider on 1st date was clearly engaging in a put-on & you defended him at great length---but WTF--- that's the beauty of the 1st ammendment--------guess we all have the right to appear fatuous, including myself--------
was he as bat shit crazy as the provider who wanted to do weapons, and surveillance equipment checks on her clients at the door, and have a bodyguard in the room at all times? lmao
But, yeah, I tend to be the devil's advocate.
Might as well go join the college of cardinals!
doen't mean they don't have legitimate concerns.
The fact that leftys think they're nuts doesn't change that fact.
FYI I am not part of the "tea party crowd", I am just not a "joiner". People on the left should identify with the tea party crowd, the left wing is mainly comprimised of "joiners"
I tend to be more of a leader than a joiner.
I think the tea party crowd has legitimate concerns.
Do I like all their comparisons? No. No more than I thought MoveOn comparing Bush to Hitler was sensible.
Until a guy has gas chambers set up somewhere, he's not Hitler.
Now -- he CAN be a Nazi. Nazism is just short of "National SOCIALISM" whereas communism is just "International SOCIALISM."
Any socialist falls somewhere on the Commie--Nazi continuum depending on their degree of national/international sentiment. The defining characteristic of Nazism isn't killing people. After all, the Commies killed even more people than the Nazis did. The defining characteristic is the national character of its socialist advocacies.
So it is entirely legitimate to compare the point of view.
& getting back to the "extreme fringe teabaggers", many in mainstream U.S. society would echo my sentiments about those right-wing wackjobs : " in your guts, you know they're nuts"-------------
WTF, we've had a few right here on this board. GOPGeezer and Ezeedude1234 are just a couple that come to mind.
That doesn't mean that all "teabaggers" are nut jobs, or that the teabag movement doesn't have legimate concerns however.
FWIW I believe the number of "extreme fringe left wing nutjobs" far exceeds the number of rightwing nutjobs on this board.
as for this board, that's a subjective call according to one's ideology. As for the right wing nutjobs, you neglected to mention a particularly annoying unnamed poster & his "sock
puppet". ( GaG, I think you would agree with me about these 2. )But ,of course, there have leftist loonies who I've mentioned in the past.
Anyone who wants to reach me on this topic, contact me at :[email protected].
Truth be told, there are only a handful that are even worth conversing with. I don't believe in "dumbing down" my conversation, just to converse with someone who's opinions are in line with mine.
There are just as many left leaning posters that I enjoy debating with as there are right leaning ones. The diehard partisans on both sides of the aisle are the ones I have no use for. They don't want debate, the just want validation for their preconceived beliefs, which often times aren't even their own.
where did you get this idea from?
Obama may well be a one term President of his own making but not beause of some crazy idea that he made a deal with Hillary 
He is such an arrogant ideologue that he very well may not head to the center like Clinton but, instead, cling to his far left beliefs and in doing so doom his fate.
We will know after the elections in Nov how this begins to shake out.
-- Modified on 2/5/2010 2:45:25 PM
1)Historically the party does loose seats in the off year elections, but it would take nearly a sweep of the seats that have close races to reach a majority. Most of the spending was to prop up the economy that was was left to him by Bush and his Republican advisors.
2)Hillary did not drop out of the last election. Competing was close in each and every state and the territories. Until 2008 many people did not know that Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. had a role is selecting our President. Bust Clinton and Obama had close contest in each and every one.
Also Hillary has also let it be know that she is not interested in another run for office.
Before Iowa Hillary's weakness blew it for her and lost her the Presidency because if she had blasted Obama about REV Wright GD America right before Iowa no way many white Christians would have voted for him and she won NH .
I assure you blacks seeing he has lost two primaries would not have given Obama a chance in South Carolina and would have flocked to Hillary .
Bill Clinton IMO would have gone all out and blown Obama away about Rev Wright knowing what he said about our SC REV Jackson and about Obama getting him coffee
If she had blasted him on Rev. Wright, the backlash would have cost her support. Iowa was not a primary but a caucus. But you are partly correct, a win in Iowa followed by a win in NH would has put either one in good position to wrap it up on Super Tuesday.
Maybe you did not notice but Obama has an organization included black, white, hispanic, jewish, Indian, and every ethnic group in this country. Obama's people were perfect for getting people out, and he won every caucus state. Clinton played the traditional strategic plan working on the party leaders. She did has the majority of the Super Delegates. In the end the grassroots organization prevailed.
Obama won with over 95 percent of black vote and no way blacks would have stayed with him with a loss in SC .I live in SC and I assure you blacks would have deserted him in droves thinking he was a lost cause after losing Iowa and NH.
Hillary was a fool as she would have won three in a row and Obama would have been toast.
-- Modified on 2/5/2010 4:12:46 PM
-- Modified on 2/5/2010 4:23:39 PM
-- Modified on 2/5/2010 4:27:54 PM
rhetorical question-------
In another era that would have been wearing sheets!
I'm sure some still have a set in the closet.
too many people are still too hung up on racism. Any time you see a bunch of white people together, you assume they are racists. Any time some people see a group of black people together, you assume THEY are racists.
This is nuts.
Most of the Tea Party followers are white because 99 percent (if not more) of the black voting population in the United States will not protest against President Obama or his policies. And I don't necessarily blame them. He is the first black American President and black Americans should have a sense of pride and strong loyalty to him.
they could probably only fill a phonebooth----
Latino and Asian people appear at any political rally?
You're really stretching here to play the race card.
"The dems have a political platform that essentially revolves around building up their voting base through government programs. That requires a ton of deficit spending."
Please, tell me: where did the National Debt come from? Who has engaged in deficit spending over the last 30 years?
Answer that for me and we'll go look at the rest.
Please.
To blame the Dems for our deficit or debt is so rediculous that it doesn't merit a comment.
but I'll sure blame them for at least $787 billion of it!
$1.8T in 2009 and 1.3T projected for 2010. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I miss GWB's $400B annual budget deficits. We are going to be averaging budget deficits in excess of 10% of GDP for God knows how long. Has anyone watched the meltdown in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland this week. Greece is running a deficit of 13% of GDP, and no one wants to buy their debt even at a 6 or 7% bond rate. Look at your 401K, IRA, or whatever investments you have. If you lost 8% in the past 3 weeks you can thank the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), and thank Obama for suggesting that dumb ass bank tax. Thank God the tax and the Volcker Rule will most likely be DOA. Of course a bit too late for the latest Obama market induced meltdown.
-- Modified on 2/5/2010 5:45:30 PM
" Now, look, let's talk about the budget once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. -- $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true.
And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade -- had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for.
You had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That's $8 trillion.
Now, we increased it by a trillion dollars because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said."
-President Obama
I'll give you a little credit for FY 2009, which runs from Oct 08 through Sept 09. Bush creates the budget, but Obama can make changes, which he did. Bush's budget was $3.1T. Expected revenues were $2.7T. Recession hits and tax revenues fall to approx $2.0T. So you have $1.1T deficit without any spending cuts. FY 2009 budget jumps to $3.8T primarily due to the stimulus, hence a $1.8T budget deficit. Fast forward to FY 2010. The 1.3T deficit clearly belongs in Obama's lap, as well as the CBO yearly trillion dollar deficits through Obama's term. Take a look at FY 2010 budget. Look at the budget increases for the various departments, i.e. Labor, Education, Ag, State, etc...etc. You can't tell me those increases are warranted? Now Sen Gregg jumps all over Orszag for putting in a tax cut for small business with money from the TARP, and the TARP specifically says money returned to the TARP is to be used to pay off the debt. I don't like budget deficits created by Bush, but when you have deficits running @ 10% of GDP for the forseeable future, well that's is just insane.
If you are going to debate, do your homework.
when it was the money that was spent to solve a problem caused by the GOP?
The $787 billion was spent for one reason and one reason only -- to give the Dems who were finally in charge a chance to pay off all their friends and party members.
That was nothing but theft from the American taxpayers. They -- the Dems -- couldn't wait to do it. They even chartered a plane to get a Congress member back to Washington (from his own mother's funeral) on a Friday night so the bill could be passed in time for all of the rest of them to go home for the weekend. And then our new President waited until a photo op in Denver FIVE days later to sign this bill that couldn't wait.
That showed the true colors of this new Congress and new President. And the colors were green for the Democrats and red ink for all Americans.
Also, I believe over half of the stimulus package has yet to be spent.
do you think that was a waste Pitch? Another third was used to keep local governments from laying off cops, firefighters, teachers, and other essential services. Do you think that was a waste Pitch?
What about job losses Pitch?
Sure, Willy, I believe any thing you say. You are the absolute go-to guy when it comes to giving all of us the truth and nothing but the truth.
You sure you don't work in the White House and just do this P&R posting for shits and grins????