I just returned from two tea parties, one in Boston, MA and another in Worcester, MA, and to paraphrase the First Lady, "I haven't been this proud . . . "
It was a pleasant change to be among so many others who share a lot of my concerns about runaway spending and big government (States Rights.). A lot of folks could not attend as they were WORKING but future events will swell in attendance.
I don't recall that you complained about this during the past eight years, though Bush spent like a drunken sailor. What's changed?Originally Posted by rbaker
Yeah, no Tea Parties while Bush was spending us down the drain.Where was the outrage when Bush took a surplus and made a record deficit out of it in a very short time.NOW they moan about how bad the economy is and it's obviously Obama's fault. Oh yeah, the liberals don't control the media and can't whip people up into a frenzy like the king of bombast - Rush.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
as a registered Republican (debating on whether or not I should register Libertarian or not) ... I am glad to see the TEA parties ...
I am wondering, however, why "the Right" is upset with the spending NOW and wanting to protest. I think it's important for members of a society to be willing (and able) to voice their opposition to the government.
I have really been frustrated during the BUSH administration. Not only at BUSH but for a lot of the Republican "leadership"--.
I admit that I do get a little nervous about what appears to be the nationalization of so much of our private industries...I think the government is trying to take over too much but I don't think the problem started with Obama.
I have been complaining about the confiscatory taxes that I am forced to pay since 1954. There has never been a political party that has represented my feelings toward federal and state governments run amok.
The theft really started in January, 1964 with The War on Poverty and soon thereafter by The War on Drugs, not to mention the ever increasing tax money being spent on public education. In all of these cases the result has been more poverty, more drugs and dumber adolescents entering the job market (or going on town help.)
My principal complaint is that all of this failure has been done on my dime by idiots in the public sector who actually believe that the solution is to throw yet more of my money at the problems.
If we're going to go into debt and spend money, should we spend it killing people halfway around the world and shoving democracy down their throats, or should we spend it on schools, hospitals, transportation, and jobs here at home?
Dick,
If my math is correct Clinton did more to shrink the Federal Government's size (based on % of GNP than anyother President), post WWII excluded.
Have you ever considered running for office yourself?
Sharpstick
Good point Dragon.
I love these threads that are always chasing after dropping taxes or dropping spending as the solution. It seems like no one realizes that you have to not only balance a budget, but create surpluses. You think just cutting spending will do that? You think a combination of cutting spending and cutting taxes will do that? It will just make it worse.
There is a show called "Til Debt Do Us Part," where couples seek financial counseling. The first thing she does is cut their expenses and increase their income. Why? because that is the only way you can move forward to removing debt. The only way the US will get out of its problems is to cut spending and increase taxes.
Until people except that, it will just get worse.
The Government employing everyone and paying everyone is unacceptable. The government doing nothing, and not taxing is also unacceptable. Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide? Why should they get to decide?
Isn't a healthy, educated citizenry good for the US? Isn't it good that your parents don't have to work until the day that they die, or have to eat cat food and live in a cardboard box when they are no longer able to work? Isn't it good that the factories that process the food that you eat are inspected? That nuclear power plants are inspected? There are things that taxes pay for that I think we both can agree on, and there is certainly tax money spent on things that one of us will object to.
If there was a smaller disparity between the wealthy and the needy, there would be less need for things like a war on poverty.
I agree with this, but not in the way you intend.
If there were no income disparity, we'd all be average, some better some worse. Is that more fair, Spex?
And I'm for anything that would keep us from the insipid "War on Poverty".
Yeah, it's as big a waste of effort and dollars as The War On Drugs started by Nancy Reagan's medium, er by President Reagan.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
I didn't say "no income disparity". Just less.
Yeah! Now there's a War we've won!:cheers::cheers::cheers:(:hammer:)
44 years later and we've all but eradicated poverty! Good job.
If someone could only come up with an edible cell phone,I-pod, and X-box game, no child in the US would ever have to go hungry again
Ophthalmic Optician, Society to Advance Opticianry
Found out why there were no Tea parties during Bush's tenure. The Government would have you declared a terrorist under Homeland Security and you would still be in jail.
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
It's amazing that people still listen to Rush Blowhard. I guess they don't mind getting their politics from drug addicts. It does help explain some republican policies though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks