Tea Party

Post Reply New Topic

You on the left just want us to nominate Ron Paul (whom isn't playing with a full deck), because he is about the only one Obama will be able to beat come 2012.

Some of them are ignorant white trash. Some have legitimate concerns about debt. But I don't respect them in general. Where have they been for the past 30 years? Suddenly Obama is elected at they have a movement? It's mostly low brow reactionary nonsense.

It actually has to do with Obamacare and the trillion dollar a year deficits that makes it look like George W. Bush had a balanced budget during his entire Presidency.

Obama has spent more money than all of our Presidents George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

Bush's deficits are a drop in the bucket compared to Obama.

What? That's just crazy talk.

When Obama came into office the national debt was 11 trillion dollars. Today it's 14 trillion. Bush ushered in the first 2 trillion budget, then the first 3 trillion budget. Obama still hasnt broken 4 trillion and that's including war spending (proposed FY2012 is 3.7) So how can you imagine that all US president's combined spent less than Obama?

Honestly your comments get stranger by the day.

Correction: Accumulated more debt than all the previous presidents combined. This last February ran a deficit that was larger than the entire fiscal year of 2007.

If the debt is 14 and it was 11 when he arrived, how does that math work?

Bush alone added 5 trillion.

not possibly true
lets do the math

14 trillion = debt now

11 trillion = debt when obama started

14 trillion - 11 trillion = 3 trillion

4 trillion < 11 trillion

but keep moving those goalposts little buddy


-Jake

Okay found the actual quote:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404


You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ ... z1Gcr0PfLM

Third times the charm. But what's a little slander when you can get away with it?

You can play with stats to say anything. Are they adjusted dollars? And we all know why they quit with Reagan, who himself added 2 trillion by not paying for his tax cuts.

What we also know is that Bush's last budget request was 3.1 trillion for 2009. That was without funding his wars or TARP expenditures for that year. Today, 3 years later, the budget request is 3.7 (including war costs) Hardly a significant change. If you do the inflation adjustment it might even be closer. The problem is that the tax base collapsed with a near depression.

What you are missing is the larger issue that isnt related to any one president or party.

debt held by the public notice the weasel words.
the story really is Obama finances his debt through bonds while others write I.O.U.s
it is an inside baseball story that I don't think you understood.
don't feel bad the writer was trying to confuse you.

I will give you an easier mantra

Obama = Bastard
because
all U.S. presidents = Bastards

its part of the job description.
-Jake

The left can have all the in-your-face, protests, marches, and riots it wants and it's called freedom of speech.
The right has any kind of organized gatherings to express their concerns and all the sudden they are unfairly influencing policy and law.

The Tea Partiers f***ing villify themselves.

Honestly, none of the Republican contenders for President seem to be "playing with a full deck," and none of them have a realistic chance against Obama right now (which is rather pathetic, given that it should be easy to beat Obama). Just look at the joke of a field the Republican Party has come up with for their front-runners. Palin is a bimbo. Bachmann is an idiot. Gingrich is despicable. Romney is a sleaze bag. Huckabee is insane. Who else is running?

You can make all the assertions you want that anyone could beat Obama, but all available data disagree with you. A Palin nomination would be expected to result in a historic landslide. Polling shows that a generic un-named Republican challenger has as good as or better a chance in the general election than any of the prominent names in the party right now, which means that your current party leadership simply is not trusted by likely voters.

Everyone is entitled to have a senior moment once in a while.




And we didn't even have a Budget for 2010. Additionally 2007-2008 the Democrats controlled Congress, so Obama, Pelosi, Reid (mostly Pelosi and Reid) actually have some blame on that one.



I know it isn't restricted to one party, but this last February we accumulated more debt than the entire 2007 fiscal year.

The weak game of the republicans makes me think two party system has been compromised and that the two now work as one. The only other reasonable cause I can think of is that they have all suffered massive brain damage as a group.

Good Cop, Bad Cop.

ruveyn