Why it is a great benefit that the Tea Party is composed, mostly, of shiny, happy people
Bookworm on Apr 30 2010 at 11:34 am | Filed under: Tea Parties
One of the big jokes in the blogosphere has been the fact that a Tea Party protest comprised in no small part of smiling grannies (a term I use with great love and respect) standing outside an Obama appearance, was met with riot police:
Yesterday, I asked jokingly just how stupid those riot police felt guarding granny, and I wasn’t the only one in the blogosphere who found the whole thing humorous in way that does not reflect well on the powers that be:
The photos and videos sparked a wave of blogger reactions, including the following comments:
* I hope the riot police have full auto assault weapons with armor-piercing rounds. I hear false teeth can deflect normal NATO rounds.
* Those poor police have to be embarrassed.
* These guys and gals look like my mom or the people in my church. Wake up America!
* Why can’t these racist, violent tea parties be civil like the peaceful pro-illegal immigration rallies we saw in Phoenix!?
* The cops really have to worry since protesters are shown on tape throwing bottles at them. Oh wait …
* SWAT was there because it looked like the ladies were going to break out in a bingo game. Those daubers have ink, ya know.
* Oh my G-d. How beyond ridiculous. This country’s “leaders” have gone stark raving insane.
* Yeah, they look like real hoodlums. Next they’ll be going after the elementary school kids singing those crazy patriotic songs!
* When will the AARP condemn this threatening behavior by team Obama?
Given how the media has been describing the “angry” Tea Parties, I guess the authorities would have been remiss not to take such a protest seriously. Still, I don’t recall any riot police blocking the protesters who were literally demanding Sarah Palin’s blood when she came to speak in the San Francisco Bay Area. Of course, by 2008, we’d gotten inured to the eight-year long orgy of blood lust swirling about those Progressive crowds, while I guess it’s still surprising to see smiling grannies with protest signs lauding America and its values. For the authorities, it’s apparent that “new” automatically translates into “dangerous.”
The very different protest styles of the Left and the Right, with the former engaging in violent rhetoric and violent acts, and the latter acting, mostly, like the Church social, have gotten me thinking about the difference between people being angry, on the one hand, and angry people, on the other hand.
We are all, of course, capable of anger when the situation merits it (and, as every parent knows, occasionally when the situation doesn’t). Most of us, though, don’t value anger. Our lives have meaning because of family, community, work, spiritual beliefs, etc. When we’re tired, when people for whom we’re responsible don’t cooperate, and when the things we value are threatened, we will get angry and we’ll act on it, but these occasions are the exception, not the rule, in our lives.
This doesn’t mean we’re pushovers. I’m certainly an assertive person, when I need to be, but I don’t operate from a wellspring of hostility. In confrontations, I like to find common ground that enables me and my opponent to work towards a mutually agreeable solution.
What I dislike so much about anger is that, for me, it’s a very damaging emotion. It destroys my ability to think rationally, or do any thinking at all, it makes me paranoid, and it makes me destructive. I don’t want to work with my opponent, I want to destroy him. If a situation that makes me angry occurs, I usually find myself shaken at the end, and less than pleased by the outcome. Anger so seldom produces smart outcomes.
Those angry people I know are different at a fundamental level from me. Anger isn’t just a passing emotion that interrupts their lives. It is, instead, a power that gives energy and meaning to their lives. They relish a fight, because the fight means that they’re proving themselves to themselves. There is something about anger that validates them in a way I can’t even begin to understand. It’s as if their philosophical model isn’t “I think, therefore I am,” it’s “I’m angry, therefore I am.”
The practical effect of being an angry person is that anger is your first response. You don’t try to downplay differences, you don’t offer excuses for the other person, and you don’t look for face-saving ways out of a situation. Instead, you just go storming in, guns blazing. For you, it’s a good day when you leave the battlefield littered with the dead and wounded. Never mind that you took significant hits yourself. Never mind even that you lost an entirely unnecessary battle. Your loss and your wounds are just fuel for your next round of anger.
I’ve commented before that the Obamas (both Barack and Michelle) strike me as angry people. For both of them, when they’re off teleprompter, their default setting is a worrisome amalgam of paranoia, disdain and hostility. The same goes for those with whom they surround themselves. Rahm, for example, is legendary for the anger he wields as both sword and shield. (Dead fish and knives in the table, anyone?)
Ordinary people have a range of reactions to the angry ones. On the positive side, sometimes we admire the pure flame that burns within them. We follow them when they seem to be leading us someplace we’d like to go, because their anger gives them a courage we may lack. On the negative side, though, we recognize that unbridled anger often leads a culture to the guillotine or the gas chamber. We also know that, at a personal level, nobody really wants to spend much time in the company of a truly angry person. It’s too much work. One is constantly placating, excusing, and apologizing, leaving no time for life’s simple pleasures.
Which wraps me back around to the Tea Party protests. The angry Left will always have its angry people, ready to transform their personal paranoia or their carefully inculcated identity victim status into a screaming street protest. It makes for good television, but the average happy person, even the average happy person who is angry about a political situation, does not feel a sense of identity with that foam-speckled ranter. Instead, those of us who are not driven by a deep and terminal anger that permeates every area of our lives are drawn to Happy Warriors. We like smiling grandmothers and other friendly people with whom we feel we can make common cause.
So Tea Partiers: keep smiling. It matters, and it is what will, in the long term, leave the MSM narrative in the dust, all the while attracting ordinary people to the cause of individual liberty and economic freedom.
Related posts:
- What a great Tea Party sign!
- Looking for the Happy Warrior *UPDATED*
- The benefit of a low, stable tax base
Email This Post To A Friend
81 Responses to “Why it is a great benefit that the Tea Party is composed, mostly, of shiny, happy people”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Bookworm Room – Why it is a great benefit that the Tea Party is composed, mostly, of shiny, happy people [...]
Anger is a valuable tool but, like any tool, it should be carefully controlled and used judiciously. Use it too much, and it is either destructive or it completely loses its value.
What I detect in the Left is not so much anger but primal screams against all the traumas, disappointments and failings of their existence, searching desperately for targets against which to vent. They use their anger not so much as a tool but as an opiate.
One of your very, very, very best, Bookie.
Bill Smith
This makes me almost certain that that guy in San Francisco who recently reacted so vehemently to my casual mention of Niagara Falls (“Did you say Niagara Falls? Slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch. . .!”) was a liberal.
People desire things. When they believe violence can get them what they want, they will use violence. When they think there is a better way or that violence won’t get them what they want, people won’t use violence.
Even the criminally sociopathic or psychopathic serial killer knows this. That’s why he hides himself amongst a neighborhood of good people without ever giving away who or what he is. To kill, he must compromise and get along with the system. Because to kill is what he desires above all else. Everything else is negotiable.
For most people it is the reverse. Everything is not negotiable. There are some things people won’t give up just as there are some things they wish with all their hearts. But if they are blocked from acquiring their desires, then violence becomes a feasible option for getting what they would otherwise be denied. They negotiate with violence to get what they desire.
Everything depends upon whether what you desire is Good for humanity or Evil for humanity. It matters whether what you desire harms many people or simply one. Just as it matters whether the Good you do affects only yourself or many people around you.
Violence is not socially acceptable and the wannabe liberals will constantly tell you this from their moral highhorse. Thus in order to make it morally palatable, Democrats will justify it using political reasoning. Rage and hate then become useful emotions for concentrating people’s motivations. What they would not have done because social inhibitions had limited them, they will gladly do at the behest of uncontrollable internal rage and hate.
Rage and hate then produce a tantrum type violent reaction. These people believe so strongly that the world is out to get them, they want to hurt the entire world back. And if you are conveniently there for them to go off on you, then all they will need is an excuse. A BusHitler for example. Or a hated Republican. Something they can justify to themselves that makes violence appropriate to use, even just and righteous to use. They need to justify to themselves that their behavior is right by their own standards of morality, even the ethics of moral relativity. Recall Columbine. Recall Ft. Hood. Recall 9/11. These are all examples of what can be done with tantrums. Violence that isn’t directly related to you personally nor intended to acquire a personal desire, but simply a means of self-regulating uncontrollable rage and hate. There’s no way to convince these people that there is a mutually beneficial arrangement. To them, they can only get what they want from taking it out on you. Unlike violence directed towards individuals, this isn’t personal. This is simply you being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone else could have sufficed.
Rage and hate concentrate the mind using monkey brain politics. It turns hypothetical future threats into current reality. Instead of something that might happen in the future to hurt you, the monkey brain transforms it into a current threat that is happening NOW. Pride, status, emotions: those are the things the monkey brain prioritizes above all else. Thus, everything you do to the other person becomes justified. It becomes the right thing to do. Self-defense even.
<B>A huge factor is ‘how you think in the long term’ directs your emotional responses.
We’re not talking about a single thought here (e.g. the cat knocked the glass over). What we’re talking about is your long established thought patterns determine your emotions. How you think directs how you feel.
Imagine your emotions like water. These long term ‘thinking patterns’ channel your emotions (and thoughts) down certain pathways. And this happens without you consciously knowing it. Like rain running off a roof and down a drain spout, you only become aware of it when it comes gushing out.
Have you ever had an emotion faster than conscious thought? Who hasn’t? Someone says something and you’re immediately angry. Then you have a moment to ‘think about it’ and you calm down — when you realize that the person didn’t mean what you thought he said. That is an example of emotional processing being guided down certain pathways and you consciously stopping the process.
Often however, people DON’T stop the process, they just react as if their feelings reflect actuality. Not only that, but they react as though their emotions are conscious and rational. </b>
Democrats are used to allowing their emotions and social status to direct their behavior. It is, to them, the safest way to operate given their environment and peers. After all, the Left does not treat people who break the circle-consensus gently. Often times it is easier to go with the flow rather than object using logic.
When somebody becomes a threat, whether it is fascist Bush or racist Tea Partiers, the rage, fear, and hate all come together and drive the actual behavior of these people. And they feel good doing it. They feel good because they are free. Free from all consequences, all fears, all doubts. For the first time in their miserable and pathetic lives, they have become free from the social inhibitions against violence, rudeness, hysteria, intolerance, and the various other collars they have had around their necks since they were born. Whether it is religion they rage against, whether it is politics, whether it is the police, whether it is social welfare or their guilt at making more money than the starving poor, rage frees them from a lifetime of bondage.
They no longer have to doubt that attacking humans is wrong. They no longer have to hide their fear for fear of being attacked for fearing blacks. They no longer have to worry about being called too rich for their own good for having more money than the poor. They have an enemy and their hate liberates them from the consequences of morality or ethics. They have one goal, the destruction of their target. Nothing else matters. As Kos called American ex Special Forces “mercenaries”, he cared little for their well being. He wished simply for them to disappear. And he’ll lap up the juices of anybody, including Islamic terrorists, that make it happen.
But they forgot one thing. Allowing rage, hate, anger, and fear to control their behavior and thoughts didn’t make them free. It simply made them slaves of their monkey. I, who was born with an inherent instinct for perfecting through thought the use of violence against humans for real or imagined injustice, was never under the illusion that if I just let those instincts do whatever it wanted that I would always remain in control rather than the other way around. I never told myself that my instincts driving me towards destruction as the most effective means of resolving human problems would always give me the truth of this world. And because I never did that, I could begin to gain control over extreme negative emotions.
Instead of me doing whatever they told me to do, now they do whatever I tell them to do. It is no longer my rage telling me to hurt somebody I wish to see destroyed. Now it is me telling my rage to use everything it has to ensure the destruction of somebody I wish to destroy, for reasons born out of the truth, not the monkey truth, of the world.
Freely giving up control to your emotions is the ultimate self-admission that you are too weak physically or mentally to handle problems on your own. The rage has certainty. The rage has endurance. The rage has a power that you lack in normal life. The rage has no doubts about who needs killing and what needs to be sacrificed (life or limb) for it. But you do. You doubt because wannabe liberals have taught you to doubt. Moral relativity has taught you that nothing is worth dying for, nothing worth killing for. Nothing worth living for except pleasure and immortalit. The self-justification for existence, more existence.
It is hard to gain control of extreme emotions. If you don’t know what triggered it, if you don’t know why or how it is affecting you, if you don’t know what started it or what is the source of it, telling yourself to be calm will simply make you more angry. Trying to regain control will simply make you lose even more control as the evidence of your own weakness becomes apparent to your own awareness. The monkey will fight back. He doesn’t want to give up the driver’s seat to you because he doesn’t think you can handle it. You have to take it from him, throw him out the window and then ride over him, repeatedly, with the bus. Da Bump, Da Bump, Da Bump. Show the monkey that you are a better driver, and conveniently far more ruthless and efficient, than he ever will be.
Survival instincts that tell you to attack Republicans because Republicans are evil can’t be stood down simply by repeating to yourself that these survival instincts won’t work to fix things. Because if that doesn’t work, that means nothing will work to help you. And that is unacceptable to wannabe liberals. The admission of absolute failure is something beyond their courage. You can’t come up with a better way of making yourself safe, you won’t run, so you must fight Republicans. Even if they are willingly to negotiate a fair and mutually beneficial arrangement, the Left will fight. Because they will lose if they give up and they know it.
It will be the ultimate admission of their weakness and personal failure. That even when they become slaves of their own emotions, even with such godlike strength in their veins… they will still have failed. Well, what did they expect when the monkey is the master. Blacks are so uptight about whites owning their non-existent slave ancestors that they will go and agree to become slaves of another in return for power that they personally could never deserve to wield. Because they’re too weak to wield it.
Against most normal people, rage and anger are enough to give you the edge. Because most normal people are peaceful and won’t escalate matters to asocial violence or physical conflict. However, those are normal people. There is always a better killer around the corner. You just have to have the bad luck of finding them. The Left has been successful in Cuba, Russia, Europe, China, and all around the world because they and only they were the best killers in their little pond. They overpowered through arms or numbers the local competition.
This is not the case here, now. America did not become the world’s lone superpower based upon the personal fighting abilities of our politicians. FDR was a Communist loving adulterer and plantation slave advocate. JFK was a Bay of Pigs and anti-Communist incompetent that somehow allowed and then evaded nuclear missiles in Cuba.
The strength of this nation has always relied upon the willingness of the American people to kill and die for the American dream. Everything else is negotiable. Even the Left are not stupid enough to think they can conquer such a place with force of arms alone. They knew that subversion and subterfuge was a necessary ingredient to the poison before the actual fight could be won. Our strength was never in mass movements or the cover of large organizations. It was Always, always what we would
Honor
Sacrifice
Fight
Protect
for personally. Not something we’d hire out like Gore’s carbon credits. On this matter, politics doesn’t even matter. Even if we were enemies across a national or political divide, it would not change the nature of our character or the presence or absence of our honor.
You may be on to something here. Anger really needs anger to feed it an keep it going. When the violent protests provoke aggressive police response the Left loves it. But the Tea Party folks just don’t give those who oppose them anything to hang on to. No matter how they try to provoke with their slurs. My experience with angry people is if you don’t take the bait, it just make them angrier but it you keep it up, they finally give up.
As for moving grannie across the road, hold the riot squad and send in a platoon of Boy Scouts, or a mixed unit of Boy and Girl Scouts. A polite request, at the behest of the Secret Service, and an offer of the arm of a well-mannered young person should be more than enough to get the little old ladies across the road.
Both anger and fear can criple rational action. Smiling Grandmoms will usually freeze an angry liberal into incohearance. Fun to watch. I’m also glad to note in the videos that there were quite a lot of cameras among the tea partiers. Very good. We need to get this episode to Fox News
Al
This is the psychological argument to back up Book’s recommendations.
Before we talk about emotions, we strongly suggest you take a trip to the Monkey Brain brain page. The information there will assist you in understanding HOW your brain works.
More importantly, it shows how emotions are NOT ‘logical thinking.’ Or, in many cases, accurate representations of what is actually occurring in a situation. Putting that in simple terms.
1) When you’re being emotional, you aren’t being logical
2) Just because you feel something doesn’t mean it’s true
And yet, with most people, the emotional wave is what is going to be guiding their thoughts and actions. They’re going to react to their feelings, NOT to the circumstances.
Have you ever reacted negatively to something someone said only to discover later that WASN’T what the person meant? What set you off was your interpretation of reality, (what you though the person meant) not what was really going on. But which one did you react to?
How often was that discovery made after it had escalated into a disagreement?
That same process can escalate a situation into physical violence. This is why we have an emotions page in a self-defense Website. Emotions are not rational nor are they always appropriate. And yet, this knowledge isn’t going to stop many people from reacting to their ‘internal movies’ and emotional tsunamis.
The problem with this is when it comes to violence, self-defense and crime avoidance your fears can become a reality. More over, wild and unchecked emotions can — and will — get you killed in certain circumstances.
This is not hyperbole or scare tactics. The hundreds of thousands homicides world-wide every year prove that someone losing emotional control in the wrong circumstances is a fatal strategy — especially because most murders are committed by a person in the same emotionally out-of-control state! There are times to be emotional and there are times — if you want to survive — not to be.
Don’t make the mistake in believing we’re talking about everyone needs to become a Stoic — robots sans emotions. (That BTW is an emotional response disguised as a thought). That’s not what we’re saying at all. Emotions are an evolutionary trait that allow us as humans to survive and thrive. So saying ‘don’t have them’ goes against biology, evolution, physiology and psychology. It’s not going to happen.
What we are talking about is circumstances. The best analogy is imagine you are standing on a concrete floor and you toss a lit match onto the ground. What happens?
Nothing. Well except the match burns itself out.
Now imagine that you are standing on the same concrete and throw a lit match down; except this time there’s a quarter inch of gasoline covering the floor. Odds are you aren’t going to get out of that one alive. And even if you do, you’re going to be physically mauled.
Emotions are like that lit match. There are times when you can safely toss them around and there are times that it’s a REALLY bad idea.
The trick is to recognize those times.
There are times where you can be emotional, and there are times when you really need not to let your emotions control your words and actions. Extending the gas and match analogy: Violent people tend to be like the gasoline you’re standing in and your wild and unchecked emotions will serve as the burning match.
It doesn’t matter what you ‘thought’ (and we use that term loosely) you were doing. Often fear manifests itself as bluster, anger or threat display. If you don’t recognize the circumstances, you can end up like the NY actress Nicole duFresne. Her last words — while looking down the barrel of mugger’s pistol — were “What are you going to do? Shoot us?”(1)”
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/emotional.htm
The Left likes to throw oil on the flames of civil strife because they think the only people that suffer will be 1. innocents and 2. the status quo authorities.
Kent State was an excellent example of where the status quo authorities suffered and an innocent student was killed. Because the Communist agitators specifically engaged in property crime and violence in order to force the calling in of the National Guard and then went to provoke them to get just what they did get. Everybody lost, except the Left. They gained power.
They think this way because like most criminals, they know that their best chance to achieve crime is to overpower the victim. Even if this endangers them tactically, if they can overpower the victim then there is no risk of retaliation or struggle.
The Left has gotten used to dealing with serfs, peasants, and slaves. It is easy to manipulate the uneducated, the foolish, the greedy, the envious, the jealous, and those in dire economic straits. It is much much harder to manipulate virtuous men and women. That’s why the Left first and foremost destroys virtue to overwhelm the defenses of a state.
It’s not just the Left’s leaders that are like this. Their followers are the same. It doesn’t matter who they are. Barry, Ozzie, Helen, Kos, LGF, Democrat fund raisers. Their freedom simply means slavery in our language.
Back in my younger liberal days I was a bit of an activist, attending riots – I mean rallies – and marches. Actually, everything I attended was peaceful, but angry, if you know what I mean. People were in an angry mood when they arrived, when they were there, and when they left.
I put aside activism for 35 years, but now I’m back. I’ve attended multiple Tea Party rallies here in Colorado. Among other things, they are simply fun to go to. Lots of creative signs. Lots of signs may express what some may interpret as anger, but the people holding them aren’t angry. Everyone is cheerful, laughing. Sure, a good speaker can general some boos and hisses, but it is all very good-natured. It really is a lot closer to a church picnic than anything else. In fact, I am tempted to follow the advice that someone made tongue-in-cheek and start taking cookies to Tea Party rallies. I can offer them to the police, and to the anti-Tea Party protesters. The police will, of course, love them. I bet the anti’s will too.
Anger makes them feel serious and important.
The best way to deal with the left’s anger, therefore, would be to pierce it with humor. The more we satirize their anger, the more they will be unable to sustain it. But if we treat it seriously, or if we are afraid of the anger, the left will feel empowered.
So let’s all laugh and smirk and keep up all the very dry, cutting remarks. Fire away, shiny, happy people!
>>Anger makes them feel serious and important.>>
Ooooh. Good point. Only “boss” people are “allowed” to be angry. Peons are never allowed to be angry – unless they get angry at peons lower on the social scale. Wife beaters who “simply can’t control themselves” never seem to have that problem with _their_ bosses – just wives and children. So…being angry makes them “superior” to the nice people. It’s a one-upsmanship thing – along with making them people other people want to avoid.
And also – ridicule (which isn’t exactly the same as smiley-happy) is one of the Alinsky rules. You can see them using it – Reid, for example – is ridiculing whoever the woman is that’s running against him, because she’s said that people should be dealing directly with their doctors – even bartering for their services if necessary and that’s all they have. Reid is running a campaign on “chicken clinics”… Ridicule – it’s what they do. People find ridicule very difficult to deal with when they’re the ridiculee. Anger is easier.
Syracuse,NT Tea Party. April, 15, 2010.
I was there and shot the pictures with a cell phone. No memory in the digital camera.
http://miketrani.com/gallery/album02
I love the way the Right has such a short term memory, ignore all their bad deeds and imagine themselves the undeserved victims in all things political.
Yeah, the Tea Parties have such a bad reputation because the media wants it that way. Not because they hold up signs with pictures of Obama as Hitler.
Enjoy the other side of the Tea Parties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI
Here ya go…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/shhh-no-one-tell-media-pro-amnesty.html
Barry, I know you’ve referred to yourself as an academic type. If that is so, how come you have such a terrible time with person-number agreement with nouns? The Right is a singular entity, not a plural. So to say, “I love the way the Right has such a short term memory, ignore all their bad deeds and imagine themselves the undeserved victims in all things political,” just shows incredible sloppiness.
In non-academic Engish (which is all that we knucklewalkers here know how to do), your sentence would have read, “I love the way the Right has such a short term memory, [and] ignores all its bad deeds and imagines itself [to be] the undeserved victim in all things political.”
Please don’t make me come after you again to clean up one of your little messes.
Suek,
That’s the best you got? Let’s go through them one by one… starting from the top left.
1. Revolucion Sin Frontiers
2. Cobierno Opresor! Tu Eres El Invasor!
3. A unicorn through a police officer “Anything is Possible.”
4. “For a world without losers,” a unicorn through a guy.
5. “Boycott AZ, Boycott Israel, no to racism, colonialism and apartheid. No human is illegal.”
6. “Uncle Sam is an illegitimate genocidal terrorist organization.” “Money creates exploitation. Solution: resource economy.”
7. “We are not slaves.” “Documents for all.”
8. “Stop the repression.”
9. “Death to empire.”
10. Guys with flags.
11. Guys with posters – couldn’t read them. (These must be the REALLY bad ones.)
12 Same thing as above.
13. “Stop racist attacks, fight back! Boycott Arizona.”
14. “No human being is illegal.” “Dump the bosses off your back.”
15. “Equal rights to all workers.”
16. Kids with flags.
17. Some red flag.
18. “Stop the raids and deportations!” “Death to the US Imperial Fascists.”
19. “Hitlers daughter.”
20. “Guerrilla Republik.”
You’re right, this is some damning information – these people are out of control!
The worst one has to be 18 and I guess only Glenn Beck watchers are allowed to call someone a “fascist.”
I love the way the Right has such a short term memory, ignore all their bad deeds and imagine themselves the undeserved victims in all things political.- BarryBonds
A few of the signs are offensive. It certainly doesn’t diminish the tea party’s focus– that government is bloated and unresponsive to the taxpayers, and continuing on that path is economic suicide.
Your grammar aside (which Charles has already addressed), my short term memory is holding up fairly well thank you, but the implication of your statement is that our long term memory is deficient. Since these events are recent, you would have been more correct to accuse us of having poor short term memories.
You also might want to distinguish between bad deeds and bad speech. A bad deed is holding up a bank, holding up an offensive sign is better characterized as bad speech.
I don’t really consider myself a victim here. Anyone in the room consider themselves a victim? Anyone? Anyone?
The victims in this unrestrained orgy of Tammany style politics will be my children. We are piling on unsustainable levels of debt, almost none of which is productive (in the sense of producing future growth).
I suppose I might at some future time become a victim, if the government’s response to this crushing debt is to inflate it away. In that case, those folks on fixed incomes will be screwed.
Any concern about the level of debt we are incurring?
Charles, the Right is a collective noun.
Now, did you find any faux errors in the video? Or are you ignoring that?
“You know what tickles me.” When I make a point and I am greeted with a rebuttal in the form of a grammatical corrections or a half attempt at equivalency.
The problem with all collectivists of your ilk, BB, is that you inevitably end up thinking in terms of a hive.
Hey, folks, here is a report from the Rushbo-loving, extreme right-wing San Jose Mercury News concerning a little political event that Barry’s people put on yesterday:
SANTA CRUZ – A large group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker’s and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said.
Many in the group were carrying makeshift torches as they marched, breaking storefront windows and writing “anarchist graffiti” on buildings, according to Capt. Steve Clark. Many businesses sustained multiple broken windows including very large storefront windows at Urban Outfitters and The Rittenhouse building. Police believe at least 15 businesses suffered damage.
The violence was initiated from a group holding a rally at the town clock for May Day. Windows at Jamba Juice and Velvet Underground were left shattered and graffiti including anarchy signs were tagged onto buildings.
Because of the size and violent demeanor of the crowd, Santa Cruz police asked for help from all agencies in the county to break up the riot. At one point, protesters lit a fire on the porch of Caffe Pergolesi and blocked access to firefighters, officers said. Police were able to clear out the demonstrators before more damage was caused.
A large rock sat outside Verizon Wireless on the 100 block of Cooper Street, where vandals tried to break the window twice, according to Clark.
“The damage that was caused was without purpose,” Clark said. “It was senseless violence that victimized a community who cannot afford to be victimized in this manner. This did nothing to add credit to whatever they believed their cause was.”
I know Barry joins me in saying this is classic Tea Partier M.O.
BrianE,
The reason why the Tea Party efforts are diminished by their new found angst is because their angst is newfound.
The country has been on a downward trend in terms of debt for YEARS but all of a sudden when Rick Santelli rants and raves on CNBC about how bad Obama and his policies are in terms of trying to HELP average Americans caught up in the real estate bubble, these average Americans are all of a sudden upset about the national debt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA - Guess who Rick Santelli was talking about when he said: “The losers mortgages.” Take your time.
Also, in case you haven’t realized, Brian, you are a part of the collective so of course my statement about the Right is not going to represent EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE TEAM.
And regards to my statement about “short term memory.” That was used to express the fact that you don’t remember what was going on for the last 8 years. Short term memory means you have an active memory. You only store a little bit of memory – what is recently happening – so when you look at the bad economy you only see Obama as the President and the cause. And beyond short term memory that involves a mis/dis association of government and it roles in the “free market.”
The Rights bad deeds are numerous. But you’ve forgotten all of them which is why you’re telling me about signs and bad speech. I’m shaking my head.
No, I don’t care about the national debt.
When I make a point and I am greeted with a rebuttal…-BarryBonds
You were making a point?
“Charles, the Right is a collective noun.”
Absolutely, Barry. But please note, my academically gifted and refined friend, that a collective noun is singular in form even as it refers to a group of people or things. Thus, the right ignores and imagines, not your goofily ignorant “ignore” and “imagine.”
Where the hell did you go to school? You should sue your teachers.
Charles, thanks for more half attempts at equivalency.
Do you have any more stories about bad Mexicans which will of course offset the bad White people?
See because the more you tell me about bad Mexicans the more Tea Party people become civil and non-racist.
Sorry Charles, in my statement, I am acknowledging that while the Right is a group, there are separate entities within the group. There fore some of the entities do the bad deeds and others within the group ignore the bad deeds and of course this is all under the banner of the Right.
Here wiki explains it better: “However, confusion often stems from the fact that plural verb forms can often be used with the singular forms of these count nouns (for example: “The team have finished the project”). Conversely, singular verb forms can often be used with nouns ending in “-s” that were once considered plural (for example: “Physics is my favorite academic subject”). This apparent “number mismatch” is actually a quite natural and logical feature of human language, and its mechanism is a subtlemetonymic shift in the thoughts underlying the words.” ShaaaaaaazzzzzzzzZAaaaaaaaAAAAAmmmMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, that felt great!
Enough wallowing with semi-literate trolls. On to lighter things. Here’s a great joke from the current issue of Commentary magazine:
Not long after the Kishinev pogrom in 1903, Bentze Birnbaum arranges to buy land in the New World. What he doesn’t know is that the land is in Saskatchewan, in the midst of a tribe of Ojibway Indians. Wishing to assimilate with their neighbors, Bentze and his wife, Sarah, acquire a teepee, wear buckskin, pad around in moccasins, Sarah carries their youngest child in a papoose, the works.
One gray day in November, Sarah says to Bentze that, with winter coming on, he had better go hunting to provide food for the family. So, ever the good husband, Bentze sets out to hunt up provender for Sarah and the children.
Two days later he returns, his scalp bloodied, his left ear hanging loose, claw marks all over his body.
“Nu,” asks his wife, “so what happened?”
“I’ll tell you what happened,” says Bentze. “The first day out, I saw a rabbit, and I used up all my arrows trying to kill it, but with no good result. Farther out, I saw a pack of wolves, who, thank God, didn’t see me.
“All very discouraging, but then, on my way back home, I notice what looks to me a gentle but very large grizzly bear, fast asleep. Ah, I think, steaks for the whole winter for Sarah and the kinder. I call out, ‘Hey, grizzly, darling.’ He wakes and sees me. He’s 50 or so yards away. He growls. Oy, I begin to think, maybe he’s not so gentle, this bear. He charges toward me. He’s now 40 yards away, now 30, now 20, now 10, when I reach into my belt and pull out—the dairy tomahawk.”
The reason why the Tea Party efforts are diminished by their new found angst is because their angst is newfound. The country has been on a downward trend in terms of debt for YEARS but all of a sudden when Rick Santelli rants and raves on CNBC about how bad Obama and his policies are in terms of trying to HELP average Americans caught up in the real estate bubble, these average Americans are all of a sudden upset about the national debt.- BarryBonds
Let’s establish something at the outset. I don’t speak for “the Right”, and I don’t even know who they are. I guess it comes out of the erroneous assumption that conservatives are a monolithic group.
You’re new to this blog and are, of course, unaware of the frustration of the spending habits of the Bush years. I think you are either unaware or ignoring the frustration with the GOP. This frustration was demonstrated when the American public threw them out of office. I would think that would count out as a fairly large protest.
As to the actual budget deficits, the results are mixed. I’ll use deficits as a percentage of GDP, even though that my not be the best metric, but it certainly reflects government spending in some relation to the economy as a whole.
2000- -2.37% (Credit to Clinton and the GOP here)
2001- 1.25%
2002- 1.48%
2003- 3.39%
2004- 3.48%
2005- 2.52%
2006- 1.85%
2007- 1.14%
2008- 3.18%
2009- 9.91%
2010- 10.64%
You have to go back to 1993, when the deficit was 3.8% to find one higher than most of the Bush years.
You have to go back to WWII to find deficits greater than we are piling up today.
It seems rather rational to say, wait a minute is all the spending necessary. As was addressed in another thread, much of the spending is not going to encouraging investment and expansion of jobs, which should be the government’s #1 priority.
Now I don’t think a president should take all the blame when things go bad, and likewise he doesn’t deserve all the credit when things are rosy, but that’s unfortunately the standard as established by the MSM.
But it’s news like this that have people concerned:
The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821
As to Rick Santelli’s characterization of people who can’t afford their homes as “loser’s mortgages”, I can’t comment because there is no way to judge the context of the conversation.
His general point about whether we should bail out homeowners who can’t afford their homes and have little prospects of being productive (such as those with liar loans), or allow the home to go into foreclosure and enter the market owned by someone who is productive is an argument worth having.
At this point, the Fed and the Federal Government seem more concerned about the largest banks than about Joe Homeowner. Of course at this point, the Fed is trying desperately to prevent a return to the great depression.
BarryBonds,
You should care about the national debt.
Why don’t you?
BarryBonds,
Here’s a follow up conversation with Rick Santelli that is less impassioned and he explains what he meant.
Does he make sense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j53a5SWvT0&feature=related
Commenter Barry has a point: We were NOT sufficiently critical of Bush deficits as a conservative whole.
But truth is an onion with many layers that can compete with each other; the idea is that the outside layer is the most important truth, trumping inner layers that contain SOME truth. Barry’s “truth” is an inner layer, far more one-sided than we are. (Those of us here in Book’s domain…)
For all the good that Bush did, his deficits HAVE in fact weakened our argument. His adoption, with nary any criticism, of the TARP bailout, also weakens us tragically. It would be disingenuous of us not to realize that a good percentage of the 2009 Obama deficits are tied to Bush’s TARP approval. Let me also say that that TARP approval is also the Democratic House and Senate approval as well.
We must admit Bush’s involvement in our catastrophic deficit and debt situation. Then we can focus on how Obama has doubled down on it, and then doubled down AGAIN, and doubled down AGAIN, and doubled down AGAIN. And doubled down AGAIN. He’s so much worse.
If only Bush had been politically astute enough to at least appear to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly agreeing to the TARP bailout. If only he’d been stronger on the terrifying and horrifying debt crisis that continues to build like a mile-high tidal wave that guarantees our eventual total destruction.
But he wasn’t.
The only point BB has is that he and his people aren’t the ones ready to take care of anything more major than an ice cream shop.
>>The reason why the Tea Party efforts are diminished by their new found angst is because their angst is newfound.>>
Better late than never. Are you saying that if you arrived home to find your home on fire and no firemen, you wouldn’t call same firemen to put out the fire because “well, it had already burned up the garage”?
Mike,
I always assumed that Bush allowed the deficits for a couple of reasons– non-defense discretionary spending was allowed to expand in exchange for the war funding and Bush was not a conservative.
Looking at the data now, the deficit spending in 2003 and 2004 is in line with all other post-recession years. In 1982- 3.93%; 1984- 4.72%; 1985- 5.03%; 1986- 4.96%. Following the 1990 recession the deficit as a % of GDP was 1991- 4.49%; 1992- 4.58%.
The combination of the tech bubble bursting and 9/11 could have made the beginning of this decade a lot worse. The problem was masked by the monetary policy which was one of the factors in the housing bubble.
As to the TARP, the conservative in me wanted to allow the banks to fail and prices to seek a new equilibrium. The pragmatist in me was just as worried as everyone else that a general worldwide depression would be catastrophic. The pessimist in me believes we have merely delayed the inevitable. There are more defaults in the wings. I think we’re on the same page here.
The fact that the Dodd bill contains provisions protecting the biggest banks tells me that Congress doesn’t think the worst is over either. Our intellectual pride that we are now able to control the economy with such precision is going to be seriously tested in this layman’s opinion.
Saw this AM that Germany is pledging 29.xB for Greece(I don’t know if that is Euros or dollars). The question is whether they’re throwing good money after bad….
Very long article, but worth the time I think. It points out the connections between the moneymen and the Dems – when it started. He uses an unusual chart of party contributions by zip codes to evaluate the money support for the Democrat party. (well, maybe it’s not unusual, but I’ve never seen it done by Zip before, and he connects the zip codes to those with the big bucks.)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/american-oligarchy
More economic stuff, if you’re interested. There’s another article on the main page today that’s interesting – except that I don’t understand it really. It’s a statement of position – based on why he formed the Tickers, and earlier, when he first got involved in the internet, refused to host pornography, and won’t tolerate certain actions by commentors today. Very interesting – even if I don’t understand what he’s talking about…it’s obviously a matter of principle – I just don’t understand the specifics, though I get the general drift. How _do_ you learn about the market and trading? Is there no other way other than joining a trading company?? That’s why I keep reading – but there’s so much to learn…I despair!
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2262-Greek-Dog-Squeeze-Now-Accepted-At-ECB.html
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2261-Regulatory-Capture-Defined-Sheila-Bair.html
Brian, I never said the right was a “monolithic” group – you guys however are a group
Also, I lived through every year of the Bush Administration and i don’t remember a republican spending as much time on Bush’s spending as the republicans have spent on Obamas birth certificate. So to try and equate the two bouts of anger is disingenuous at best.
Your numbers do not accurately reflect what actually happened with the debt or the publics response to the debt.
If your numbers are correct the Tea Parties preemptively got angry about the debt because it wouldn’t have been accrued/calculated until the end of 2009. But since you’re wrong the Tea Party timeline is unimportant. Refer to all the fact checking organizations out there if you want the truth about the Obama debt vs the Bush debt. Here is one to begin your journey: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
No, it wasn’t the MSM that decided to blame Obama for everything that was the Right and Fox News.
As far as Rick Santelli, he is a hack and a liar. Anyone who was in real estate or mortgages know that the root cause of the financial crisis was loose bank regulations. He is berating average people on behalf of the average people. What a scum bag.
>>the root cause of the financial crisis was loose bank regulations.>>
BB…
Do you know what the CRA is? When it originated, and action taken by the Clinton administration? Do you know what the Glass-Steagal regulation is/was?
Also…what a NINJA loan is?
Sorry, but the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis, nor did Glass Steagal. And of course Ninja loans had a lot to do with it – but the Ninja loans weren’t invented by the consumers or the government that was strictly a product created by the banks to keep taking advantage of the real estate fever.
I doubt you know enough about either the CRA or Glass Steagal to accurately articulate how they had anything to do with the crisis.
The entire crisis was born out of low interest rates, loose regulation and greed. Low interest rates means your house which was worth $100,000 became worth $120,000 over night when the interest rates were lowered. So now you have families who are $20,000 richer who now want to use that money to go buy a new house because that was the trend. That is what all their friends were doing. So if you’ve got an out of control demand what are you going to do? Restrict the supply? No. You are going to fabricate as many houses as you can to fulfill the demand. So if you’ve got buyer who now have more money than they did before you can go to the bank and get a construction loan because the demand was there.
If you had a pool of 1,000,000 people who could legitimately qualify for a home loan BUT you had enough money chasing those 1,000,000 people to satisfy 2,000,000 you are going to have to justify how the pool doubled in size as a banker to your investors. Suddenly you create all these new loans which will increase your pool of qualified home buyers by double.
Brian, I never said the right was a “monolithic” group – you guys however are a group- BarryBonds
I would like to know who specifically are “you guys”.
Your numbers do not accurately reflect what actually happened with the debt or the publics response to the debt.- BarryBonds
The source of my numbers came from here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit
If you don’t like those numbers about these from OMB:
2000- -2.4% (surplus)
2001- -1.3% (surplus)
2002- 1.5%
2003- 3.5%
2004- 3.6%
2005- 2.6%
2006- 1.9%
2007 Est- 1.8%
2008 Est- 1.6%
2009 Est- 1.2%
2010 Est- 0.6%
Page 24, Historical Tables
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Gotta go. Will sort out the time line later.
>>I doubt you know enough about either the CRA or Glass Steagal to accurately articulate how they had anything to do with the crisis.>>
Perhaps you’re right. Maybe you could explain to me why people might _think_ that one or both of them figured into the crisis?
Looking for more info, ran across this article:
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-the-current-financial-and-mortgage-crisis-part-two-of-an-indepth-investigative-report.html
It’s really long, but also very interesting. It doesn’t exactly answer all the questions…but like so much we can find on the net, makes available lots of research efforts most of us would be unable or unwilling to do…
Suek, its simple: minorities make the best scapegoats. And Bill Clinton makes the second best scapegoat.
The Republicans are doing their best to re-write history and what amazes me is that the media lets them do it.
BB…
You might want to check out that link before you make that judgment. The writer appears to be a liberal, and pro Democrat.
The country has been on a downward trend in terms of debt for YEARS-BarryBonds
And regards to my statement about “short term memory.” That was used to express the fact that you don’t remember what was going on for the last 8 years.- BarryBonds
Based on what you said, I assumed you wanted to talk about debt, and specifically the debt run up during the Bush administration. So I presented data that showed, despite the protestations by the left, the Bush deficits were relatively small historically coming out of a recession, and until the housing bubble burst, were trending down and expected to taper off. You didn’t like my source, so I used OMB, which showed the same basic pattern. I would have liked to continue building a surplus and was critical of Bush for his deficit, but he did what we traditionally do during a recession– prime the pump with government spending.
The left demonized the Bush administration for that, even though they could care less about the spending, they were looking for a club to whack Bush with. You said it yourself– “I don’t care about the national debt.” And neither do your friends on the left.
The tea party movement has gained steam as a result of the sheer magnitude of the growth of government deficits. To criticize the movement (which only began in 2006 as an offshoot of the Libertarian Party) because they weren’t equally critical of Bush’s spending is to ignore the tremendous growth of unsustainable debt. I’d be happy to acknowledge Bush’s role in the TARP, as Mike Devx pointed out in a previous post.
Also, I lived through every year of the Bush Administration and i don’t remember a republican spending as much time on Bush’s spending as the republicans have spent on Obamas birth certificate. So to try and equate the two bouts of anger is disingenuous at best. Your numbers do not accurately reflect what actually happened with the debt or the publics response to the debt.- BarryBonds
This makes so little sense, I’m not sure how to respond. Somehow you’ve morphed a discussion about the historic debt into Obama’s birth certificate. Of course you would want to divert the discussion. While I’m sure some in the tea party movement sincerely question Obama’s motives for obscuring his birth records, that is not the core tenet of the tea party movement, as far as I’m aware.
As to the public’s response to the Bush and the Republican deficits, the voters stripped the Republicans of power in 2006. I think that was a very loud shout out that they didn’t like the direction of federal spending.
As far as Rick Santelli, he is a hack and a liar.-BarryBonds
Ad Hominem attacks. That’s all you seem to do well. Santelli was making the case that the government could give interest free loans to a small segment of the population if they want (free because lowering their rate to the proposed 4.5% wouldn’t keep them in their homes anyway), but they should also help people who were productive and would provide more return to the economy.
You’re going to have to be more specific about your objections to his position.
BarryBonds,
At this point I’ve asked you three direct questions– in post #29, #30, and #41. Please answer those questions.
We can talk about the CRA, the Banking Act of 1933, the GSE’s, Citicorp and Travellers merger, Commodity Futures Trading Act of 2000, monetary policy, NINJA loans, Fed policy, Congresses failure to reign in the GSE’s, greed and other issues that resulted in the housing bust, in fact we can debate the entire mess– since Congress is unwilling to.
Brian, brian, brian, brian, brian… you are failing at your hollow attempt at being civil and objective.
I can tell through your silly comments that you are actually seething underneath the surface.
On one hand you present a data chart which you admit “my[sic] not be the best metric.” BUT you’re surprised when in your words: “you didn’t like my source.” Your ‘source’ was trash. I provided you one fact check among many which destroyed your entire argument and you jumped right over it. Now, how civil and objective is that? Wait a sec. I am assuming you were trying to be civil and objective. I could be wrong. You were probably doing your best to just be right.
Bush had two wars running at the same time and yet you’re trying to gloss over it like means nothing. How in your mind can you try to equate 8 years of low taxes, low interest rates, two wars, prescription drugs, a bank bailout and who knows what else to what….a stimulus? It’s o.k. for Bush to “prime the pump” but Obama, presiding over a CRISIS, is wreck-less. Right?
Brian, man, I gotta give you props for trying to deal with Barry. You are engaged in a zero-sum game with a troll. Even though all of us here know you to be a civil person, your attempt to treat Barry as you do all others is, according to him, ”hollow.” And you are, in the eyes of our semi-literate, but surprisingly telepathic, pest, “seething with anger.” This is a projection designed to elicit from you exactly what Barry himself feels since he is, apparently, incapable of conducting himself calmly—not only in this room, but most likely in life itself.
You offered several data sources, each of which he rejected with disdain. Please understand that the point of this wretched behavior is that the power trolls seek has nothing to do with the self-mastery involved in the civil or logical discussion of an issue. The point is to exercise the one power that their own lack of civility, logic or command of language leaves open to them: that of frustrating goodwilled people like you or suek.
Do you remember the scene in “1984″ when O’Brien tells Winston Smith that the aim of the Party is the exercise of raw, malicious power? That there is nothing Winston can do to dissaude the Party from continuing to torture him because the ability to cause and inflict misery is the essence of its nature?
Think of Barry as you would the Party. He is both totally indifferent and inaccessible to your arguments. You are, in Jesus’s perfect words, “casting pearls before swine.”
my[sic] not be the best metric.- BarryBonds
Your ’source’ was trash.- BarryBonds
I’ll give you the choice if % of GDP doesn’t satisfy you. Actually the OMB data correlates well with Chantrill’s data. What exactly is trash? It’s just a comparison of the deficit to GDP.
I can tell through your silly comments…-BarryBonds
Specifically, which ones are silly?
I provided you one fact check among many which destroyed your entire argument and you jumped right over it.-BarryBonds
OK, let’s look at the link you provided.
“On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama’s number was very close on the 2009 deficit — he said $1.3 trillion — but substantially different from the 10-year projection — he said $8 trillion.”
[snip]
“The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010 and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward. The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline that those tax cuts would be renewed.”
So tell me BarryBonds, is Barack going to recommend that congress renew the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2011, since according to this report that’s the basis for Barack’s claims of an $8 trillion 10-year deficit?
The story doesn’t make sense.
Then add this to the mix:
In a worrisome development, CBO projects that federal budget deficits, after dropping sharply, then will begin to rise continuously from 4.1 percent of GDP in 2014 to 5.6 percent in 2020.
For the 2016-20 period, CBO estimates that deficits will average more than 5 percent of GDP, even while assuming the economy will be near full employment, with an average jobless rate of 5 percent during that same five-year period.
One economist concerned about unsustainable fiscal policy in the out years is OMB Director Peter R. Orszag.
“Deficits in the, let’s say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable,” Mr. Orszag acknowledged to reporters on March 20, 2009, two months after the administration entered office.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/?page=2
Bush had two wars running at the same time and yet you’re trying to gloss over it like means nothing. How in your mind can you try to equate 8 years of low taxes, low interest rates, two wars, prescription drugs, a bank bailout and who knows what else to what….a stimulus?- BarryBonds
No gloss here. We started talking about historic debt. Let’s nail down this 10-year budget issue before moving on.
Yes Charles, I am a troll. But what I am not is delusional. I can see right and wrong and I don’t have to carry water for anyone. The most recent arguments of the Right have been riddled with holes. Why else do you think they are so fond of an echo chamber. Fox News only features the same people with the same platitudes. You cannot find a Republican who does not speak in talking points.
You want me to respect that? You want me to follow that? You want me to listen to that? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Charles,
Do you suppose Ozzie has been re-incarnated as a man?
You want me to respect that? You want me to follow that? You want me to listen to that?- BarryBonds
Nope, just want you to answer the questions.
“Yes Charles, I am a troll.”
Truth will out.
Brian: No. Ozzie was not as angry and incoherent.
Whew, that makes me feel better.
I was worried Ozzie had gone in for a sex change and gotten a lobotomy instead.
Brian, let’s agree on some things before we go any further. Can we agree that Bush had done more damage fiscally in his 8 years than Obama could in his 1?
Here is a post from someone more educated then me on the subject:
Shame on Heritage for showing Bush’s on-budget debt (not actual debt) to Obama’s projected total actual debt. Like Bush’s cost of gas for his car vs Obama’s total cost of car ownership. Makes for a pretty one sided chart.
Bush added 6 tril total to the debt in 8yrs (5.8-11.9). With no change in tax or spending policy another 7-8 tril would be added in the next 10yrs (about the same per year). But with Bush tax cuts expiring, war spending going down in Iraq, TARP now revenue positive and loss projections droping fast, stimulus spending ending next summer and GDP growth higher than expected, we will see annual deficit and projections, drop like a rock over the next 3yrs.
Remember the Democrats are the fiscal converatives. Only 14% of this nations debt has come from Democratic administrations and the last one produced a surplus. Thats right 86% of our debt came from Republican administrations.
Economic growth is always higher under Democrats and stock markets returns higher which add to revenue and reduce debt. They are the masters of the economy and masters of capitalism.
On bailouts: Obama did not add any new companies or industries to the bailout. All bailout campanies got their first check from Bush.
On Stimulus spending: Regan had his own stimulus spending program and it was larger. But it mostly went to defence contractors which is one reason it was slow to work. But he boosted goveronment spending by almost 95% in the 80’s. And so did Bush. It was the buildup for the Iraq war in late 02 and early 03 that finally got us to positive job growth in late 03 his 32nd month in office and spending under Bush grew by about 80%…..Clinton 28%.
The Stimulus turned the economy from a growth rate of -6.5 to +2.2 in just 6 months and to +5.6 in just 9. A 12 point turnaround that economists will still be studying 100 yrs from now. And that Heritage will not be able to explain.
Much the way Heritage cant explain why the economy went down when taxes were lowered in late 80’s and why the economy went up in 90’s with tax increases. Or when taxes at their lowest in 6 decades we saw the worst economy since the 30’s last decade. Only 3 years of job growth in past 10. Best years under Regan taxes were 50% for anyone earning over 200K.
Every move the economy has made in the last 30 years contradicts Heritage and yet they are still here and people still believe this Republican supply side stuff.
Man, I love this stuff.
So tell me BarryBonds, is Barack going to recommend that congress renew the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2011, since according to this report that’s the basis for Barack’s claims of an $8 trillion 10-year deficit? The story doesn’t make sense.
Still waiting for a response.
Still waiting.
Obama says he is going to let the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 expire.
You don’t have to address post 56 – we’ll just ignore it and pretend like it doesn’t exist.
Regarding 29, I don’t care about the national debt because it doesn’t directly affect my daily life and I could care less about looking at it as a political football. When an administration has the desire and capacity to take care of it it will be taken care of. Just like you don’t begrudge an administration for “priming the pump,” why should I?
Regarding 30, Rick Santelli, is like I said, using average people to demonize average people. For some strange reason he is only holding the home owner responsible for the strawman argument that a person bought a $800,000 house when they could only afford a $400,000 house. We were in the midst of a financial crisis and by Feburary 2009 millions of people already lost their jobs so even if you bought a house for $100,000 you couldn’t pay your mortgage if you had no job. So if in Feburary 2009 you were cheering with Rick Santelli and in March 2009 you lost your job tell me if you were still cheering. Rick is a really, really, silly person and he is the father of the Tea Party, so I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Do you think it is a coincidence that Rick is only holding the cosumers feet to the fire?
41 – The Right, Republicans, Conservatives….
Silly comments – (1) “The left demonized the Bush administration for that, even though they could care less about the spending, they were looking for a club to whack Bush with. You said it yourself– “I don’t care about the national debt.” And neither do your friends on the left.”
(2) “The tea party movement has gained steam as a result of the sheer magnitude of the growth of government deficits.” Really?
Obama says he is going to let the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 expire.- BarryBonds
That’s a non answer. According to your link (which you offered as proof of exactly nothing) CBO scored the next 10-year deficit at $3.1 trillion, while Obama’s administration claimed it will be $8 trillion. Obama said that was because they were counting the Bush tax cuts, even though they will expire in 2010. The conclusion one could draw from that is Obama plans on recommending congress reauthorize those tax rates. I’m sure his base will happy to hear that.
I’m assuming you have no explanation to that.
Brian, let’s agree on some things before we go any further. Can we agree that Bush had done more damage fiscally in his 8 years than Obama could in his 1?- BarryBonds
No, and in some respects it’s irrelevant what Obama’s first budget is other than an indication of where he plans on taking the country fiscally. I will say this:
George Bush and both a Republican and Democrat congress have put us in a bad position economically.
But that’s the past, though apparently that’s the battle you want to fight. As Mike Devx said in #31:
“We must admit Bush’s involvement in our catastrophic deficit and debt situation. Then we can focus on how Obama has doubled down on it, and then doubled down AGAIN, and doubled down AGAIN, and doubled down AGAIN. And doubled down AGAIN. He’s so much worse.”
There is really nothing else that needs to be said. In case you don’t want to believe Mike D. there’s this:
“In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama’s budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
And that, of course, is from that wacko right wing news organization, The Washington Post.
Take a good look at the graph. Pictures are worth a thousand words.
Barack Obama’s policies are going to be devastating because he’s allied himself with the most left-wing element of his party. He had an opportunity to live up to his lofty rhetoric of uniting, rising above petty politics. Most of the country believed him. He sounded so sincere.
So if in Feburary 2009 you were cheering with Rick Santelli and in March 2009 you lost your job tell me if you were still cheering.- BarryBonds
Santelli was referring to a proposal to lower the mortgage interest rate for certain homeowners. His point was that lowering their interest rates from 6-7% to a special rate of 4.75% (I believe that was the proposal) was not going to solve the problem. Those people would still not be able to afford their mortgage.
I was laid off 5/11/2009.
But this is just a distraction.
I’ll address #56 later, since I’ve gotta go.
“For all the good that Bush did, his deficits HAVE in fact weakened our argument. ”
Bush was attempting and suceeding at cutting deficits in half ever year or so. Certainly it was decreasing as a percentage of the GDP by significant margins. The Democrat congress of 06 and the Dem engineered housing crash of 08, of course, generated emergencies that then duped Republicans into going for “government solutions”. Of course, all the Republican attempts to reform TARP so that it would actually do some good went down the drain because Dems refused to enforce them.
“We must admit Bush’s involvement in our catastrophic deficit and debt situation.”
What good would that do. Would the Dems automatically start cooperating instead of shitting on America? Would the Dems word then be “good”? Would Americans be able to somehow forget about the past and work towards the future?
Not going to happen.
“If only Bush had been politically astute enough to at least appear to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly agreeing to the TARP bailout.”
Bush already demonstrated his level of propaganda skill in 2001-6. Bush’s abilities in this department are personally deficient. I am far superior than him in this arena. And Obama is far superior to me. So where would Bush be, ya think? However, I do not have Bush’s personal charisma or leadership skills, nor the resiliency to handle public pressure the way he has. Thus he is still the better leader than me.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he should ignore such things. He could always have hired a propagandist that was well versed in such matters yet was loyal to the Cause. Petraeus is one example of such a person concerning military affairs. But notice how Bush didn’t even realize how much of an asset Petraeus was until Dick Cheney and some other people brought the name petraeus to Bush.
The number of loyal and conscientious propagandists that the Republicans have access to basically comes down to one name: Dick Morris. Whereas the Republicans had access to a far broader military sphere of general officers. Yet they still FAILED to find the right person. How much more difficult would it have been for them to find a propagandist, when only one propagandist was ever worth anything.
“Then we can focus on how Obama has doubled down on it”
You fell into the same trap Bush did. They told Bush that if he signed off on pork, that they would then not get in the way of Iraq funds. They told Bush No Child Left Behind was golden. They told Republicans that TARP funds would be regulated well and have high standards and only apply to certain organizations that wanted them.
They, as you do, think this “compromise” would net them mutual benefits. They and you are wrong. Falling into the trap of admitting something or giving something away to the enemy is not going to cause the enemy to give us something of equal value in return. It simply lets open the gates for the barbarians.
The evidence is indisputable. It is not just obama, either.
We will never get a chance to “focus on Obama” after stepping on that trap because we’d have been blown sky high.
“You want me to respect that? You want me to follow that? You want me to listen to that? ”
I don’t want to hear what you think who “respect” is due given your undivided loyalty in the cause of Dictators like Obama. You’re not qualified to judge, loyal follower of the Dear Leader.
“Let’s nail down this 10-year budget issue before moving on.”
Becareful, 5 or 10 year plans look mighty good to the left, Brian.
“I was worried Ozzie had gone in for a sex change and gotten a lobotomy instead.”
That was Biden, man.
“Can we agree that Bush had done more damage fiscally in his 8 years than Obama could in his 1?”
As you can see, Mike, step into that trap and it’s all over for you. Alinsky models weren’t designed to make “compromises” or “mutually beneficial” deals.
“Remember the Democrats are the fiscal converatives. Only 14% of this nations debt has come from Democratic administrations and the last one produced a surplus.”
I see that Leftist indoctrination camps are doing a good job of putting the power of the purse in the hands of the Executive Dictatorship. The Left’s love affair with Saddam like Strong Men knows no bounds. Btw, it is impossible that 14% of this nation’s debt has come from Democrat administrations simply because the Democrats have had the Presidency in almost all the social expansions of the federal fisc. As the Democrats said, there are no rules, they just make them up as they go along. Same with stats.
“Regarding 29, I don’t care about the national debt because it doesn’t directly affect my daily life”
As you can see, debt slaves, plantation field hands, and house servants are what the Left produces whenever they breath let alone control the reins of US power.
I have two choices. I either hold these people personally responsible or I think of them as tools that got in my way.
Well…BB may not be worried about the debt, but I sure am…!
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2271-Does-Anyone-Remember-1931.html
Also read an article somewhere about whether the government might call in all gold as well – as FDR did, making it illegal to own bullion. Whoever it was felt that was not likely, but that there would be some sort of tax on gold.
Ymarsakar, that was a manly display of manliness. Never before has such a bold and masterful dispatching of a straw man ever been witness before.
Line them up and then tear them down: Liberals are slaves – dead!, Liberals hate America – dead and gone!, Liberal hate capitalism – explosion!
Stick with the program BB. You’ll be clean yet.
I said I would respond to #56. I should ask for the link, since you are just repeating someone else, but here goes.
With no change in tax or spending policy another 7-8 tril would be added in the next 10yrs- BarryBonds
You keep saying this, but tax policy is changing. The Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. At this point, the only way the tax rates will remain as they are is if a democrat congress renews them. Are you saying the democrats are going to spit in the face of their base?
we will see annual deficit and projections, drop like a rock over the next 3yrs.- BarryBonds
See my post above. The CBO estimates that Obama administration proposals would increase the debt by $9.3 trillion (as reported by The Washington Post).
Only 14% of this nations debt has come from Democratic administrations and the last one produced a surplus. Thats right 86% of our debt came from Republican administrations.-BarryBonds
It would be more relevant to say that most of the nations debt has come from Democrat congresses. The fact of the matter is that congress holds the power of the purse. President’s can turn blue in the face, but they can’t spend a dime more than congress authorizes. Certainly the president sets the agenda, and yes divided government has been our only relief from rising debt– for the most part.
Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969–more than 40 years ago.
[snip]
More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively. The Republican majority Congress elected in November 1994 presided over two fiscal years with declining deficits—fiscal 1996 and 1997—before it initially balanced the budget in fiscal 1998. In fiscal 1996 and 1997, the deficits were $107.4 billion and $21.9 billion respectively. In the 2000 election, Republicans retained control of the House but the Senate split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In May 2001, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties from Republican to Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, giving the Democrats the effective majority and making then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) the majority leader. That split Congress was responsible for the appropriations for fiscal 2002, which put the federal government back into a deficit. After Republicans regained control of the Senate in the November 2002 elections (thus taking control of the budget process for fiscal 2004 which would begin on Oct. 1, 2003), the all-Republican Congress continued running deficits for four fiscal years (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). During that time, with President George W. Bush in the White House, the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches but failed to balance the budget. In the November 2006 elections, Democrats won back the majority in both the House and Senate, and in the three fiscal years that have started since then (2008, 2009, 2010), they have run record deficits of $458.6 billion, $1.41 trillion and $1.55 trillion. The estimated deficit for this fiscal year (2010) of $1.55 trillion is more than three times as large as the $458.6 billion deficit that President George W. Bush presided over with a Democratic Congress in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2010, of course, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress as well as the White House. Since 1960, the federal budget has been balanced in only 6 fiscal years. For two of those fiscal years—1960 and 1969—Democrats controlled Congress. For four—1998, 1999, 2000, 2001—Republicans controlled Congress.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62793
So, what’s the point of all this? A revolt by the Tea Party movement. Remember, the Tea Party is not a Republican cover group. We need to throw out both Republican and Democrat politicians who continue to obfuscate, dissemble and procrastinate about the pressing issue of spiraling government obligations.
To the extent that the movement deviates from this narrow and critical focus, the message with voters will be diminished.
Brian…
This link is now OT since you’ve moved on to the deficit stuff, but it’s an interesting article about the rating agencies. Apparently the government had their mitts into that as well. I hadn’t realized that.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/09/time-to-break-up-credit-rating-cartel.html
And as if that weren’t enough…
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/obama-administration-makes-plans-to-gobble-up-401ks/
[...] ear, yet he’s often little more than an Id waiting to explode. Of course, since the whole Democratic party seems to be operating on the anger principle, perhaps he’s the perfect First Officer for a ship determined to ram (or, should I say, Rahm) [...]
Here are another couple of interesting links. The first seems to have possible connections with our various Wall street traders, the second is just more about the global warming possible fraud, which is naturally, included within the first link. It’s like living in a mystery novel – with no likelihood of learning absolutely who the bad guys are!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/carbon_credit_traders_in_eu_ra.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/virginia_ag_investigates_possi.html
Yet another. _WHY_ such resistance to having the Fed audited? Much like the birther issue, one can’t help but think that where there is so much effort expended on covering something up, there must be something potentially damning being covered up…
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/political-hypocrisy-obama-backs.html
More warnings.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2281-Moral-Hazard-Mortal-Hazard.html
And by the way…
BrianE…have I told you I think you’re terrific? I can link…I may have an inkling of understanding the issues…but _you_! You put it all together!
Thank you!
suek,
You make be blush.
I enjoy your perspective and your links are always worth reading.
I think Y put this thread to bed at #62, though sometimes he’s a little too subtle for my tastes.
Heh, I would think the chief complaint against me would be that I’m too blunt and “extreme” rather than too subtle.
Y,
Sometimes my humor is so subtle, even I don’t get it.
Suek,
Re: Your link in #72. IMO Denninger has it right. The question is whether we still have time to change course.
“We may still choose to do what needs to be done voluntarily before it is imposed on us. We can force those banking institutions to eat their own cooking. We can expel those in government who were part of the web of scams and fraud from government and take our nation back – peacefully.
We can force the large financials to mark to market – for everything. We can force all assets back onto balance sheets, and ban by law, with criminal felony penalties, all gaming attempts through “off sheet” vehicles. We can reverse with the stroke of a pen the CFTC override on state gaming laws that made naked Credit Default Swaps a monstrous casino with no social utility. And we can demand that any attempt to game claimed asset valuations by claiming non-performing loans are “money good”, as is going on right now with homes where people haven’t made a payment in 2+ years yet their first and HELOC are carried at above recovery value, result in criminal prosecution for bank fraud. Fannie and Freddy’s hidden gameplaying, which has now cost in losses over two years more than they earned in the previous 30, will end.
Doing so will cause a number of large financial institutions to either disintegrate into their constituent parts, with some worth zero and bond and shareholders getting severely haircut, or if they resist, they will fail. Home prices will fall to the point where they are truly affordable nationwide, perhaps to as low as 2x incomes on average.
The average family that decides to live in an austere fashion and save will be able to buy for cash within a decade’s time.
[snip]
Yes, austerity sucks.
But voluntary austerity can be peaceful, even if it’s painful.
Externally-imposed austerity at best usually leads to civil unrest and can result in civil war. Should the Greek situation result in the police flipping to the side of the demonstrators, they will lose their government.”
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
suek,
If you’re interested in who did what to whom as it relates to derivatives like CDS, read this:
http://www.netrootsmass.net/2008/11/series-introduction/
Make sure to read the timeline (quite lengthy). I was unaware of how long the battle had been going on.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
You’re right. It’s long – and involved. I don’t think I’ll finish it in one sitting. Oh well…yet another bookmark!
” Sometimes my humor is so subtle, even I don’t get it.”
In what fashion is that so?
Y,
It was supposed to be irony.
Now if you want to see something _REALLY_ funny (or not!), check this out:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/oops.html
Heh. Bet _someone_ gets laid off…!!
Oh, I see.