Republicans slam Obama for spending

and his solution was??????? Thought so.......it is a mess cleaning up after the republicans.

Under the Bush-Chedney-Republican watch:
The war and occupation of Iraq.
The incompetence and financial disaster after Hurricane Katrina.
The Wall Street con game, gone awry.
The deregulation and privatization of our own government.
The onslaught of Corporate Greed.
Now, you know why President Obama was forced to borrow, to clean up the Republican's mess and it is not over, yet. So, you better order some more tea bags. It will be a while, before their mess is completely cleaned up !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

The "Tea-Parties" were so childish it is beyond comprehension. But I guess we should be used to the whining, cry-babies that republicans are.

The original Boston Tea Party was about "taxation without representation". Which, of course, is not the case today. The GOP had the upper-hand on "representation" when they controlled congress and the White House from '01 thru '06. And their reckless policies, and the trillion spent on an immoral war got us into the mess Obama is now trying to clean up.

Ever hear the old phrase "you have to spend money to make money?" Well, that is the position Bush put us in. And Obama and congress had little options but to help create programs with this "spending".

billy, is it true you are on the DHS watch list as a lefty cyber extremist? How could that be since you are on the tea party bandwagon against government spending and waste during the Bush admin.? Or is it you just slobber over Democrat spending, debt and Obama's "justified" war. What about those political prisoners on that nasty air base in Afghan? Their "rights" are being trampled. Obama is still listening using those dreaded Bush rules for intelligence! Where is the outrage! Get with it, man!

Let us not forget...the stimulus packages started last spring under the Bush administration. They continued through the summer and onto the bailouts on Bush's watch last fall. Both sides in congress helped them along so let's stop placing blame, moved forward and start acting like adults.

So what's the Repulican's genius solution to the liquidity trap that they created? Let me guess . . . Drill baby Drill? or is it Gov't Spending Freeze? or No DEATH TAX? or CUT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES? or "Gays are destroying Our Hetero Marriages"? or "Go to war with Iran?"

Until the Republicans start doing something other than crying and complaining , like coming up with some (good)idea's of their own, no one is going to take them seriously.

Let me see if I can make this clear for the Republican teabaggers.

If you're spending to tear up another country (Iraq), that is wasteful and stupid.

If you are giving huge tax cuts to those who already have a lot of money, that's stupid.

If you tear up our country and don't care about the infrastructure, that's incredibly stupid.

On the other hand - if you spend a lot of money because the previous administration left you with a damaged economy, a fractured infrastructure and an enormous mess, that's not stupid. Why? Because when someone sets fire to your house, you don't start arguing with the fireman about the cost of the WATER.

And when President Obama is spending money to rebuild what the Bush administration destroyed, arguing with that is rather ridiculous.

Unless, of course, the Repugs LIKE having a deeply damaged economy and bridges that fail.

Bush spent way too much. Obama is like Imleda Marcos in a show store - spending on steroids.

Lochness,

I agree w/you on the Stimulus last spring - a waste of money. It doesn't work when you give money to those that don't create jobs. Bush was trying to democrat-lite

Grandstanding over the latest fake outrage is what Republicans have proven time and time they do best. And of course, there is usually a conflict between reality and the very thing(s) they are protesting. With taxes, there have been a lot of counter frames, but the reality of it is, even though views of paying income tax is at the highest level since the 1950’s, taxes pay for a helluva lot of stuff that We the People take for granted.

Sure, it would be better (much better) if we could pay less or if we could get better and more comprehensive health care coverage or they weren’t wasted or that there weren’t so many loopholes for the $100 billion in annual lost revenue from tax shelters.

But one of the best ways to counter this ridiculous show of hypocrisy and sour grapes is to start pushing the discussion of taxes into a direction of the services that we receive and take advantage of every day – and frankly, take for granted. These services that would (1) likely cost a whole lot more if they were privatized, and in a number of instances (2) would be poorer service if provided in a privatized manner.

Let’s start with some of the basics – firefighters, first responders and police. If one of the teabaggers’ house was on fire, would they let it burn because of the "waste" of their money going to pay for firefighters? Or if their house was broken into, would they be ok with the police not investigating it? What about on 9/11 – would it have been better if the NYPD or the FDNY didn’t save all of the people in the Towers before they fell?

How about the military? Talk about not supporting the troops. How will we fight all of the wars that the republicans wanted (and want) us to fight? Or take the events from this past week – who would have rescued Captain Phillips from the Somali pirates if our taxes didn’t pay to train the Navy SEALS? Is national security no longer something that the teabaggers are interested in?

Should there be no air travel, since air traffic controllers are public employees, paid with our tax dollars? And should there be no mail delivery, since the US Postal Service is also paid for by our tax dollars (and even with the increasing cost of postage, it is still way better than private courier)? And public schools – which I am sure that many of these teabaggers send their children to as private schools are fairly costly. Should our children continue to fall further and further behind other countries in terms of education?

Take it to the most local level too. Taxes pay for garbage collection, paving of roads, snow removal, salting the roads when they ice over, building and repairing bridges, tunnels and in many instances, public transit. Will the teabaggers never leave their houses to travel on these bridges, roads and tunnels? Will they let their garbage pile up for weeks, months or years?

What about something as basic as food safety? Making sure that food isn’t poisoned with hazardous chemicals and is prepared according to basic standards? How about the FDIC insuring deposits of our hard earned money? Will the teabaggers be happy losing their savings if their bank goes under? What about cleaning up when the private companies spill hazardous waste – take the Exxon spill, the oil spills after hurricane Katrina, train crashes that release toxic chlorine gas (or other gas) into the air. How about parks, prisons, the National Guard, hospitals, the Federal or State court systems and other services that we take for granted?

Does paying taxes suck? Yeah, it does. But paying for cars sucks, too. Paying for food sucks, too. Paying rent sucks. But we do all those things and just take it. Why is it when we get a better deal from the government -- which has policies that make all those things cheaper, BTW -- we complain about it?

These hypocritical Republican teabaggers should give up everything that they get if they don’t want to pay taxes. No firefighters. No mail. No garbage collection. No police, schools, road repairs or snow removal. Let’s see how long it takes before they start whining about that too.

It's the same crap every day from the Wingnuts.

They are basically leaderless (except for Druggy Limbaugh) And it's really starting to show. There's quite a few trying desperately to gain a toehold, but every time they try, it winds up becoming a setback.

They've got Sarah Palin, who is borderline trailer trash - and dumb as a post..

Bobby Jindal, an unbelievable Mr. Rodgers knockoff...

Crazy Rick Perry talking secession... I don't know how that helps them in AMERICAN politics...

And meanwhile, the AM talk/hate radio goofballs and the Faux News clowns are spitting out conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, trying to incite god only knows what...

They're not doing themselves any favors by lashing out blindly, and it's really turning off centrists and Independents who consider them useless.

* * * * *
Posted by: clammyc | April 18, 2009 2:11 PM
.
Thank you for sharing your Emily Litella moment with us. Your post is counterfactual in the following respects:
.
1. The tea-bag revolution isn’t a Republican phenomenon. It is a populist movement of which the Republicans are only now trying to take advantage. Even RNC Chairman Steele was excluded from speaking at a tea-bag party. Why? Because the people who got together and started these meetings made a point of excluding all professional politicians. These people are also against the big-government, big-spending ways of the Republicans. Republican politicians have lost a lot of grass-roots support of conservative voters for their unwillingness or inability to live up to the ideals of small government and fiscal responsibility. This is why conservative Democrats (known as “Blue Dogs”) have started to win in traditionally Republican districts.
.
2. We take a helluva lot less for granted than you think. The government does nothing for us that we don’t pay for in taxes. They aren’t giving out these services for free. Just remember, governments don’t produce; they consume. Although, I suppose you could say that those who don’t pay taxes take these things for granted. Then again, they aren’t paying for them.
.
3. The “tea-baggers” aren’t protesting against all taxes. (Whoops!) They are protesting against “excessive taxation and out of control government spending.” In which case, your pathetic little tirade about public services is a bunch of nonsense.
.
4. In the next place, the bulk of the services you actually mention - firefighters, first responders, police, garbage collection, paving of roads, snow removal and salting of roads, building and repairing bridges, tunnels and in many instances, public transitm and public schools - are those provided by state or local governments, and paid for out of state income tax, local property or sales taxes, or by private contract. Again, these are not services for which those of us who pay our taxes “take for granted.” They aren’t handed to us for free. I mean, don’t you get a bill for property tax or garbage collection? Don’t you pay state income tax too? In any event, these are also the kinds of services for which most tea-baggers are happy to pay. What tea-baggers are upset about are all the extravagant new government spending programs that are projected to run is into trillions of dollars more in debt.
.
5. BTW, the firefighters DIDN’T save everyone from the towers before they fell down. (Oops!)
.
6. Ditto with regard to your discussion of the military. Again, the protest isn’t against all taxation or all federal functions. Military spending is appropriate because it’s in the freakin’ Constitution already.
.
7. You are completely out to lunch when you assert that “we get a better deal from the government -- which has policies that make all those things cheaper . . .” The federal government does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, deliver services to us cheaper than if we had to pay for it privately. The federal government is wasteful in the extreme. Billions of dollars are simply lost, stolen or otherwise unaccounted for every single bleepin’ year. If you don’t believe me, go ask Obama. Even he has decided that it is prudent to appoint a “performance tsar” to insure that the federal government doesn’t remain as wasteful as it has been in the recent past. State governments, on the other hand, are known to provide services much cheaper. Unfortunately, the federal government has been encroaching on the domain of the States’ affairs, and giving us more expensive and duplicate government in the process.
.
Thus, your conclusion that “Republican teabaggers should give up everything that they get if they don’t want to pay taxes” is side-splitting funny - that is, for people like me who find ignorant Lemmings like you funny.
.
So, go ahead and give us the Emily Litella line. You know, "Oh, that's very different. . . . Never mind.”

The federal government does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, deliver services to us cheaper than if we had to pay for it privately. The federal government is wasteful in the extreme. Billions of dollars are simply lost, stolen or otherwise unaccounted for every single bleepin’ year.
Posted by: John W. | April 18, 2009 8:05 PM
.

You're right Ron Paul,
In fact we Americans got such a great deal from privitizing govt during the Bush years that I can't believe that people weren't begging for Bush to serve a third term. I mean why let the govt screw you when we can stick to our slack jaw conservative priciples and let good ol' private business cronies like Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater etc etc etc do it to us. And since they're private business's we can't bog them down with any of that unnecessary oversight stuff. Isn't Conservatism Great?!?!

* * * * *
Posted by: Borat | April 18, 2009 9:45 PM
.
I hope you don’t know anyone foolish enough to agree with what you just wrote here. Bush’s hiring of independent contractors to perform work in Iraq is hardly an example of private “services” offered to the American people, much less an example of privatization. Privatization involves turning over most or all of a particular service over to private business interests.
.
Show me one service - and particularly a domestic service - of the federal government that Bush turned entirely over to the private sector. I’m unaware of any. Not only can’t you show me one example of real privatization, I seriously doubt that you can prove they wouldn’t be more efficient than the government had it occurred. You don’t have an argument until you can show the contrary.
.
Go home and talk to John E. If you are JohnEEE-boy, go home and talk to yourself.

Posted by: John W. | April 18, 2009 8:05 PM

Sorry, John W., but you are wrong on many parts of the 7 points that you posted.

1. Politicians DID speak at tea parties around the country: State Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) spoke at the Madison, Wisconsin rally, for one example. And these tea parties were not "a populist movement" but were in fact promoted and organized by rightwing lobbying firms. The event here in Chicago was organized by John O’Hara who works at the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank. There are several other rightwing firms that organized and promoted tea parties around the country, such as Americans for Prosperity, American Solutions, and FreedomWorks. a lobbying firm run by Dick Armey.

Let's not forget all of the free publicity that these parties received in advance by Fox News, either.

3. These protests ere NOT simply against government spending. Around the country there were numerous pictures of tea party attendees waving posters that attacked President Obama, had lies on them or had a racist slant. Examples: "Obama is a socialist", "Take back America throw out the Liberals", "We need a Christian President", "We want our Constitution back!", "Chairman Maobama", "A 3% tax hike for 5% of the wealthiest is 100% Tyranny!", "Remember Liberalism is to Freedom What Cancer is to Life!", "Geithner, Summers, Bernancke = New World Order Fascism", "Hey White House We're Clinging To Our Guns & Religion", etc.

And the number 1 sign at a tea party: "The American Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens".

4. The "paving of roads, snow removal and salting of roads, building and repairing bridges, tunnels" is done by the federal government when they involve federal and Interstate highways.

6. Not all federal spending is considered wasteful, just the ones that the protesters don't like - like all of the social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. You know, the kinds of programs that "liberals" like. But spend $600 billion (so far) to invade and occupy another country? Well, that's just okay to them.

7. Studies by independent third parties have shown that the federal government provides some things like Social Security at a much cheaper price than can be done by private businesses.

You really need to ease up on your devotion to Republican themes.

Clammy C,

You won't find a conservative that says gov't money is well-spent on items such as military, firfighting, police protection, and emergency personnel. What I will debate is at which level of gov't they are funded at - state, local or federal.

Air-traffice controllers - paid for by the users - passengers on airlines.

Postal service - paid for by the cost of the people using the stamps. Since there is less use of the mail system now, the US Postal service s/b laying people off but they don't.

Education - look at the results from non-gov't schools as compared to gov't run. More bang for the buck outside the gov't system. Would be best if parents were given a voucher and let the decide. If you insist on gov't schools, they s/b funded at no higher than the state level. Why do pepole from all 50 states send tax dollars to DC, only to have the Dept of Education re-distyribute this money (after an the cost of admisitration) back to the states? BTW, sonetimes that money goes back to religious institutions - so drop the phony seperation of church and state story.

Transporation - a good use of gov't funds since central planning is necessary. Do you notice that gov't outsources the job of building roads to private companies? Could do the same with education.

Garbage pick-up. In my town, homeowners contrat for that themselves.

Food safety - here's a funny story. Gov't dollars at work

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932034907406927.html

Finally - we are getting all the things you mentioned from gov't (not that we should) - so why is BO's budget going up at three times the rate of inflation?

Do we need gov;'t funding for the arts? How about gov't funding for media? There is plenty of fat in this gov't

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm839-list.cfm

* * * * *
Posted by: BC | April 19, 2009 2:20 PM
.
Excuse me, BC, but you are wrong on a number of things you have said, to wit:
.
1. For the most part, professional politicians were not invited to these gatherings. If Ryan made it to a gathering in Wisconsin, it was an anomaly. The rule was supposed to be that politicians were excluded. And, furthermore, the groups you cite as having organized some of these protests were not the people who came up with the idea in the first place. As I previously stated, they simply began to take advantage of those meetings for their own purposes. Clammyc tried to say that it was all a Republican plot, and that is the comment to which I responded. I never once said those who planned the protests weren’t conservative minded.
.
2. These protests were largely against taxation for outrageous government spending. Yes, I am sure that some of them vilified Obama, Democrats and other pseudo-liberals in government; and sometimes it wasn’t done in a PC or tasteful manner. They vilified Obama, of course, because he and his pseudo-liberal vermin are the ones in charge and the ones who are going to be responsible for doubling the debt AGAIN by the time he finishes his second term (if he serves two terms). The fact that you can’t see an attack on Obama and Company as a protest against taxation, government spending and hypocrisy is your own fault. Take your own blinders off.
.
3. If you re-read my post (you know, the one you thought you were responding to?), you will find that I wrote, “the bulk of the services . . .” that clammyc mentioned “are those provided by state or local governments, and paid for out of state income tax, local property or sales taxes, or by private contract.” I never said all of them were. The “bulk” of something can be most of it but less than 100% of it.
.
4. Furthermore, you are wrong concerning the federal government’s activities involving roads. I know for a fact that here, in California, the California Department of Transportation repairs all roads including those in the federal highway system. I know this to be true because I travel on a freeway in the federal system almost every day; and I can see what’s written on the trucks and equipment at repair sites. I don’t know for sure, because snow and ice are scarce where I live, but I am quite sure that the CDOT is also responsible for keeping roads clear where there is snow and ice (like up in the Sierras). I also know that federal funding for roads isn’t complete. The feds pay for part of the upkeep along with the states.
.
5. I didn’t write anything with particular regard to federal funding or its wastefulness. I pointed out that the federal government - internally - cannot account for, gets stolen from or simply loses billions and billions of dollars in money paid in taxes every year. However, I thank you for pointing out that many a federal program is wasteful simply for its existence. There are approximately 105 agencies and sub-agencies of the federal government (by last count) that don’t do anything valuable, or provide services already provided by other federal agencies. If one factors in the number of federal agencies that duplicate the activities of State agencies, the number would be higher yet.
.
6. Your comment concerning “[s]tudies by independent third parties” about the federal government is a joke. Social Security is provided ENTIRELY by the federal government. How can someone prove that a non-federal agency might not do a better job when there is absolutely ZERO data to support that conclusion? There is no empirical model necessary to make that judgment. (Parenthetically, I am not one of those who see the alternatives as merely federal or private. A third alternative exists.) Moreover, how is it possible for a non-federal agency to do a worse job than the federal government regarding Social Security when the non-government agency wouldn’t be able to SPEND the money paid into Social Security? As it now stands, we have to pay for Social Security three times: Once in payroll taxes, once in income tax to eventually redeem the bonds that represent the debt to social security beneficiaries, and a third time to pay for the interest on the bonds for debt service. This would not be the case if we could transfer the funds and functions of Social Security to some non-federal agency that would keep Congress’ hand out of the cookie jar.
.
7. While on the same subject, I might also remind you of the fact that the federal wealth redistribution schemes involve a great deal of overhead necessitated by federal oversight. It is a lot more overhead than if the same kinds of programs were both funded and administered by the States. The welfare system, for instance, has federal administrators as well as state administrators. The state administrators do the bulk of the work of distribution, record-keeping and policing. If we simply left the whole thing to the states to administer, it would be both cheaper and a whole lot more efficient.
.
8. We have spent trillions upon trillions of dollars to alleviate poverty and suffering in this country since many of these welfare-state programs have been set up. We still have just as much poverty and suffering, and much of it is due to the fact these programs have enslaved the people they were intended to help. A person on welfare cannot lift him/her-self up by getting a job because: (a) there are very few job programs; (b) job programs are not required or funded by the federal government for welfare recipients; (c) getting a low paying job will disqualify many people on welfare from further assistance. The result is that people are encouraged to stay on welfare and not lift themselves up, or get help up, by the very programs that purport to assist them. Instead of fixing the system, you fuzzy pseudo-liberal buddies are just content to throw more money at it. That’s not just inefficient; it’s a sin. A system like that should be designed to make itself obsolete by raising people out of their impoverished conditions; and it doesn’t. And so, heck yeah, they’re wasteful. Only the deaf, dumb and blind can’t see that.

When Obamas daughters go off to college they will undoubtly have a limit on credit cards used to get through the year. When they far exceed their limit and their parents bale them out. Will they graduate then go off into the world to work and make a living ( being already 50thousand plus in debt) Will mom and dad encourage them to spend more when they can no longer pay their bills to get themselves out of debt? How can we possibly get ahead by spending more when we are slowly selling our country to China an whoever else will assume our debt. We are quickly becoming a socialist country. Is this what you really want?