Santorum = Tea Party?

[BigBallinStalin]

So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

Whoa, big deal. Bush went with deficit spending, and so did Obama!

You gotta admit it. If Bush faced an economic downturn like Obama did, then Bush would've went with the bailouts. They both refer to the same Keynesians, and both presidents don't know much economics. Even Bush had the papers churning for the future bailouts as Obama came in.

It makes no difference. Both sucked, so if you sincerely adhere to Tea Party principles, then admit that both sucked in order to be consistent . Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite; you're not really into the Tea Party thing--it's just a phase to hate on Obama.

[thegreekdog]

Bush supported the bailouts. So did John McCain.

I did not believe there was a direct correlation between the Tea Party and President Obama's election until the last year or so. I truly believe that the Tea Party was a result of Rick Santelli's speech on television (about how we shouldn't pay for stupid peoples' mortgages); at least, that was the reason for my membership. When the Tea Party started becoming a haven for any Republican who believed in big government conservatism, it became a hypocritical organization. No self-respecting small government Republican should be associated with any organized Tea Party.

[karel]

So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

only reason why we are in this mess is BUSH,he pretty much screwed the usa in the ass....and obama had to clean his shit up,jobs are going up,better then what bush had.Far as i can see he has not done a bad job so far

[Phatscotty]

Bush supported the bailouts. So did John McCain.

I did not believe there was a direct correlation between the Tea Party and President Obama's election until the last year or so. I truly believe that the Tea Party was a result of Rick Santelli's speech on television (about how we shouldn't pay for stupid peoples' mortgages); at least, that was the reason for my membership. When the Tea Party started becoming a haven for any Republican who believed in big government conservatism, it became a hypocritical organization. No self-respecting small government Republican should be associated with any organized Tea Party.

Can you name some of these "self respecting small government Republicans"? The Tea Party started because there was no place in the Republican party of 2000-2008 for a person who believes in small government. At least that is the reason for my membership. Bush's and Mccain's support for the bailouts were like jet fuel for the Tea Party, and was another reason why it was such a major success.

You are right Rick Santelli was a major reason for it too.

I am sticking to what I have always said. Just because the Tea Party exploded onto the scene and got hot, and all the neo-cons and big government Republicans jumped on the bandwagon, does not mean the Tea Party has turned into the bandwagoners. The fight between us continues, and is not over by a longshot. Don't give up so easily. If you have to find a different group that you believe in better, go ahead. I guarantee we will both be voting the same either way, whatever someone or something calls themselves.

Only very recently are we able to see the results of the Tea Party and the historic results of the 2010 election come into play. It has been about 15 months since the Tea Party got elected, and the effects are here. It did not happen at the federal level as much as we all wanted it to, but boy o buy did it happen on the grassroots local level!

It's morning in America!

[Night Strike]

So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

only reason why we are in this mess is BUSH,he pretty much screwed the usa in the ass....and obama had to clean his shit up,jobs are going up,better then what bush had.Far as i can see he has not done a bad job so far

Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well!

What's that stat Phatscotty frequently posted? Something like 52 straight months of growing employment after the recession after 9/11? Oh yeah, let's forget about everything else that happened during Bush's term and instead focus on 2008. By the way, Obama hasn't cleaned anything up and has instead thrown even more shit all of the room. And jobs aren't really going up under Obama. There aren't even enough new jobs every month for the number of people becoming eligible to be counted in the workforce. The unemployment number just keeps going down because people have stopped looking for work and because of governmental "accounting", they no longer count in the statistics. Real unemployment is at about 17%, not 8.2%, which is way worse than under Bush.

[karel]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

[Night Strike]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

[Symmetry]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

[Night Strike]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

[Symmetry]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?

[Phatscotty]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

[Night Strike]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?

Businesses aren't hiring as many people as they probably could because Obama keeps threatening to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Why would they hire more people now when they're just going to have to fire those people in order to pay the higher taxes Obama wants to impose? Plus, until the health care mandate is overturned or repealed, those businesses don't want to take on the explosion of health care costs that would come with hiring new workers.

[Symmetry]

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?

Businesses aren't hiring as many people as they probably could because Obama keeps threatening to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Why would they hire more people now when they're just going to have to fire those people in order to pay the higher taxes Obama wants to impose? Plus, until the health care mandate is overturned or repealed, those businesses don't want to take on the explosion of health care costs that would come with hiring new workers.

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

[pimpdave]

Santorum and the Tea Party, WHY HOW DARE THEY!

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

[Symmetry]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

[Symmetry]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

[Symmetry]

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

Kind of a nutso argument, and not at all what you were originally claiming.

[BigBallinStalin]

Santorum and the Tea Party, WHY HOW DARE THEY!

I KNOW! RIGHT>!? f*ck Y EAH, RIGHT! HOW DARE THEY?!?!

[PLAYER57832]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

[PLAYER57832]

Lately I have been seeing threads by pimpdave with the title Tea Party this or that. In a lot of cases the linked article is some obscure thing stated by Santorum with no real info. I want to know how many people think that Santorum speaks for the Tea Party or is somehow equivalent.
If you have sources go ahead and post them. From what I have heard I thought he only changed his stance to mention Tea Party to get votes. But I don't think the Tea Party ever backed him, I could be wrong what's you opinion?

Anybody can claim the tea party, since it has no real membership or limitations.

That said, even here in his more or less "home" territory, he is not garnering much tea party support, except for those who see the tea party and bringing on an extremely narrow social agenda.

[DangerBoy]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

Oh great, the Nancy Pelosi cliche generator is back

[Phatscotty]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

Oh great, the Nancy Pelosi cliche generator is back

You have to say the cliche before you can hear what's in the cliche.