NYT: Tea Parties Forever by Krugman

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh, I thought you were saying it was photoshopped. :doh: Gotcha. Hhaha

No worries!

[GoSkins561]

In other good news, I thought Conseratives were a dying breed on ES.

[#98QBKiller]

The Left seems to accuse others of how they act,

News flash, it happens on both sides of the fence.

[IHOPSkins]

Not black, try again pal, I bet you can't find a hispanic or a lady under the age of 65.

You people are some work

SAME LADY

CLOSE UP for the MENTALLY CHALLENGED (6th picture)

http://www.redcounty.com/santa-ana-tea-party-big-success

[81artmonk]

This is all well documented elsewhere, but here's a partial list. First, Bush sent us into war in Iraq for foolish reasons. Please, let's not pretend to blame someone else. It was his administration's baby and entirely his decision. $3 trillion in committed American dollars later, that's on him -- just like his role model Harry Truman said. Fail.

I guess the reasons as you put it are opinion. I might add congress was too, until later, when they(mainly) democrats changed their minds. This again, is lays at the those who agree or disagree with the war. If you argee than it's not a problem, if you disagree than Bush is your devil.

I think to lay full blame at bush's feet isn't fair, since Congress approved it.

Blaming only Democrats for the housing failure is disingenuous at best. Congress under Republican control failed to pass any bills against predatory lending or regulate subprime mortgages in any way, for over a decade.

When most of the regulatory bills, ruling how and why to lend, were passed,(70's & 80's) it was a democrat led congress.

After recovering control over Congress, Democrats tried to pass a predatory lending bill and got it through the House. Bush and the Republicans killed it. And Bush had the power to exercise regulatory control over lenders, investment banks, and securities markets. His administration even identified the housing situation as a problem! But when it came time to act, they just punted. Honestly, I have no idea why they did that. It would have been a big win. They just didn't act. Fail.

Why did he do that?? I'll answer. Govt tried and succeeded with the S&L's. however they failed, becuase in the end, it was their regulatory bills which caused the S & L's to fail. Too much regulation was the problem in that instance. Therefore, IMO they didn't want that to happen again.

As for Fannie and Freddie, Bush had his party majority in both houses of Congress. Yet no regulation came from Congress regarding the health of the debt GSEs could buy. Bush wasn't alone in failing to regulate the GSEs, but he had the best opportunity of any president in a generation to get it done. Yet he didn't. Fail.

A large majority of those lending didn't fall under federal rules (CRA). Thus it would have taken a rather large effort of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in oder to stop it. But of course that is opinion also.

IMO, I don't believe that govt should have stepped in. was it poor business practice and foolish on behalf of the lenders?? of course.

In the mean time, overall spending skyrocketed under Bush Jr. He vetoed exactly 12 bills, total, during his 8 years in office. He basically gave Congress whatever they wanted as long as they were predominantly GOP. LBJ and Carter also had friendly Congresses and they each vetoed almost 3 dozen bills apiece! Fail.

This particular arguement I love.Bush spent, so NO ONE has the right to yell about Obama spending. First, the large majority of spending was on the war. Again, if you agree with it, than you don't see it as a problem. However, if you don't than it is a problem.

This same mindset is alive today. If you agree with obamas strategy than his spending isn't an issue. But you can't deny the fact that he has already spent more than Bush did.

Drunken sailor spending, poor zero fingers on the pulse of the economy. OF COURSE Bush shoulders a huge amount of the blame for the mess we're in now! Hard to believe that these days anyone would honestly believe otherwise.

Nobody is uniquely to blame. The tea party folks had better be protesting Bush too, or else they're really fooling themselves.

I'm not saying that Bush was innocent. I didn't like ALOT of what he did as president. In fact alot of people I know personally marched in protest of his immigration policies just to name one.

But it's undenyable, that Obama in 3 months has raised the federal deficit to 1.2 trillion. It took Bush two terms to spend what he did. Again, what's debatable is what it was spent on.

It's been said before here in the ES. Obama is spending this money on things that alot of people think are foolish and wasteful. Bailing out greedy lenders. greedy banks. People who were stupid and gambled. If he were truely smart, he would have seen that at no time in history has spending money like this to fix an ailing economy, has EVER worked. Yet he is bound and determined to see that it does, at the detriment of future genereations.

The free market works, if left alone. It will correct itself. Not without problems and heartache, but it will correct itself, IMO and those of the protesters.

[IHOPSkins]

Not tyring to say you didn't win the contest ( ), but I only saw one black person in those pictures, didn't i?

Yes

I went

Mostley White at the Santa Ana Tea Party 89%

Some Hispanics and Asians 5% / 5%

Few Blacks 1%

Average Age was in the 40s maybe

I estimate the size at 3,000

I wasn't planning on racially profiling the crowd

[alexey]

I think to lay full blame at bush's feet isn't fair, since Congress approved it.

I thought that Congress did not actually decleare war on Iraq but only authorized the use of force. Bush then decided to actually use force to deal with Saddam.

Also, from what I understand there were people who voted for this authorization in order to show Saddam that we were serious, so that he complies with weapon inspections. This actually appeared to be working in early 2003. This is why we had to rush the invasion.

Although I do agree that everybody who ever did anything to give Bush any kind of responsibility over anything is an enabler and carries some responsibility for what has transpired.

[Bang]

I think to lay full blame at bush's feet isn't fair, since Congress approved it.

That's some real truth right there. Fact is we are all in this together, and until we find the common ground that we're all Americans, we'll just keep spinning our wheels. We used to have it, that American Spirit.. But now political interests outweigh national interests. There's no reason why we can't all work together, but the very VERY vocal minority on both sides keeps us at each others throats rather than focused on what to do.

The free market works, if left alone. It will correct itself. Not without problems and heartache, but it will correct itself, IMO and those of the protesters.

I agree to an extent.

People are scoundrels, and if left alone, they will rob, cheat, and steal everything that isn't nailed down. ESPECIALLY those who claim to know what's best for us.

I am all for the free market, but it has to have some oversight and it has to present some serious consequences for those who try to **** us over.

~Bang

[mjah]

With DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT

You seem to FAIL to mention that

No, actually I have mentioned that multiple times, here and in other threads.

Again: The Iraq War buck stops at the President's desk. There's no sufficiently loud or capitalized cry of "ButDemocratDemocratDemocratDemocrat" that will ever change that fact.

When most of the regulatory bills, ruling how and why to lend, were passed,(70's & 80's) it was a democrat led congress.

81, thanks for the more reasoned conversation. I agree with you, and believe that our government failed us utterly from both sides of the aisle. Bush's albatross comes in the form of his (and his party's) inaction when it became utterly obvious that there was a huge problem looming with subprime mortgages. He actually noted the problem much, much earlier in his term than people give him credit for. Sadly, he and his administration failed to act on their own warning for years, and they can't really blame Democrats because both Bush and the Republican Congress had regulatory powers that they repeatedly failed to use in the face of clear impending crisis. I have my own opinions about why they didn't act, but I'll try to keep this post shorter than the last.

Your take on the S&Ls is interesting, but IMO over-regulating was never really an issue with mortgages. Mortgage lending and securities were the Wild West, not industries in danger of being strangled by too many rules.

IMO, I don't believe that govt should have stepped in. was it poor business practice and foolish on behalf of the lenders?? of course.

Anytime the repercussions of poor business practice are so utterly dire and pervasive, IMO it's not enough to shrug our shoulders after the fact and just say, "Well, you shouldn't have done that" as we suffer. If a (profit-bearing!) construct is going to be so intimately tied to the economy and it doesn't conduct itself responsibly, we need to protect ourselves by telling it that certain dangerous activities are off-limits. Those activities never should have been allowed by either party's Congress.

This particular arguement I love.Bush spent, so NO ONE has the right to yell about Obama spending.

Oh, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying these two things:

1) Any yelling about spending has to be focused at every profligate, not just the one whose politics are farther away from your own; and

2) Consider the likely motivations behind the spending. As you point out, everyone will agree with one side's decisions more than the other's. Nobody objects to spreading democracy or repairing the economy -- it's a matter of how intelligently each is done and what the reasonable prospects are for each endeavor at their respective outsets.

It's also a matter of having a basic up-front concept of how much each endeavor will cost, and on that metric the Bush administration was incompetent beyond belief. The American people never got to decide whether a $3 trillion Saddam-ectomy was worth the immense cost, because they were sold a short $100 billion war. That's a stark contrast vs. Obama. People are free to agree or disagree with his ideas and plans, but in terms of actual out-of-pocket cost predictions vs. actuals, the cognitive dissonance is (literally) an order of magnitude smaller.

[DirtyBird]

From what I saw at the Atlanta rally there was a very diverse mix of all ages and races. It was also quite civil.

[alexey]

It's also a matter of having a basic up-front concept of how much each endeavor will cost, and on that metric the Bush administration was incompetent beyond belief. The American people never got to decide whether a $3 trillion Saddam-ectomy was worth the immense cost, because they were sold a short $100 billion war. That's a stark contrast vs. Obama. People are free to agree or disagree with his ideas and plans, but in terms of actual out-of-pocket cost predictions vs. actuals, the cognitive dissonance is (literally) an order of magnitude smaller.

You are being kind when you say that Bush Admin was "incompetent" at cost estimation because that leaves out all the dishonest things they did (and were very competent at doing).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I just saw Rick Perry's speech at this tea party talking about he doesn't like "oppression."

Is this guy insane?

[Duckus]

I just saw Rick Perry's speech at this tea party talking about he doesn't like "oppression."

Is this guy insane?

Yes.

I mentioned this a few times but he is about to enter a primary battle which Kay Bailey Hutchison ® for re-election. She is a very popular figure in Texas right now and is considered a moderate.

To win, Perry has gone ape **** crazy. Its been pretty funny actually. His only hope at winning his parties nomination is to move as far right as he can as fast as he can.

It is scary, but he is trying to appeal to a lot of the craziest in Texas who still think we should be our own country.....

[81artmonk]

I agree to an extent.

People are scoundrels, and if left alone, they will rob, cheat, and steal everything that isn't nailed down. ESPECIALLY those who claim to know what's best for us.

I am all for the free market, but it has to have some oversight and it has to present some serious consequences for those who try to **** us over.

~Bang

I agree too that oversight is good. Nothing should ever be let alone to run rampant without rules. This is the problem though, rules were in place, but most of the lenders weren't ones which fell under those rules. See the problem?

[81artmonk]

your take on the S&Ls is interesting, but IMO over-regulating was never really an issue with mortgages. Mortgage lending and securities were the Wild West, not industries in danger of being strangled by too many rules.

Anytime the repercussions of poor business practice are so utterly dire and pervasive, IMO it's not enough to shrug our shoulders after the fact and just say, "Well, you shouldn't have done that" as we suffer. If a (profit-bearing!) construct is going to be so intimately tied to the economy and it doesn't conduct itself responsibly, we need to protect ourselves by telling it that certain dangerous activities are off-limits. Those activities never should have been allowed by either party's Congress.

This is where we agree but in different ways. Rules, not govt intervention. Although I guess you could call it that, however, you know what I'm talking about.

This is much different than what Obama is doing. He is stepping in, but he is also dictating how those businesses are run. IMO that's wrong. You set up rules that tell those businesses to stay away from what got them into trouble (greed, bad business, shady dealings).

Just as an example, Obamas admin is telling GM that they will increase production of smaller cars. But the problem is smaller cars aren't what are their big sellers. But that's a whole different conversation.

1) Any yelling about spending has to be focused at every profligate, not just the one whose politics are farther away from your own; and

Oh I've said it before here on the ES that I'm fed up with both parties. Many have said that republican conservatives are in congress to which I disagree. Those aren't conservatives. They are politicians. RHINOS

2) Consider the likely motivations behind the spending. As you point out, everyone will agree with one side's decisions more than the other's. Nobody objects to spreading democracy or repairing the economy -- it's a matter of how intelligently each is done and what the reasonable prospects are for each endeavor at their respective outsets.

I agree to a degree. Ones motivations can be noble but the method still wrong. Which I feel was Bush's problem. Noble motivation, but no planning, which leads to a complete cluster****.

Same goes for Obama. I'm sure his motivations are good, but his way of going about what he wants to do IMO is wrong.

It's also a matter of having a basic up-front concept of how much each endeavor will cost, and on that metric the Bush administration was incompetent beyond belief. The American people never got to decide whether a $3 trillion Saddam-ectomy was worth the immense cost, because they were sold a short $100 billion war.

I think that's a lacking statement. Did we get a say in the Obama spending package?? He ran it through with pelosi, hell, not even the congressmen got to read it.

IMO Bush and Obama are in the same boat. Both sold a bill of goods with no knowledge of what would exactly happen. As things grew to be unexpected with Bush, Obama can't know either that his plan will work. yet he is selling it to us as the right thing to do. fair is fair

That's a stark contrast vs. Obama. People are free to agree or disagree with his ideas and plans, but in terms of actual out-of-pocket cost predictions vs. actuals, the cognitive dissonance is (literally) an order of magnitude smaller.

I don't particularly argee with this one either. Fact is Obama has raised the deficit higher than bush. To a point in which 2-3 generations will be in debt. Considering you out of pocket expense, Obama increased that as soon as he spent 800 billion. With even more to come.

Although I liked Bush as president, we traded an experienced **** up for an inexperienced **** up

[Baculus]

Personally, outside of the Paul supporters/libertarians, I think the tea parties are fake and tools of the GOP and corporate backers. Most of these folks are simply angry Republicans that didn't give a rat's arse in the past about these problems.

I support the right for any American to protest, but I find the entire movement to be a fraud: Color me unconvinced.

Where was the outrage when we were spending billions in Iraq? Why did many of these folks have no problem with with building bridges and schools (hint: infrastructure) in Iraq, but are now, suddenly, "OMG SOCIALISM!" enraged when we spend that money HERE, in this nation? Is it due to the simple ideal that these folks do not like Obama and any social spending?

(Yes, I know this goes both ways, when folks were "OMG! Bush hates blacks!" as his administration spent billions in African aid.)

How is it patriotic to have no problems with rebuilding some other nation, but it's traitorous to do that here? I fail to see the logic in that attitude, and I fail to see why we should spend over a half trillion on the DoD, but ignore domestic, social issues that need to be resolved. Are we Sparta? Is this a military state? What are the tea parties really trying to say?

"Don't spend my money!" is a futile message when many of us have been saying that for decades.

And this isn't truly a conservative vs. liberal issue, IMO, since most consistent conservatives were worried about these issues a long time ago.

[IHOPSkins]

Personally, outside of the Paul supporters/libertarians, I think the tea parties are fake and tools of the GOP and corporate backers......

.....And this isn't truly a conservative vs. liberal issue, IMO, since most consistent conservatives were worried about these issues a long time ago.

At the tea party I was at I saw alot of ANTI CONGRESS signs

Also

At the Tea Party I was at....One of the tables circulated a Governator "Total Recall" petition (hint, he is GOP)

Don't think the establishment GOP was supporting that

To say it was a balanced representation (dems/reps) would be wrong

Its equally wrong for you to mimic the Liberal Medias Contempt and say "its just the GOP establishment"

[Baculus]

At the tea party I was at I saw alot of ANTI CONGRESS signs

Also

At the Tea Party I was at....One of the tables circulated a Governator "Total Recall" petition (hint, he is GOP)

That doesn't say a lot, since many Republicans do not like Arnold since they think he's a liberal. I am sure one or two folks from California will attest that Arnold is not the most Republican in the state.

Its equally wrong for you to mimic the Liberal Medias Contempt and say "its just the GOP establishment"

Oh no - the "Liberal Media!" L:et me guess: they use those darn brainwashing machines to get to me, right?

I didn't have to mimic anyone with this opinion - it's pretty obvious to anyone that's been paying attention since Rick Santelli had his on-the-floor rant. It was obvious that the GOP was trying to coop the events for their own political gain. Go to the GOP website where you can send a virtual "tea bag" to Congress - witness Michael Steele attempting to speak at an event. Listen to the many GOP members, such as Newt Gingrich, who are trying their best to catch themselves onto this supposed "grass roots" movement.

I don't doubt that folks have genuine emotions, but the timing of their sudden anger is rather questionable. (Though, really, it isn't that sudden, since much of the emotional response can date back to the 2008 campaign race.)

I never said that the events were all "GOP" created or controlled, especially since Ron Paul supporters were holding "tea parties" a couple of years ago. But the GOP, with the assistance of Fox news advertising and supporting these events, along with all of the major right-wing pundits, certainly tried to use all these events for their utmost benefit.

But I will say this - watching videos and looking at pictures, bipartisan signs and expressed sentiments are few and far between.

Again, it doesn't take any "mimicing" for anyone whose been paying attention.

[IHOPSkins]

.....It was obvious that the GOP was trying to coop the events for their own political gain. Go to the GOP website where you can send a virtual "tea bag" to Congress - witness Michael Steele attempting to speak at an event. Listen to the many GOP members, such as Newt Gingrich, who are trying their best to catch themselves onto this supposed "grass roots" movement.........

trying---attempting

Begs the Question "From WHO?".....if they were part of it......they wouldn't need to try to Co-opt

Thanks for trying to prove your point

Thanks for proving mine

[DeaconBlue]

Okay - thats, but that has nothing to do with our convo. I was responding to H_H and his specific comment, not the entire movement. He said what HE wanted was to keep for of HIS money now. I was pointing out that he is in fact keeping more of his money right now then before.

Ah so the future disaster that is the result of whats gong on now is irrelevant but your current specific arguement with HH is what really important? That REALLY FING BRIGHT.

[Baculus]

trying---attempting

Thanks for trying to prove your point

Thanks for proving mine

Is that the best you can do? ON NOES! TRY?!

How about this - the GOP didn't TRY to coop the events. They, in fact, DID coop the events. Again, this is obvious from their website, from the events themselves, and from the heavily bipartisan nature of the event.

These events were like one big anger session for all of the Republicans who lost.

But at least you tried, right, tea bagger?

[IHOPSkins]

.....tea bagger?

Insulting phrase

Figures

He was, of course, referring both to the conservative anti-tax tea bagging protests and to the sex act. Cooper is the latest in a long line of cable news hosts to mock the tea baggers for their choice of terminology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html

When do you get your next Left Wing "Talking Point"?

Mimic

[mjah]

I think that's a lacking statement. Did we get a say in the Obama spending package?? He ran it through with pelosi, hell, not even the congressmen got to read it.

I can always tell when my point is very close to correct because one guy will tell me it went too far, and another guy will tell me it didn't go far enough. I love moments like these.

The Bush administration overran their war cost estimate by a factor of 30. Thirty. He had zero concept for what he was getting the nation into. He just didn't have any idea. That's the best you can say for Bush: His administration just lacked the basic ability to understand the risk, cost, management, and scope of war. Totally incompetent, despite the appearance of experience.

Obama has been leagues better in this regard -- which was my point. You may disagree with Obama's plan and its effect, but you have to concede that he stated the cost up front and everybody knows the dollar figures that were allocated. In fact, Obama was up front in campaigning on the idea of a large stimulus bill. Hard to get more up front than that. And this alone is an incredible improvement vs. Bush Jr., who played games to hide the massive debts rung up by the Iraq War he so fervent agitated for. The honesty and basic competence of this new administration is, so far, quite literally an order of magnitude better.

And that's kind of sad, because they're brand new at this game and they've made their share of mistakes already. Yet IMO, by comparison they look like seasoned geniuses.

I don't particularly argee with this one either. Fact is Obama has raised the deficit higher than bush. To a point in which 2-3 generations will be in debt.

In recent history every president has raised the deficit higher than his predecessor, even Clinton. And 2-3 generations were already in debt thanks to former administrations, none moreso than Bush Jr. Does that make further debt increases justifiable, especially at warp speed? No, of course not -- unless they're necessary and prudent to fix the significant and expensive disasters wrought by previous jackassery. And as for the idea of spending money to fill in the holes other jackasses paid dearly to dig, the jury's out for at least the next couple of years on that. It's simply not honest to pretend to know the effects at this time.

Save the condemnation until the effects of the stimulus are known. If it turns out to be a huge turd, then almost everyone will be willing to admit it -- just as almost everyone is willing to admit today that Iraq was a mismanaged, unjustified, dishonest $3 trillion mistake. (You always get the lone holdouts on either side.)

And let's not pretend that Obama's arrival on the scene suddenly has caused our grandkids to be in debt. That was the case long before Obama even announced his candidacy. Again, that doesn't make it right -- bad deficit spending is bad deficit spending. Unless, of course, it's not bad at all but rather justified.

Having a philosophy doesn't mean your philosophy is right. Only time and empirical results will tell the tale.

[DeaconBlue]

Insulting phrase

Figures

not surprised are you? I'm not...

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

May I ask....why does it matter? Anyone was free to participate and any african american would not have felt unwelcome to attend.

It only matters because I've seen numerous people SAY that all demographics were represented at these events and have not seen any evidence that this is true. At all.

There is no implied racism. I don't think minorities didn't attend because they were scared or didn't feel welcome. It's that these events really only appealed to one demographic of society despite people pushing the idea that the ENTIRE nation is in an uproar.

That's bogus and I'm still waiting for something other than "I was there man" to show me that I'm wrong. These events were heavily covered--by Fox at least--so there should be something, anything out there that people can put forth as proof.

I also believe the actual turnout (which interestingly enough I heard Rush today actually put at 100k less than what fivethirtyeight thinks it was) also shows that really there was only a small demographic of society who cared and participated.

(And I echo luckydevils sentiment of feeling sorry that your ideas and movement were hijacked this way SS. I find a lot of your movement's ideas interesting and agree with some of them.)