What created the Tea Party Movement?

[Kreutz]

Lately, I've been hearing more and more comparisons and references to Ronald Reagan. I think these are appropriate. As in the Reagan years, conservatives are joining together to beat back socialist forces.

How come it was Ok for Reagan to balloon the debt to unprecedented levels? He set the precedent for unchecked federal spending....so why is he idolized as a fiscal conservative when he spent like a drunken liberal?

[seeknulfind]

Lately, I've been hearing more and more comparisons and references to Ronald Reagan. I think these are appropriate. As in the Reagan years, conservatives are joining together to beat back socialist forces.

How come it was Ok for Reagan to balloon the debt to unprecedented levels? He set the precedent for unchecked federal spending....so why is he idolized as a fiscal conservative when he spent like a drunken liberal?

What did Reagan spend money on?

[gunderwood]

In truth? I was fussing about spending with BUSH!

You cannot keep spending more than you take in... it's not financially, or logically, feasible!

Eventually, everything falls apart.

+1

You and me both. The only real difference with Bush was that we were still only talking about billions a year in deficit rather than trillions.

[zephyp]

Regardless of what or who created the TEA party it received its grand kick-off when Rick Santelli went on his rant back in Feb 2009. Good for him. The surprising thing was he went off while on air with CNBC and they didnt pull the plug on him.

[Reverenddel]

"You and me both. The only real difference with Bush was that we were still only talking about billions a year in deficit rather than trillions."

YUP! I never liked spending money that I didn't have... why should the GOVERNMENT be able to do that?!?

They don't PRODUCE anything but regulations, policies, and law! They RESTRICT things, or put riders attached to things... BUT! Lay claim to the profits...

The guv'mint is a spoiled 8 year old BRAT that has gotten it's way once too often. I think it needs a spanking, and a time out.. and maybe even sent to bed without any supper!

[Kreutz]

Lately, I've been hearing more and more comparisons and references to Ronald Reagan. I think these are appropriate. As in the Reagan years, conservatives are joining together to beat back socialist forces.

How come it was Ok for Reagan to balloon the debt to unprecedented levels? He set the precedent for unchecked federal spending....so why is he idolized as a fiscal conservative when he spent like a drunken liberal?

What did Reagan spend money on?

Defense spending skyrocketed while taxes were gutted, hence the deficit grew rapidly. If you want shiny new ICBM's, you gotta pay for them somehow.

[VBshooter]

More like a good kick in the ass and then grounded for a long spell of "reflection"

[Radiac]

"You and me both. The only real difference with Bush was that we were still only talking about billions a year in deficit rather than trillions."

YUP! I never liked spending money that I didn't have... why should the GOVERNMENT be able to do that?!?

They don't PRODUCE anything but regulations, policies, and law! They RESTRICT things, or put riders attached to things... BUT! Lay claim to the profits...

The guv'mint is a spoiled 8 year old BRAT that has gotten it's way once too often. I think it needs a spanking, and a time out.. and maybe even sent to bed without any supper!

Problem is nowadays if you spank the BRAT(government) you may be labeled a child abuser(terrorist).

[usafforwardcommand]

To demolish a systems with errors you must first find the cause and effects of the failure. To lay blame with one party is ignorant, to claim both parties are to blame is a hail mary attempt. The giant is sleeping right now however he is beginning to wake. In the wake of his uprising will be massive tensions. We as a country fought this battle before, remember the civil war? We are posting up for another round and this time its not north against south. it will be classes against classes. Imho that is.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[seeknulfind]

Lately, I've been hearing more and more comparisons and references to Ronald Reagan. I think these are appropriate. As in the Reagan years, conservatives are joining together to beat back socialist forces.

How come it was Ok for Reagan to balloon the debt to unprecedented levels? He set the precedent for unchecked federal spending....so why is he idolized as a fiscal conservative when he spent like a drunken liberal?

What did Reagan spend money on?

Defense spending skyrocketed while taxes were gutted, hence the deficit grew rapidly.

Exactly. When Reagan took the helm, our defenses were in pitiful shape. We had men in the armed forces who qualified for food stamps - President Reagan found that shameful and tried to fix that among other things.

Here's a comparison I just found: http://www.jdpendry.com/2011/07/31/i-re ... %99s-army/

Today some of our soldiers and sailors STILL qualify for food stamps: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,82088,00.html

and it is STILL shameful.

Meanwhile, other sectors continue to grow like weeds: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xO ... r_embedded

I'm a frugal sort. I hate spending. I hated spending when I was in grade school and I hate it now. But as much as I hate spending, the thought of men and women laying down their lives for us while their families scrape and beg for food brings tears to my eyes.

Here is a comparison of military budgets: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... dgets.html

And here is an article in Forbes about our current economic mess: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... -republic/

My comparison to the Reagan years was relative to the mood of the people voting. However since you want to bring spending into it... I maintain Reagan's spending was necessary and history proved that out. Even so, if Reagan succeeded in dismantling the Department of Education and a few other federal money pits, I would have applauded.

Today, I stand in amazement as our "leaders" vow to cut $1 trillion from the budget in the next DECADE. What a joke. It's a drop in the bucket.

If you want shiny new ICBM's, you gotta pay for them somehow.

And the tax CUTS did exactly that. The problem with tax cuts is the revenue they GENERATE is not immediately visible. It takes a bit longer but it works.

However, as the earlier links point out, spending - all spending - continued to outpace revenues. Once again, the problem is NOT a matter of under taxation.

Andy

[pnkmdfnky]

seeknulfind...I agree and I would love to add to that. I am AD military and one issue we have and its a rather large issue is the cost of what we pay to do business as a military for supplies and logistics. I have to order lets say a capacitor through the supply system that you can buy at Radio shack for 35 cents it cost the military 5 dollars. Go ahead and multiply that by several times for full systems and so on. Just taking away the government regulation and introducing competition into what we do as a business would save us billions upon billions a year. There is a program where you can report price gouging and I have filled out two reports on over cost parts that we could buy elsewhere and save thousands of dollars. you know what I was told they do not have a government contract therefore we can't buy that. Well i don't know who set up the system but they are making a poop ton of cash.

[SHMIV]

seeknulfind...I agree and I would love to add to that. I am AD military and one issue we have and its a rather large issue is the cost of what we pay to do business as a military for supplies and logistics. I have to order lets say a capacitor through the supply system that you can buy at Radio shack for 35 cents it cost the military 5 dollars. Go ahead and multiply that by several times for full systems and so on. Just taking away the government regulation and introducing competition into what we do as a business would save us billions upon billions a year. There is a program where you can report price gouging and I have filled out two reports on over cost parts that we could buy elsewhere and save thousands of dollars. you know what I was told they do not have a government contract therefore we can't buy that. Well i don't know who set up the system but they are making a poop ton of cash.

That right there is something that should be fixed. Jumping from 35 cents to 5 dollars is one hell of a mark up.

[zephyp]

Defense spending skyrocketed while taxes were gutted, hence the deficit grew rapidly. If you want shiny new ICBM's, you gotta pay for them somehow.

Bullcrap. Alot of people got stupid and elected the ass in the white house. Then the deficit grew rapidly * 20 bazillion.

[Kreutz]

Defense spending skyrocketed while taxes were gutted, hence the deficit grew rapidly. If you want shiny new ICBM's, you gotta pay for them somehow.

Bullcrap. Alot of people got stupid and elected the ass in the white house. Then the deficit grew rapidly * 20 bazillion.

Deficit spending began under Reagan, this is a fact.

Its been that way ever since, we can thank the Gipper for opening the floodgates of financial ruin.

But, gotta blame Obama somehow right? Hell, did you know had we entered WW2 in 1939 we could have ended it in no time? Damned Obama, he got alot of people killed. The Holocaust...another thing to blame Obama for!

[OleMan]

Defense spending skyrocketed while taxes were gutted, hence the deficit grew rapidly. If you want shiny new ICBM's, you gotta pay for them somehow.

Bullcrap. Alot of people got stupid and elected the ass in the white house. Then the deficit grew rapidly * 20 bazillion.

Deficit spending began under Reagan, this is a fact.

Its been that way ever since, we can thank the Gipper for opening the floodgates of financial ruin.

But, gotta blame Obama somehow right? Hell, did you know had we entered WW2 in 1939 we could have ended it in no time? Damned Obama, he got alot of people killed. The Holocaust...another thing to blame Obama for!

Deficit spending did not begin under Reagan. It really began during the American Revolution before we had a Constitution or a President, and the US government has had a debt since. The government's response (both major political parties) to things like WWI, the Depression, WWII, Korea, VietNam, the Cold War, the 1970's economic conditions, the War on Terror, etc. are directly related to the amount of national debt. Another cause is the very large entitlement programs enacted by Congress since the 1930's, which have become too large to pay for without great increases in debt.

Reagan did lower taxes and did indeed spend on rebuilding out defense posture (Europe did also). In the process, the Cold War was won and the Soviet Union collapsed, in large part because it could not compete with the US. As a result, under GHW Bush and Clinton, defense spending and the annual deficit were greatly reduced, due in part, to the economic upturn generated by lower taxes.

I don't know how you imagined Obama had something to do with WWII (or the Holocaust) since he was born about 16 years after WWII ended. However, we would not have "won" WWII had we entered in 1939. At that time we had a bare bones army of about 100,000 troops, no tanks to speak of, and were largely absent an effective Air Force; the Navy and Marine Corps weren't much better off. It took about three years of crash programs and spending in the time frame of 1939 - 1943 for the US to recover sufficient military capability to win major battles against Germany and Japan.

The present complaints about Obama are because he has greatly increased the rate of deficit spending for programs that have no positive effect, at a time when the national debt was already too high.

Oleman

[zephyp]

Kreutz, how you can honestly think that obama hasnt spent a ton of money more than anyone else is way beyond me. Surely you are smarter than that.

[Kreutz]

Kreutz, how you can honestly think that obama hasnt spent a ton of money more than anyone else is way beyond me. Surely you are smarter than that.

He has. But my point is he is simply following in everyone elses footsteps....to throw the gauntlet down now seems odd.

Also, its the old adage about Republicans being true deficit hawks....whenever a Democrat is in office. Lets not forget TARP was done on Dubyas watch, Obama did a larger second round sadly.

[allingeneral]

Kreutz, how you can honestly think that obama hasnt spent a ton of money more than anyone else is way beyond me. Surely you are smarter than that.

He has. But my point is he is simply following in everyone elses footsteps....to throw the gauntlet down now seems odd.

Also, its the old adage about Republicans being true deficit hawks....whenever a Democrat is in office. Lets not forget TARP was done on Dubyas watch, Obama did a larger second round sadly.

My political history pretty much started at Clinton, so don't crucify me when something that I say seems to not fit in with something from the 80's and earlier.

The way I see it is that W had a pretty short straw drawn on him when the events of 9/11 occurred. He and his administration didn't have much of a choice but to step into the "War on Terror", which is one of the big reasons that our country was stuck in deficit spending for his entire tenure. Add all of the social spending that our government has signed us up for - including the housing market (everyone should own a house, regardless of their ability to pay for it!) as well as rising health care costs (MediCare, specifically) and welfare programs.

Generally speaking, I blame the Democrats for the majority of our welfare and social program spending. The War on Terror - it hurt us financially - there's no doubt about that. The previously mentioned housing market issue (created by Clinton) was another huge factor. TARP was an attempt by W to put a band-aid on the crashing economy on his way out. He didn't have much of a choice - some effort had to be made. TARP is NOTHING compared to the extreme over-reach that Obama has initiated with the government takeover of industry and health care.

The takeover and huge over-reach that Obama has initiated is what has caused the gauntlet to be thrown now. Nothing odd about it.

[allingeneral]

Kreutz, how you can honestly think that obama hasnt spent a ton of money more than anyone else is way beyond me. Surely you are smarter than that.

He has. But my point is he is simply following in everyone elses footsteps....to throw the gauntlet down now seems odd.

One point that I would like to specifically call out - Obama is NOT following in everyone else's footsteps. He has stepped WAY beyond anything that anyone else has done or even considered.

[seeknulfind]

First a few kudos since my last post...

@Oleman +1
@zepyhp +1
@allingeneral+1
@pnkmdfnky +1


@Kreutz Your broad statements about people blaming the current administrator for events before his birth do not at all add to your credibility. Neither does your apparent assumption that someone who does not care for the current chief administrator necessarily embraces everything the opposing party does or has ever done.

I do believe I've been reasonably consistent about spending. I grew up in a one parent family where that one parent never made more than ten cents above minimum wage. I was conservative then and I'm conservative now.

I watched much of the TARP proceedings - it was the most television I watched in years. I screamed loud enough at people from both sides that they might have heard had they been listening. After all, I was only a couple hours away from D.C..

My biggest objection to the TARP program, was I felt they were panicking rather than taking careful consideration. I also did not like the wording of the document. I felt it was far too broad.

I haven't kept track, but it seems most,if not all, of the money was paid back. So what did our thoughtful representatives do when they happened? They looked to see where they could spend it. This money was BORROWED for a purpose (unspecific as it was) and should have been PAID BACK.

Even so, when it comes to spending, I believed Reagan did the right thing and I believe it now. If I had lived during the WWII years, I would have supported that spending also.

Generally speaking though, I think our nation would be far better off if we practiced pay-as-you-go spending.

The story about the $5 capacitor says a great deal. It is evidence of what's wrong with Washington. The capacitor isn't grossly overpriced because one supplier is crooked - it's overpriced because the entire system is corrupt. Have you ever tried to dine in D.C.? Better bring your bank account. Why? Because the city is grossly overpriced. The entire culture among the movers and shakers in D.C. is one of privilege and excess. This is nothing new - watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" sometime. However the culture, the attitude in this city is arrogant and self-serving. Did you HEAR that? SELF-SERVING not "serving the PUBLIC".

This country has changed so much since I was a boy and yet much of the things that went on then are still going on. I've grown up watching my country self destruct. It is falling apart before our eyes and all we do is point fingers.

Face facts - WE are to blame. WE send these fools to Washington, allow them to wallow in the corruption built up over decades, and then whine about how bad things are.

Starting years ago, I've advocated sending a simple message to our legislators: STOP. Stop throwing money around like it is confetti. STOP micromanaging our lives by passing idiotic laws.

These words fell on deaf ears.

Just this week the Dept. of Transportation was thwarted in an attempt to force farmers to adhere to commercial trucking regulations to operate farm equipment. The one question I never heard asked?

By what authority did they think they could do this?

We no longer ask the basic questions. We just assume "the authorities" have whatever "rights" they want to seize. Sure, they were beat back this time but they at least managed to plant the seed that they have some sort of jurisdiction here. And as far as I can tell NOBODY CONTESTED THIS.

This example may seem random but it indicates how rampant our government has become.

People are starting to wake up again. The rights we are used to enjoying are being usurped at an alarming rate. This didn't start with this administration, but it has snowballed with it. I have seen nothing to suggest this administration in any way opposes this trend. Indeed, the first major task the chief administrator undertook was a plan to seize control of our health care system - a task his Secretary of State failed at when her husband was in the White House. He hasn't stopped there by any means and many citizens have taken notice.

I liken the current situation to a coming hurricane. We knew the season was upon us and ignored it. We were warned of a potential storm and yawned. When told the storm was headed our way, most went about their business - we've weathered such things before. Some got worried when the winds started picking up. Some prepared early but most stormed the supermarkets only hours before the storm hit. Now it's obvious this is a major blow and many are scrambling en mass to survive it. And yet, curiously, there are those who insist on holding "hurricane parties". They are either oblivious to, or welcome the coming winds. They almost seem to happy in anticipation of the coming destruction... even if they are swept up in it themselves.

Andy