Excellent article on the Tea Party movement

[Bravus]

I suspect this'll end up getting moved to Politics, but I thought it was very interesting and I can't post there. Who knows, maybe we can even manage to discuss it civilly here...

http://jr.ly/3mpz

[karl]

Good article. The author claims there is no conservative revolution, but he notes this:

Quote:

They say they are tired of being told what counts as news or what they should think about global warming; tired of being told what their children should be taught, how much of their paychecks they get to keep, whether to insure themselves, which medicines they can have, where they can build their homes, which guns they can buy, when they have to wear seatbelts and helmets, whether they can talk on the phone while driving, which foods they can eat, how much soda they can drink…the list is long.

That's impetus of the conservative revolution. Conservatives believe in individuality. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are individual things. We are sick and tired of the group-think, the demagoguery, and the "societal" solutions. We don't like funding your projects. We wish you would stop trying to fix us.

[olger]

[phkrause]

Great article Bravus, thanks for the link.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

I think the Tea Party is getting its momentum from the economic downturn. Once the economy gets better the movement will slowly break apart. I think they are effectively bringing a lot of issues into the public arena and forcing a national dialogue to take place. In that they have been very successful.

[karl]

I think the Tea Party is getting its momentum from the economic downturn. Once the economy gets better the movement will slowly break apart. I think they are effectively bringing a lot of issues into the public arena and forcing a national dialogue to take place. In that they have been very successful.

Ya think?

The resistance is to Obama and his socialist policies. The resistance is to the heavy-handedness of Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The Tea Party movement is well aware that the US has recovered numerous times from economic downturns. This is not the issue.

The issue is the gummint monkey on our back.

We are working to make sure that this fact is not lost sight of. Obama is helping us by continuing to push for bigger government.

The only growth since he's been in office has been in government.

[Dr. Shane]

It took Reagan a couple of years to turn things around after inheriting Carter's mess. I am willing to give Obama more time. If he doesn't have things in good shape come 2012, then I think we need to consider giving him his walking papers.

[Neil D]

It took eight years to get into the mess that we have currently...And you want it done in four......

The effect of these eight years will last nearly 20 years...and you want it done in 4...You are a hard man, Shane....

[Dr. Shane]

I think it took more than eight years to get into the mess. The housing bubble caused this and there were many components to it going back nearly three decades. Alan Greenspan compounded the problem by lowering interest rates so low and creating an artificial boom. Deregulation and accounting practices added to the storm. However this crisis isn't as bad as the economic crisis Reagan inherited from Carter and Nixon era after the 1970s energy crisis and recession. It took Reagan a few years to get the economy back on track and he won in a landslide in 1984. If Obama does a repeat performance of that, I am sure he will get a second term. If he fails, we need to give someone else a chance.

[karl]

The Motto of Mad Men

Had decided not to post this, but since you started it!!

Did that article appeal to you, CoAspen?

The author hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com.

Which rich Wall Street guys have you seen at the Tea Parties, CoAspen? I haven't seen the people the author is referring to. I'd love to meet some of them. I HAVE seen a lot of common folk. Soccer moms and retired people, school kids and such. Wall Street execs have been notably absent from the Tea Party groups I have seen.

I don't know who the author is referring to, do you?

Wall Street execs tend to have the homes up there on the hill in Aspen and Snowmass. You should be seeing a lot of them. But they tend to be leftists, not Tea Party types.

[karl]

...this crisis isn't as bad as the economic crisis Reagan inherited from Carter and Nixon era after the 1970s energy crisis and recession....If Obama does a repeat performance of that, I am sure he will get a second term.

Reagan vs Obama:

In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan assured the nation: "The economic ills we suffer ... will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ... Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government."

Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation from 14% down to 3.2% by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth.

On the other hand, Obama, now facing the worst economic decline since the Carter debacle, has stated he intends to "fundamentally transform the United States of America. ... Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- to lay a new foundation for growth."

In his inaugural speech, Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." This, of course, suggests that somehow our bloated central government is not the problem, but the solution, if it is just managed correctly.

Obama's economic philosophy and solution to the current crisis is rooted in massive government spending. Obama also subscribes to FDR's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

If Roosevelt's "principle" sounds familiar, that's because it was no more American than Obama's principles of wealth redistribution. Roosevelt was paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

[Dr. Shane]

Obama and Reagan's philosophies are clearly different. We know what Reagan did worked. Obama is telling us that there is more than one way to skin a cat. OK. I say we give him a chance. The do-nothing Republicans didn't do anything to prevent this train wreck. So let's see if Obama really does have change we can believe in. If not, we give him his walking papers in 2012.

[karl]

Obama and Reagan's philosophies are clearly different. We know what Reagan did worked. Obama is telling us that there is more than one way to skin a cat. OK. I say we give him a chance. The do-nothing Republicans didn't do anything to prevent this train wreck. So let's see if Obama really does have change we can believe in. If not, we give him his walking papers in 2012.

No, lets give all the liberals their walking papers right now. At every opportunity let's give them a resounding vote of "no confidence." Don't give them another inch. They have raised the debt from 60% of GDP to 80% of GDP in less than eighteen months of Obamanations. We cannot afford any more of this.

Do-nothing is WAY better than Obamanation.

What we conservatives are lobbying for is lots more do-nothing. The thing that has gotten us into this mess is the overarching desire of liberals to "DO SOMETHING." In this case it was the desire of liberals to make it so that people who were not ready to purchase a home were enabled to do so.

We want less intervention. Less government. Less redistribution. We want people to earn what they get so they will value it appropriately. We believe that people, if left alone in a free market, will find the quickest way out of recession. We believe that government spending and meddling only worsens recessions.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Do-nothing is WAY better than Obamanation.

The conservatives did try to do something with Fannie and Freddie.I believe it was 17 times that Bush attempted to.Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said...Not to worry it is fineknowing full well it was not. Mortgage brokers knew what was going to happen but they in turn were blamed. If a applicant was still standing upright and appeared to be breathing that qualified them for a big mortgage.

Quote:

In this case it was the desire of liberals to make it so that people who were not ready to purchase a home were enabled to do so.

If you check a little recent history you will find another reason and that was the benefit to those like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

[Dr. Shane]

The conservatives did try to do something with Fannie and Freddie.I believe it was 17 times that Bush attempted to.

Whoaaaaa horsie.... Slow that carriage down....

Let's not give those do-nothing Republicans credit for what Bush tried to do. President Bush was a good President and did a fine job. The reason he didn't get more accomplished is because the Democrats hated him and would stop at nothing to keep him from passing anything and the Republicans thought the voters elected them so they could go around to Washington functions, drink and wear nice clothing.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The conservatives did try to do something with Fannie and Freddie.I believe it was 17 times that Bush attempted to.

Whoaaaaa horsie.... Slow that carriage down....

Let's not give those do-nothing Republicans credit for what Bush tried to do. President Bush was a good President and did a fine job. The reason he didn't get more accomplished is because the Democrats hated him and would stop at nothing to keep him from passing anything and the Republicans thought the voters elected them so they could go around to Washington functions, drink and wear nice clothing.

President Bush was not a great or a highly effective president. He had to much of the spending disease that democrats have and had.

He was blamed for many things not of his doing as in Fannie and Freddie

There were other republicans tat were concerned over Fannie and Freddie but it went nowhere. The feel good everyone deserves a home was used as a steam roller by the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Actually the less any side does in government is good.Keeps their hands from mucking it up again and again.

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush was not liked by the far left or the extreme right. President Bush was a moderate. That in itself explains his low poll numbers. Both extremes hated him but he was an honorable man that did what needed to be done with every intention of standing before his Redeemer on judgment day and giving an account.

Blaming Barney Frank and Chris Dodd is rather disingenuous. They were not in power until the last two years of the Bush Administration and by then the crisis had gone too far anyway. The greatest part of this crisis came about during the Clinton and Bush Administrations when the do-nothing Republicans were in charge of Congress. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were only riding the train the Congressional Republicans and put on its rails.

The Federal budget deficit was declining the last few years of the Bush Administration. Bush did support TARP but I doubt he would have supported all these other bail-outs and billions wasted in stimulus. TARP is paying itself back so if that is all that had happened, the federal budget would not have been in such bad shape. Bush was a fine example of a compassionate conservative and should be the model for the current conservative movement.

[bonnie]

President Bush was not liked by the far left or the extreme right. President Bush was a moderate. That in itself explains his low poll numbers. Both extremes hated him but he was an honorable man that did what needed to be done with every intention of standing before his Redeemer on judgment day and giving an account.

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't hate Bush. He just was not a conservative.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

I didn't hate Bush. He just was not a conservative.

He was a compassionate conservative - in contrast to the cold-hearted variety.

[Dr. Shane]

You seem to believe you have the only valid understanding of conservatism. Hopefully those of your opinion will continue to slide into obscurity.

Actually, I am a moderate. Those in my group decide who wins elections. When we voted for George W. Bush, he won. When we voted for Barak Obama, he won. Our group is not sliding into obscurity. We are growing. More and more Americans are breaking away from party affiliation and becoming independents.

[phkrause]

More and more Americans are breaking away from party affiliation and becoming independents.

I agree with this statement. I've been an independent since I became eligable to vote. I always liked to see what each man/woman or side had to offer.

pk

[karl]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The conservatives did try to do something with Fannie and Freddie.I believe it was 17 times that Bush attempted to.

Whoaaaaa horsie.... Slow that carriage down....

Let's not give those do-nothing Republicans credit for what Bush tried to do.

You consistently sound like a shill for the liberal agenda, Shane.

Apparently, you would like us all to forget just who was responsible for the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac meltdown.

In July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee’s action is important. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee’s bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

[bonnie]

Quote:

You consistently sound like a shill for the liberal agenda, Shane.

Apparently, you would like us all to forget just who was responsible for the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac meltdown.

In July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee’s action is important. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee’s bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

The idiocy of giving everyone a mortgage no matter how unqualified came back to bite big time.

Home ownership was declared a right. It is not an automatic right for anyone.You have the right to work hard,save your money,have a down payment and have a job that would allow for house payments.

This was called social justice.

There was no justice involved for those that played by the rules,worked hard and waited till they were qualified to be a home owner.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would likely be in jail were they not politicians playing with the money of others

[Guest]

You consistently sound like a shill for the liberal agenda, Shane.

Apparently, you would like us all to forget just who was responsible for the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac meltdown.

I'm going to have to agree with him Shill. I mean Shane.