The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[Joe T]

It's really weird that when the government makes across the board spending cuts with absolutely no thought put in and yet it' becomes a resounding success.

On the other hand when the government spends more, takes over an industry, and build a website it results in a resounding failure.

I know you're just trolling, but is this really necessary? There are people here who lost wages and whose friends have lost jobs due to this "resounding success" you celebrate so enthusiastically. Show a little ####### empathy before you throw your line out.

providing employment is not, and should not, be a primary aim of government.

I understand this position is cold and heartless. I do have empathy for folks affected by this, I really do. I've been in industries where lots of friends have been layed off and it sucks.

I once got a layoff slip myself. That's the nature of the private sector - when times are tough, businesses contract and people lose their jobs. When the economy goes to ####, why is asking our government to contract off the table?

I'm sorry, I just don't consider keeping government workers employed a reason to keep deficit spending.

Great. That's fine. I agree with most of it in fact- although as I've pointed out repeatedly, government workers don't get raises and bonuses when things are going well like the private sector, so the analogy doesn't really work. Job security is part of the bargain when you take a public sector job. You don't want to think about the people we'd have working in important positions at places like Justice and the SEC and the EPA and USDA if their current crop of lawyers and scientists and whatnot lost the job security that balances out their capped salaries.

But that's a different discussion. My point was that there's a huge difference between saying what you said and throwing up a celebratory post about the event that caused the pay cuts and lost work for your peers on the message board and their friends and family like Joe T does.

I hear ya, but this discussion has kind of gotten away from my general premise, which is this: it's not the government's mandate to provide employment. The argument that some program should not be cut or reduced has no sway with me because governmental employment is not the aim. I'm all for complaining about a reduction in services - 57,000 kids losing pre-school is compelling to me, a few thousand daycare workers being forced to find new employment isn't. The pain caused by the sequester to governmental workers is irrelevant.

Again - I understand that this is a cold, calloused position and we are talking about peoples livelyhoods and I do feel bad about that, but there it is.

The discussion got away from that premise because I don't think anyone disagrees with it. They might disagree with whether it's the right cut to make, but that's a different, more complicated matter. The simpler matter is that people losing wages or jobs is not something to be celebrated.

well, technically all JoeT was cheering was spending cuts. You are the one who came in and equated spending cuts with people losing their jobs.

exactly.

 

[The Commish]

Is this where we come to ask why Johnny B didn't "stand up to the tea party" during the "negotiation" earlier this year?? What a goober.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Schlzm

I think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

You chided me for citing the auto bailout as a success, specifically stating that "we the people lost $10bn on that deal". I questioned your accounting, since the analysis I've read suggests that your $10bn loss is not even close to accurate, in large part b/c you're failing to consider all of the other factors that would have occurred had those million jobs disappeared, even temporarily. It seems silly to point to the $10bn loss on the stock sale as the number we "lost" on the deal w/o considering the alternative and all of the costs that the tax payer would have been on the hook for - UI, loss of tax revenues, etc.

This makes a lot more sense now. The only numbers available are worse case scenario and fluctuate depending on the source.Using the worst possible outcome numbers, bailing out GM and Chrysler theoreticaly saved the country $105.3bn in payouts and lost tax revenue. The only problem here is that it was pure speculation that allowing the two companies to go under would cause an unstoppable ripple across the country initiating the collapse of multiple sectors. The fact that Chrysler was purchased by FIAT shortly after the bailout should be an indicator that those numbers are much higher than what the reality would have been. Of course we'll never know so I guess YAY BAILOUT!

Schlzm

Ok, so let's assume those numbers are much higher than what would have happened (though I think you're painting a rosy picture - there is a reason Ford supported the bailout despite not needing funds themselves). Let's say the assumptions are 4X too high. Fair?

That leaves us with ~ $26B saved in UI payouts and tax revenues. Subtracting the $10B loss on the stock sale, tax payers are $16B in the black, and we didn't have to experience the pain of 1M+ people losing their jobs, even temporarily.

How was this a bad deal for taxpayers again, even under your pessimistic assumptions?

 

[timschochet]

Court Jester I think your analysis is a good one- this will be bad for the Dems (although I continue to believe that Obamacare will not be as defining an issue in the upcoming elections as people think.)

But more importantly, this deal is a victory for the GOP establishment over the Tea Party- it affirms the defeat and repudiation of the Tea Party which they suffered last fall- and that's why the title of this thread remains apt. I couldn't care less about the fate of the Democrats, but this gives me hope that the Republican party might become what it once was once again, and then I might rejoin it.

 

[timschochet]

Is this where we come to ask why Johnny B didn't "stand up to the tea party" during the "negotiation" earlier this year?? What a goober.

Better late than never.

 

[Schlzm]

Schlzm

I think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

You chided me for citing the auto bailout as a success, specifically stating that "we the people lost $10bn on that deal". I questioned your accounting, since the analysis I've read suggests that your $10bn loss is not even close to accurate, in large part b/c you're failing to consider all of the other factors that would have occurred had those million jobs disappeared, even temporarily. It seems silly to point to the $10bn loss on the stock sale as the number we "lost" on the deal w/o considering the alternative and all of the costs that the tax payer would have been on the hook for - UI, loss of tax revenues, etc.

This makes a lot more sense now. The only numbers available are worse case scenario and fluctuate depending on the source.Using the worst possible outcome numbers, bailing out GM and Chrysler theoreticaly saved the country $105.3bn in payouts and lost tax revenue. The only problem here is that it was pure speculation that allowing the two companies to go under would cause an unstoppable ripple across the country initiating the collapse of multiple sectors. The fact that Chrysler was purchased by FIAT shortly after the bailout should be an indicator that those numbers are much higher than what the reality would have been. Of course we'll never know so I guess YAY BAILOUT!

Schlzm

Ok, so let's assume those numbers are much higher than what would have happened (though I think you're painting a rosy picture - there is a reason Ford supported the bailout despite not needing funds themselves). Let's say the assumptions are 4X too high. Fair?

That leaves us with ~ $26B saved in UI payouts and tax revenues. Subtracting the $10B loss on the stock sale, tax payers are $16B in the black, and we didn't have to experience the pain of 1M+ people losing their jobs, even temporarily.

How was this a bad deal for taxpayers again, even under your pessimistic assumptions?

Only looking at it from that single angle of course it looks good. However there are many other variables that would have come into play that could have turned any negative into a positive. Other companies bringing better products and internal policies propping up local communities better. Stronger sales options by other industries not being locked into outdated agreements etc... Like I said we will never know any of the possible alternatives at this point so cheers. Schlzm

 

[RCon]

Schlzm

I think I see what happened. I wrote why I was against the bailout and the things I took into consideration concerning that. You are coming from the angle that the bailout saved more than the 10bn stock loss? If that's not correct then I am just moving on.

You chided me for citing the auto bailout as a success, specifically stating that "we the people lost $10bn on that deal". I questioned your accounting, since the analysis I've read suggests that your $10bn loss is not even close to accurate, in large part b/c you're failing to consider all of the other factors that would have occurred had those million jobs disappeared, even temporarily. It seems silly to point to the $10bn loss on the stock sale as the number we "lost" on the deal w/o considering the alternative and all of the costs that the tax payer would have been on the hook for - UI, loss of tax revenues, etc.

This makes a lot more sense now. The only numbers available are worse case scenario and fluctuate depending on the source.Using the worst possible outcome numbers, bailing out GM and Chrysler theoreticaly saved the country $105.3bn in payouts and lost tax revenue. The only problem here is that it was pure speculation that allowing the two companies to go under would cause an unstoppable ripple across the country initiating the collapse of multiple sectors. The fact that Chrysler was purchased by FIAT shortly after the bailout should be an indicator that those numbers are much higher than what the reality would have been. Of course we'll never know so I guess YAY BAILOUT!

Schlzm

Ok, so let's assume those numbers are much higher than what would have happened (though I think you're painting a rosy picture - there is a reason Ford supported the bailout despite not needing funds themselves). Let's say the assumptions are 4X too high. Fair?

That leaves us with ~ $26B saved in UI payouts and tax revenues. Subtracting the $10B loss on the stock sale, tax payers are $16B in the black, and we didn't have to experience the pain of 1M+ people losing their jobs, even temporarily.

How was this a bad deal for taxpayers again, even under your pessimistic assumptions?

Don't have a link, but I read an article on my phone from CNN earlier this week that claimed the total loss for taxpayers on the stock was $39B. Not sure why that said 39 and you guys have a $10B number. I do consider the rewriting of bankruptcy laws and the bath that bond holders took an issue, though.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

but I read an article on my phone from CNN earlier this week that claimed the total loss for taxpayers on the stock was $39B.

That;s exactly how much was recouped, 39 billion. So you probably ready it wrong or someone crossed-up the reporting #s.

I also see that GM reported a 39b loss in 2007 when the economy sank.

 

[The Commish]

Is this where we come to ask why Johnny B didn't "stand up to the tea party" during the "negotiation" earlier this year?? What a goober.

Better late than never.

Really? It's just more kicking of the can down the road We'd need an excavator if we wanted to set the bar any lower.

 

[Statorama]

The $10.5 billion dollar loss we took on the GM stock sale is only part of the bath taxpayers were forced to take in order to “save” GM’s union jobs. GM also received billions of dollars’ worth of special, GM-only tax breaks that go on for years. Most industry analysts estimate the real cost to taxpayers of “saving” GM at north of $50 billion dollars.

It was nothing but a government bailout of the unions at the expense of investors. Hundreds of years of bankruptcy law was ignored to do it.

Barack rocking the charts as a solid #1 on the "who took the biggest stock loss" list

Outside of the warranty-guarantee loan, and the $6.7 billion “flash money loan” repaid with otherwise-unspent DIP financing, GM itself did not repay a dime of what the federal government gave it.

 

[Statorama]

What the GM Bailout really cost taxpayers

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations -- his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break.

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in pre-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits.

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama.

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing.

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time.

It’s good for twenty years.

As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors – and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year – this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who lack GM’s close connections to the White House.

How did this blatant example of crony capitalism come about?

GM’s tax break arises from the Obama administration’s distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses – of which the Old GM had plenty – and certain other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. In Section 382 of the tax code, Congress limited these "net operating loss" (NOL) carry-forwards to discourage the buying and selling of tax deductions.

As a result, New GM could not have written off the Old GM losses that were discharged in the bankruptcy. However, as Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University’s Dalton Professor of Business Eric Rasmusen explain, the Obama Treasury Department “‘solved’ this problem by issuing a series of ‘Notices’ in which it announced that [sec. 382] did not apply [here].”

Because companies like GM that file for fast-track bankruptcy without affording due process protections to creditors don’t normally get to preserve NOLs, Treasury’s unprecedented Notices allowed GM “to retain the cake while eating it,” notes Duke Law Professor Jeffrey Coyne.

Though the Treasury Department “had no legal or economic justification for these Notices,” according to Professors Ramseyer and Rasmusen, a GM spokesman tried to justify the company’s negative income tax rate by noting that GM pays “other taxes,” including “taxes around the world.”

Are we supposed to be reassured by knowing that GM only stiffs American taxpayers?

The truth is General Motors and the Obama administration didn’t need a justification, because they counted on this unprecedented tax break being too arcane for reporters to understand or write about.

So far, they’ve been right.

GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.-- If GM’s tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 billion to $40 billion.

Polling indicates that public perception of the auto bailout “grows a lot more negative when the actual price tag is attached.” Add to that the public’s revulsion at crony capitalism and it’s no surprise that General Motors, the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the news media don’t want you to know the real cost to taxpayers of the auto bailout.

 

[Slapdash]

What the GM Bailout really cost taxpayers

While President Obama campaigns on “tax fairness” – eliminating loopholes for the wealthiest one percent, the oil companies and other big corporations -- his favorite corporate giant is enjoying an unprecedented, under-the-table multi-billion dollar tax break.

In addition to the more than $50 billion given to General Motors in the bailout, the Obama administration quietly snuck in a special tax break for GM, which allows the company to write off approximately $45 billion in pre-bankruptcy losses against post-bankruptcy profits.

The result? In 2011, GM paid nothing in federal income taxes despite claiming record profits of $7.6 billion, the “highest profits in the 100 year history of that company” according to President Obama.

In fact, that’s not quite right. GM paid a tax rate of negative 1.5% on its record profits – less than nothing.

That’s right, while you were paying your income taxes last month, the IRS was sending General Motors a check for $110 million. And GM’s tax break is a gift that will keep on giving every year at tax time.

It’s good for twenty years.

As with the original $50-plus billion bailout of General Motors – and the $7,500 Chevy Volt tax credit that goes to people with an average income of $170,000 a year – this multi-billion dollar tax gift comes at the expense of ordinary taxpayers who lack GM’s close connections to the White House.

How did this blatant example of crony capitalism come about?

GM’s tax break arises from the Obama administration’s distortion of legitimate tax provisions which allow companies to use prior-year losses – of which the Old GM had plenty – and certain other costs to reduce their current-year federal income taxes. In Section 382 of the tax code, Congress limited these "net operating loss" (NOL) carry-forwards to discourage the buying and selling of tax deductions.

As a result, New GM could not have written off the Old GM losses that were discharged in the bankruptcy. However, as Harvard Law School Professor J. Mark Ramseyer and Indiana University’s Dalton Professor of Business Eric Rasmusen explain, the Obama Treasury Department “‘solved’ this problem by issuing a series of ‘Notices’ in which it announced that [sec. 382] did not apply [here].”

Because companies like GM that file for fast-track bankruptcy without affording due process protections to creditors don’t normally get to preserve NOLs, Treasury’s unprecedented Notices allowed GM “to retain the cake while eating it,” notes Duke Law Professor Jeffrey Coyne.

Though the Treasury Department “had no legal or economic justification for these Notices,” according to Professors Ramseyer and Rasmusen, a GM spokesman tried to justify the company’s negative income tax rate by noting that GM pays “other taxes,” including “taxes around the world.”

Are we supposed to be reassured by knowing that GM only stiffs American taxpayers?

The truth is General Motors and the Obama administration didn’t need a justification, because they counted on this unprecedented tax break being too arcane for reporters to understand or write about.

So far, they’ve been right.

GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.-- If GM’s tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 billion to $40 billion.

Polling indicates that public perception of the auto bailout “grows a lot more negative when the actual price tag is attached.” Add to that the public’s revulsion at crony capitalism and it’s no surprise that General Motors, the Obama administration, and their cheerleaders in the news media don’t want you to know the real cost to taxpayers of the auto bailout.

Wasn't just the auto bailout that generated a large DTA...

 

[Sand]

I do consider the rewriting of bankruptcy laws and the bath that bond holders took an issue, though.

But the unions were made whole, so it's all good.

 

[Joe T]

I'm not surprised to see the Republicans give up so easily.

 

[timschochet]

Is this where we come to ask why Johnny B didn't "stand up to the tea party" during the "negotiation" earlier this year?? What a goober.

Better late than never.

Really? It's just more kicking of the can down the road We'd need an excavator if we wanted to set the bar any lower.

I was referring to Boehner's comments, not to the deal itself. But, I'm convinced that "kicking the can down the road" is the best plan anyhow in this instance. We'll never be able to cut spending enough to have an impact on the debt, and it's futile to try. We need to grow our economy out of it. Republicans should focus on reducing burdensome regulations that hamper economic growth. That and not spending is where the battle with Dems needs to be.

 

[The Commish]

Is this where we come to ask why Johnny B didn't "stand up to the tea party" during the "negotiation" earlier this year?? What a goober.

Better late than never.

Really? It's just more kicking of the can down the road We'd need an excavator if we wanted to set the bar any lower.

I was referring to Boehner's comments, not to the deal itself.But, I'm convinced that "kicking the can down the road" is the best plan anyhow in this instance. We'll never be able to cut spending enough to have an impact on the debt, and it's futile to try. We need to grow our economy out of it. Republicans should focus on reducing burdensome regulations that hamper economic growth. That and not spending is where the battle with Dems needs to be.

Growing the economy will do nothing by itself either. Do you understand how much our economy would have to grow to get us out of this debt? Growth, taxes and spending are all vital to a worthwhile approach to reducing debt. This simpleton, soundbyte approach is starting to get annoying.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/new-all-time-low

A pair of polls show Americans are largely unhappy with both the GOP and the tea party wing of the party.

Tea party favorability has fallen to an all-time low according a Gallup poll released Wednesday, which found a slight majority (51%) of Americans have an unfavorable view of the tea party. The poll finds 30% of Americans feel positively about the tea party, down from a high of 39% in 2011. Republicans are most likely to support the movement, with 58% seeing it favorably, and unsurprisingly Democrats overwhelmingly dislike the tea party – 74% to 10%.

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

It turns out moderates tend to prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party as well. A second Gallup poll released Wednesday finds Democrats maintain a 10-point lead over Republicans in terms of favorability with the American public. While moderates are currently evenly split on the Democratic Party, with 47% viewing it positively and another 47% viewing it negatively, only 27% of moderates have positive views of the Republican Party right now.

Even the Republican base is not as strong as it is for the Democrats. Self-described liberals favor the Democratic Party 71% to 25% in the poll, but conservatives just barely break in favor of the GOP. Just 47% of conservatives say they favor the Republican Party compared to 46% who don’t.

As Gallup’s Andrew Dugan wrote in his analysis, “Neither party closes out the year with a positive public image, but Republicans have had a worse year in terms of overall favorability. The damage wrought by the federal government shutdown has not dissipated much for the GOP.”

 

[RCon]

but I read an article on my phone from CNN earlier this week that claimed the total loss for taxpayers on the stock was $39B.

That;s exactly how much was recouped, 39 billion. So you probably ready it wrong or someone crossed-up the reporting #s.

I also see that GM reported a 39b loss in 2007 when the economy sank.

Very possible. I was reading it on my phone at lunch, so...

 

[DocHolliday]

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/new-all-time-low

A pair of polls show Americans are largely unhappy with both the GOP and the tea party wing of the party.

Tea party favorability has fallen to an all-time low according a Gallup poll released Wednesday, which found a slight majority (51%) of Americans have an unfavorable view of the tea party. The poll finds 30% of Americans feel positively about the tea party, down from a high of 39% in 2011. Republicans are most likely to support the movement, with 58% seeing it favorably, and unsurprisingly Democrats overwhelmingly dislike the tea party – 74% to 10%.

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

It turns out moderates tend to prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party as well. A second Gallup poll released Wednesday finds Democrats maintain a 10-point lead over Republicans in terms of favorability with the American public. While moderates are currently evenly split on the Democratic Party, with 47% viewing it positively and another 47% viewing it negatively, only 27% of moderates have positive views of the Republican Party right now.

Even the Republican base is not as strong as it is for the Democrats. Self-described liberals favor the Democratic Party 71% to 25% in the poll, but conservatives just barely break in favor of the GOP. Just 47% of conservatives say they favor the Republican Party compared to 46% who don’t.

As Gallup’s Andrew Dugan wrote in his analysis, “Neither party closes out the year with a positive public image, but Republicans have had a worse year in terms of overall favorability. The damage wrought by the federal government shutdown has not dissipated much for the GOP.”

MSNBC is quality.

 

[Statorama]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

Great summary.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

 

[Statorama]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that when the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot? Seems to me that if the public was really that upset, having a guy named Obama on the ballot should have been a total disaster.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that when the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot? Seems to me that if the public was really that upset, having a guy named Obama on the ballot should have been a total disaster.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

Trust him...he knows better than most.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that when the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot? Seems to me that if the public was really that upset, having a guy named Obama on the ballot should have been a total disaster.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

Trust him...he knows better than most.

Don't I know it. That's why I asked him to make a movie with me.

 

[Statorama]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

It was the final straw for me and many like me. Enough so that we got out the vote. We did grassroots better than the master himself. There were those in the middle that have forever been pulled to the right.

For many, getting congress back WAS the victory. Stopping this tyrant from having lapdog rubberstamp power in all three branches was enough for some people. I post here hoping to inform and remind people that the fight isn't over. Getting Congress back wasn't "Mission Accomplished".

Hope that clears up your bolded passive-aggressive dooshy comment.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

It was the final straw for me and many like me. Enough so that we got out the vote. We did grassroots better than the master himself. There were those in the middle that have forever been pulled to the right.

For many, getting congress back WAS the victory. Stopping this tyrant from having lapdog rubberstamp power in all three branches was enough for some people. I post here hoping to inform and remind people that the fight isn't over. Getting Congress back wasn't "Mission Accomplished".

Hope that clears up your bolded passive-aggressive dooshy comment.

OK, now I think you don't know what "forever" means.

Hint- longer than two years.

 

[Scoresman]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

It was the final straw for me and many like me. Enough so that we got out the vote. We did grassroots better than the master himself. There were those in the middle that have forever been pulled to the right.

For many, getting congress back WAS the victory. Stopping this tyrant from having lapdog rubberstamp power in all three branches was enough for some people. I post here hoping to inform and remind people that the fight isn't over. Getting Congress back wasn't "Mission Accomplished".

Hope that clears up your bolded passive-aggressive dooshy comment.

this has to be schtick.

 

[Statorama]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

It was the final straw for me and many like me. Enough so that we got out the vote. We did grassroots better than the master himself. There were those in the middle that have forever been pulled to the right.

For many, getting congress back WAS the victory. Stopping this tyrant from having lapdog rubberstamp power in all three branches was enough for some people. I post here hoping to inform and remind people that the fight isn't over. Getting Congress back wasn't "Mission Accomplished".

Hope that clears up your bolded passive-aggressive dooshy comment.

OK, now I think you don't know what "forever" means.

Hint- longer than two years.

Now I don't think that you know what "There were those" means. It could be two, it could be two million. There were people that Obama has permanently swayed to the right. I don't know why that's gotten you into this snarky mood. Go get some snatch bro

 

[TobiasFunke]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 2010 happened but 2012 did not?

Please clarify.

Obama is a campaign force. When he's not on the ticket, good things happen.

I've said many times that he's the best campaigner in the history of the game, and there's a trickle down effect for those that just vote for someone with a "D" at the end of their name.

Edit to add: I think there was also a dissatisfaction with the guy at the top of the ticket running against Obama

Second edit: Didn't claim 2012 didn't happen. Trust me, I know better than most that 2012 happened.

Third edit: I think there was an "exhale" effect knowing that one branch of government had been taken. Once it was pretty firmly established that Republicans would control the Congress for a while it kind of let the air out of the sails...there was an opportunity to relax knowing that Democrats couldn't just ram things through like Obamacare.

I don't understand. You just told me that Obamacare was "the final straw." Now you're telling me that the Democrats won big in 2012 (they even won the generic vote total for the House; the right kept the House through gerrymandering), it's because the guy who the legislation you claimed was "final straw" was named after was on the ballot?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what "final straw" means.

It was the final straw for me and many like me. Enough so that we got out the vote. We did grassroots better than the master himself. There were those in the middle that have forever been pulled to the right.

For many, getting congress back WAS the victory. Stopping this tyrant from having lapdog rubberstamp power in all three branches was enough for some people. I post here hoping to inform and remind people that the fight isn't over. Getting Congress back wasn't "Mission Accomplished".

Hope that clears up your bolded passive-aggressive dooshy comment.

OK, now I think you don't know what "forever" means.

Hint- longer than two years.

Now I don't think that you know what "There were those" means. It could be two, it could be two million. There were people that Obama has permanently swayed to the right. I don't know why that's gotten you into this snarky mood. Go get some snatch bro

It's very kind of you to think that my snarkiness is just a mood. Unfortunately I'm like this all the time.

 

[Statorama]

It's very kind of you to think that my snarkiness is just a mood. Unfortunately I'm like this all the time.

No worries man, we're different sides of the same coin.

 

[timschochet]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

Hey Chairman Stat- (sorry, but your avatar cracks me up every time.)

You're analysis of the Tea Party is very well written- at least, it would be if a single thing you wrote was accurate. Unfortunately for you, none of it is. You made the statement:

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Sounds great. Except, since the Tea Party became a viable force in the House of Representatives in 2010, they have, collectively, voted to do the following:

1. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

2. 45 symbolic votes to get rid of Obamacare, costing millions of dollars.

3. Shutdown the government, costing billions of dollars to the economy

4. Rejected all aspects of immigration reform and called for a mass deportation of existing illegal immigrants.

And this represents only the tip of the iceberg. Please explain how any of these measures would cause government to "run more efficiently and economically". TIA

 

[Statorama]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

Hey Chairman Stat- (sorry, but your avatar cracks me up every time.)

You're analysis of the Tea Party is very well written- at least, it would be if a single thing you wrote was accurate. Unfortunately for you, none of it is. You made the statement:

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Sounds great. Except, since the Tea Party became a viable force in the House of Representatives in 2010, they have, collectively, voted to do the following:

1. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

2. 45 symbolic votes to get rid of Obamacare, costing millions of dollars.

3. Shutdown the government, costing billions of dollars to the economy

4. Rejected all aspects of immigration reform and called for a mass deportation of existing illegal immigrants.

And this represents only the tip of the iceberg. Please explain how any of these measures would cause government to "run more efficiently and economically". TIA

In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

It does point to the chaos that is going on in the party right now. There is no lock-step rubber stamp unison that exists on the other side of the aisle. There's no real "leader" of the Republican party. It's fractious and concerning. The elections of 2014 will go a long way toward dictating which direction the party goes, I think.

The points you cite were great learning experiences, not only for those in Congress/Senate, but for those with boots on the ground as well. If you want to be the big angry dog that gets loose every once in a while, bark all you want. If you want to be emotional and bring pitchforks and torches to Omaha beach you're going to get mowed down without mercy. It's a long game. It's little moves toward a common goal. It's finding ways to work together with people that agree with you 90% of the time. It's never letting perfection be the enemy of the very good.

Liberals have very simple goals. Grow government and spread the wealth around. And they are winning.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

 

[Statorama]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

Edit to add for those keeping score at home: I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

 

[Statorama]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

 

[Scoresman]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Moderates aren’t too keen on the movement either. While the split is not as stark as with Democrats, moderates are more likely than even the general public to say they don’t favor the tea party (54%) and only 23% say they do favor it.

MSNBC is quality.

Plus there's a lot of misinformation out there about what the Tea Party actually is (including from some who consider themselves part of the movement).

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

There's way too much bloat in the government and Obamacare was the final straw. People rose up. Voted. 2010 happened whether liberals want to admit it or not.

Then came the disinformation campaign from liberals (and "moderate" Republicans) who have something to gain from the government being large and in charge.

Beware those that want to bring down a group of people whose only ambition is to shrink government waste.

Hey Chairman Stat- (sorry, but your avatar cracks me up every time.)

You're analysis of the Tea Party is very well written- at least, it would be if a single thing you wrote was accurate. Unfortunately for you, none of it is. You made the statement:

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Sounds great. Except, since the Tea Party became a viable force in the House of Representatives in 2010, they have, collectively, voted to do the following:

1. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

2. 45 symbolic votes to get rid of Obamacare, costing millions of dollars.

3. Shutdown the government, costing billions of dollars to the economy

4. Rejected all aspects of immigration reform and called for a mass deportation of existing illegal immigrants.

And this represents only the tip of the iceberg. Please explain how any of these measures would cause government to "run more efficiently and economically". TIA

In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

It does point to the chaos that is going on in the party right now. There is no lock-step rubber stamp unison that exists on the other side of the aisle. There's no real "leader" of the Republican party. It's fractious and concerning. The elections of 2014 will go a long way toward dictating which direction the party goes, I think.

The points you cite were great learning experiences, not only for those in Congress/Senate, but for those with boots on the ground as well. If you want to be the big angry dog that gets loose every once in a while, bark all you want. If you want to be emotional and bring pitchforks and torches to Omaha beach you're going to get mowed down without mercy. It's a long game. It's little moves toward a common goal. It's finding ways to work together with people that agree with you 90% of the time. It's never letting perfection be the enemy of the very good.

Liberals have very simple goals. Grow government

this is incorrect.

 

[Statorama]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

Now why don't you see it as trying to force your pro-choice sensibilities on them, and not caring about the costs of it either....?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

Now why don't you see it as trying to force your pro-choice sensibilities on them, and not caring about the costs of it either....?

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

Now why don't you see it as trying to force your pro-choice sensibilities on them, and not caring about the costs of it either....?

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

Pretty sure Democrats were in favor of slavery at one point.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

Now why don't you see it as trying to force your pro-choice sensibilities on them, and not caring about the costs of it either....?

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

Pretty sure Democrats were in favor of slavery at one point.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

Pretty sure Democrats were in favor of slavery at one point.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted...

BOOM!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

Pretty sure Democrats were in favor of slavery at one point.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted...

BOOM!

LOL.

You have gone off on a tangent, and yes conservative democrats were often anti-equality.

Then a ton of conservatives/liberals flipped parties and they now are much different.

Everyone should understand that southern strategy and such.

You do understand that right?

 

[Statorama]

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government and scoping out ways to make the things we actually do need government to do run more efficiently and economically.

Bull####. See abortion.

They are about controlling people to do things in a fashion which matches their sensibilities and #### anyone who is not like them.

Misinformation. Certainly those types of people would be drawn to a limited government platform. But they are not the foundation.

No they wouldn't be drawn to limited government. They want to govern and controls every individual womans genitalia. Nothing limited about that.

Those types of people are hiding because their idiocy in this age of information cant be denied... and recently choose to hide behind/within the limited fiscal platform.

Such anger. Yes, they are drawn to a limited government platform because they don't want government funded abortions.

While I'm pro-choice I would never refer to someone wanting to save the lives of innocent children an "idiot in the age of information"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

They simply want to force their sensibilities upon others, they dont care about the costs of it either. They are social conservatives in sheeps clothing.

Now why don't you see it as trying to force your pro-choice sensibilities on them, and not caring about the costs of it either....?

You've exposed yourself.

You sound like they guy who would be arguing in favor of slavery.... by arguing against those opposed to slavery as being as being too controlling of others.

Hardly. Being pro-choice is an extension of my personal belief in freedom, so your slavery argument is a confusing one.

But we have to stop this anger between those that have differing ideas than us. You yourself said this is the information age. We need to educate them, not admonish them or call them names....or worse yet fight amongst ourselves.

The abortion debate was designed to be a wedge between us by those in power. Republicans recently had control of everything. Every branch of government. A conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But they didn't touch abortion. Why? It's another thing for the people (you, me, them) to be pissed off at each other about. Politicians want to divide us. Men vs. women. Young vs. old. White vs. black. Rich vs. poor. They don't want us talking. They don't want us having a true, open, honest and intellectual debate. They want us at each others throats. I know we can rise above that. We HAVE to rise above that. Otherwise the low-information voters that can be led by the nose with wedge issues end up deciding our leaders....on both sides of the aisle.

We both believe in the same thing here. A woman's right to choose. You're obviously not a Tea Party member, yet we agree on this issue. Let's not be angry at each other, let's rejoice that while we have our differences elsewhere, here we have common ground. Why, if we start talking we might actually find out we agree on a lot of things. You might change my mind on some things and I might change your mind on others. That's the danger to those in power, that enough of us would quit fighting with each other for ten minutes and have an open dialogue. Let's not be angry with each other. Let's inform. Let's educate. Let's just be human beings with each other for gosh sakes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Then dont push lies such as...

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government

When we know its not true.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Then dont push lies such as...

The Tea Party is just about limiting the size and scope of government

When we know its not true.

Sure it is.