Skunks in da House, deficit and debt

[cumrag27]

What motivates Tea Partiers?

I don't think anyone really knew who David Cameron was till Tuesday and Wednesday when he stood behind the microphones traditionally set up outside the official residence of the sitting Prime Minister in Downing Street and addressed the matter of the demonstrations gone amok. He gave a rousing speech, warning the hardened criminal scum who had been out on the streets making cops look like silent movie fall guys, looting lots of great electronics and looking forward to their 12th birthday parties, that they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, "...if you're old enough to break the law, you're old enough to face up to the consequences the law requires..." or something to that effect. He had previously warned that he wasn't going to fall for a lot of civil rights rubbish. Can you imagine?

He's nothing but a fucking bullshit class warrior afraid that he's been left out of loop on this one, irrelevant and openmouthed, imagining his tough talk reflects well on him, Cameron against the children of London.

Of course you're both right: it's all a question of the economy. Not enough funds allocated to education and after-school activities over the last decades, years of an increasingly widening prosperity gap between the marginalized poor and the ever more unbearably self-satisfied and insulated rich.

Christ, conservatives become less and less stomachable every time they open their uninformed, self-serving, cant spewing mouths. Maybe part of the reason I think Cameron is so very vile is because he identifies himself to some extent with our teaparty hooligans in the US. Why anyone on earth would want to advertise his friendship with or admiration for people like that I cannot, absolutely cannot understand.

Dear Slim,

It seems that some of our far-right ultra-conservatives believe you must fight fire with fire and escalating the rhetoric is akin to Donald Rumsfeld's ill conceived concept of "Shock and Awe" as applied to Iraq. Behind it all is nothing short of relying on "bullying" techniques from those with little if any actual combat experience. As I see it, too many of the tea party supporters only want to skim over advise from professionals in the field when the far-right consider solving problems without having to actually dirty their hands.

Under Rumsfeld's troublesome leadership in our incursion into Iraq, we over-relied on air support to fight Iraqi forces, while we failed dismally in our planning and foresight to worry about the actual safety of our ground troops. Kevlar vests were so rare that parents and spouses of soldiers had to purchase then independently if they were to be provided for their love-ones if a soldier was to have a vest for protection. Furthermore, armor plated Humvees to protect our soldiers from improvised explosive devises that riddled the roadways our own soldiers found themself on with unnecessary injuries. But then, the far right never actually sees combat so they cannot relate to the soldiers needs they so cavalierly put on the ground. Nor do they value the essential infrastructure needed to support our troups they put in harms way.

Just like these same ultra-conservative visionaries have these factors in common:

• they don't want to provide condoms in public schools,

• they object to all forms of abortion(even in the case of rape), yet

• they then object to supporting through entitlement programs for the cost of raising these unplanned children that were born as a consequence of limited adequate protection and sex-education in public schools.

Other things on their "no-no list" include universal health care; funding for public education, public radio, and public TV broadcasts; funding for the health care of vets returning from war; funding increased revenue for the Treasury to help with the debt crisis; bailing out corporations when their demise would place thousands of American workers out of work nationally; regulations to commerce and the stock markets/banking/investment firms that almost brought our entire economy to collapse; good-faith negotiations and compromise in the two houses of our legislature, any and all attempts in gun-control legislation; and finally being reasonable recognizing that they live in a nation of over 300+ million people and not living in isolation on some deserted island. With all of these "NO'S", is seems like they have yet to get over the "terrible two's", where everything coming out of the mouth of a two year old is the word NO.

People who are attracted to the tea party need to realize that they are no longer in high school and rebelling against authority for it's own sake is a life task they should have already accomplished in their transition from teenager to adult. They believe that all competition, especial cut-throat competition, is some how blessed by God and makes them morally superior to everyone else. A little narcissistic wouldn't you say? But, maybe the tea party devotees had no safety net when they were growing up! Who knows?

Just like the rioting that has taken place in London recently, it seems tea partiers would rather have total anarchy than make regulations to control the masses of rioters. After all, their mantra borrowed from Thomas Paine is "that government is best that governs least!" That is until their own personal safety is in question!



Sincerely worried about our survivability as a nation,


Stimpy


Stimp, Liberal and Proud

 

[balboa]

Balboa,

I have read the US has spent 14 trillion dollars (actually spent or guaranteed) since 2008. I think the government will continue this policy, as will other governments. I feel we will get to the point we were in the late 70's and early 80's - high unemployment and inflation. Then there will come a time when governments can't really do any more and the problem gets solved by the old rule of the free market. This probably means a depression and all of what that entails. I am personally operating under this assumption. PS - I think the London rioting is mostly about economics and we will see more of this.

Tim114

This excerpt is from an article in The Wall Street Journal Jan, 2010.

"The Obama administration envisioned a $1 trillion short-term deficit-spending stimulus for a problem that turned out to be twice as big as was then understood. In other words, had the administration known how big the problem would turn out to be, it would have sought a $2 trillion stimulus. And what did we get once Congress got through with it? A $600 billion stimulus—about one-third of what we needed."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704055104574652314270243466.html

So, I'll have to stick with my original premise. The stimulus was too small by far. And with the political "brinksmanship" that has been going on in Washington, and I blame the repubs primarily, spending is now the issue when it shouldn't be in this economic climate. That's a topic for debate once we are through the economic crisis, not during.

 

[slimvintage]

they don't want to provide condoms in public schools,

they object to all forms of abortion(even in the case of rape), yet

they then object to supporting through entitlement programs for the cost of raising these unplanned children that were born as a consequence of limited adequate protection and sex-education in public schools.

Brilliant