The Economy Is Getting Better All The Time...????

[duane1969]

I don't think the war protesters and the Tea party people are even in the same category. There's a pretty big difference IMO.

+1

I don't see comparing them either. One is a group of people who are protesting and once the reason to protest goes away so will they. The other is an organized political party with a rather significant following.

I think the problem that Reid and others missed is why the Tea Party formed. Sure, they are about fixing the economy (among other things), but the reality is that no Tea Party would exist if either of the other parties were doing a good job. The Tea Party formed as an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties. The only way the Tea Party "fades away" is if the Dems or Repubs turn our nation around and start addressing the wants of all of the people and not just a select priviledged few.

[pghin08]

+1

I don't see comparing them either. One is a group of people who are protesting and once the reason to protest goes away so will they. The other is an organized political party with a rather significant following.

I think the problem that Reid and others missed is why the Tea Party formed. Sure, they are about fixing the economy (among other things), but the reality is that no Tea Party would exist if either of the other parties were doing a good job. The Tea Party formed as an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties. The only way the Tea Party "fades away" is if the Dems or Repubs turn our nation around and start addressing the wants of all of the people and not just a select priviledged few.

Sorry, that's a load of crap. This is a two-party country, and the political discourse nowadays is all but ensuring that particular divisiveness lives on. Much as people on here can disagree, the Tea Party is predominantly seen as an extension to the Republican party (look at who's hopped on board: Beck, Hannity, Palin, etc.). Once the Republican party takes power after the Obama Administration, the Tea Party will lose itself within the Republican agenda (remember the ever powerful States' Rights party that Strom Thurmond ran for President on back in '48? That worked well for him.)

My point in comparing with the protesters disappearing once the Dems were in power was that once the party that a fringe group aligns with (War Haters- Dems; Tea Party- Republicans) gains power, those groups simply fall back into the masses. Why? Because they don't have anyone to fight against. The Tea Party will be the same way. Do you really think that so-called Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck will stand up against Republicans if they don't fight for the Tea Party agenda? Not a chance. They'll defend the next Republican administration with as much fervor as they defended Bush.

(Side note, I agree with this article in Business Week that claims the Tea Party doesn't truly have an agenda--http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...0066170117.htm)

The Tea Party was NOT formed out of the frustration of both parties. Had John McCain been elected, the Tea Party as we know it wouldn't exist. Where were Tea Partiers when Bush was all but nationalizing the banks? Oh yeah, it didn't exist.

My final point is this: See what happens to the Tea Party when Obama leaves office. It'll probably stop in its tracks.

[duane1969]

The Tea Party was NOT formed out of the frustration of both parties. Had John McCain been elected, the Tea Party as we know it wouldn't exist. Where were Tea Partiers when Bush was all but nationalizing the banks? Oh yeah, it didn't exist.

My final point is this: See what happens to the Tea Party when Obama leaves office. It'll probably stop in its tracks.

Refresh my memory. When was Bush nationalizing banks? Honest question. I don't recall this.

I agree, there would be no Tea Party if McCain was elected. There also would be no Obamacare, no $4.8 trillion in increased defecit since he took office and issues like immigration would (probably) not have been the issue that it has become. Would everything be hunky-doory? No. But McCain has long been about decreasing government spending so I feel confident that things would be different in many ways and in turn there probably would have been less of a rise in unhappiness with the government like what has occurred over the last two years. Heck, even Obama supports don't support hime anymore (his job approval rating has dipped back below 45%).

[pghin08]

Refresh my memory. When was Bush nationalizing banks? Honest question. I don't recall this.

I agree, there would be no Tea Party if McCain was elected. There also would be no Obamacare, no $4.8 trillion in increased defecit since he took office and issues like immigration would (probably) not have been the issue that it has become. Would everything be hunky-doory? No. But McCain has long been about decreasing government spending so I feel confident that things would be different in many ways and in turn there probably would have been less of a rise in unhappiness with the government like what has occurred over the last two years. Heck, even Obama supports don't support hime anymore (his job approval rating has dipped back below 45%).

Back in October of 2008, Bush spent a quarter of a trillion dollars to buy stakes in about 10 of the biggest banks on Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc), the U.S. Treasury guaranteed bank loans, all while the Fed was brokering a deal between JP Morgan and Bear Stearns.

Regardless, that's government owning and propping up private companies. It was the same thing that a lot of Europe was doing at the time. It just kind of got lost in the chaos that October 2008 was.

[duane1969]

Eh, guaranteeing loans isn't exactly nationalizing the banking system. The Fed has been propping up companies for years (GM, Amtrak, etc.) without actually taking them over. Perhaps they should have in some cases.

The difference I see between then and now is that the Obama bailout included the govt. having input into the operation and business of the banks, controlling interest rates that they charged, etc. That is why so many of the banks fell over themselves to pay back what they got ASAP.

[pghin08]

Eh, guaranteeing loans isn't exactly nationalizing the banking system. The Fed has been propping up companies for years (GM, Amtrak, etc.) without actually taking them over. Perhaps they should have in some cases.

The difference I see between then and now is that the Obama bailout included the govt. having input into the operation and business of the banks, controlling interest rates that they charged, etc. That is why so many of the banks fell over themselves to pay back what they got ASAP.

Buying a stake in public companies is nationalization. Backing up their loans isn't, but buying a stake is.

I'm surprised to hear you say that the Fed should have taken over any public company at any point.

And you don't think the Bush Administration had any type of influence over what these banks did at that point? He wouldn't have just given $250 billion over and say, "Do what you want with it!".

What Bush did was way out of character for him. He's got very few socialistic tendencies, but this was a case where one of them came out. My point with the whole thing is that you don't ever hear Tea Partiers come out against things that Bush and Paulson did in '08. It's just one reason that makes me think that when the Republicans take power again, the Tea Partiers will line up right behind them.

You could claim that I'm misunderstanding the Tea Party as a whole, but I just don't believe that they'd hold the Republicans accountable. Heck, some Tea Partiers don't even know what they believe. If you read that article I posted earlier, it said that the vast majority (I forget the percentage) favored repealing Obamacare. Yet when they were asked about some key components of the bill (can't deny care to patients w/ pre-existing conditions, etc), the majority were in favor of them. That doesn't exactly scream "defined agenda" to me. They also said they want more Medicare benefits. But doesn't T.E.A. stand for "Taxed Enough Already"? Where exactly would the money come from? I've noticed that in a lot of people in my own life who align themselves with the Tea Party like a lot of government benefits (most are Social Security Collectors who are on Medicare), until they have to pay for them. If one of the so-called Tea Party candidates ran on a campaign of lowering benefits until we could get our spending under control, I may even vote for the guy. If the Tea Partiers want to stay true to their word and curtail government spending, some benefits would HAVE to get cut.

As the creator of the wonderful comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Watterson once said, "We all want to go to heaven, but no one wants to do what it takes to get there."

[sanfran22]

Buying a stake in public companies is nationalization. Backing up their loans isn't, but buying a stake is.

I'm surprised to hear you say that the Fed should have taken over any public company at any point.

And you don't think the Bush Administration had any type of influence over what these banks did at that point? He wouldn't have just given $250 billion over and say, "Do what you want with it!".

What Bush did was way out of character for him. He's got very few socialistic tendencies, but this was a case where one of them came out. My point with the whole thing is that you don't ever hear Tea Partiers come out against things that Bush and Paulson did in '08. It's just one reason that makes me think that when the Republicans take power again, the Tea Partiers will line up right behind them.

You could claim that I'm misunderstanding the Tea Party as a whole, but I just don't believe that they'd hold the Republicans accountable. Heck, some Tea Partiers don't even know what they believe. If you read that article I posted earlier, it said that the vast majority (I forget the percentage) favored repealing Obamacare. Yet when they were asked about some key components of the bill (can't deny care to patients w/ pre-existing conditions, etc), the majority were in favor of them. That doesn't exactly scream "defined agenda" to me. They also said they want more Medicare benefits. But doesn't T.E.A. stand for "Taxed Enough Already"? Where exactly would the money come from? I've noticed that in a lot of people in my own life who align themselves with the Tea Party like a lot of government benefits (most are Social Security Collectors who are on Medicare), until they have to pay for them. If one of the so-called Tea Party candidates ran on a campaign of lowering benefits until we could get our spending under control, I may even vote for the guy. If the Tea Partiers want to stay true to their word and curtail government spending, some benefits would HAVE to get cut.

As the creator of the wonderful comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Watterson once said, "We all want to go to heaven, but no one wants to do what it takes to get there."

I hear alot of people complain about this. One reason you may not is that the only people bringing up Bush on a daily basis are those on the left.
I do agree with you that it's out of character for Bush. IMO I think he was tired of everything and the browbeating from the left and gave in to their wants. I think the people around him probably had to convince him that he needed to do it.

[pghin08]

I hear alot of people complain about this. One reason you may not is that the only people bringing up Bush on a daily basis are those on the left.
I do agree with you that it's out of character for Bush. IMO I think he was tired of everything and the browbeating from the left and gave in to their wants. I think the people around him probably had to convince him that he needed to do it.

I don't really hear ANYONE bringing Bush up on a daily basis. I don't think he was tired of the browbeating either. The banks faced systemic risk. Bush, Paulson and Bernanke all knew this, and knew that if they didn't prop up the banks, Wall Street would have fallen into complete chaos (more so than it did). I'm not sure what would have happened if they didn't do that. A couple of those banks may have made it, but I really think Merrill Lynch and others would have gone down.

[shortking98]

Pretty sure all of the elected tea party candidates have an (R) next to their name so that should tell you something about the viability of the party as an alternative to the two party system

[pghin08]

Pretty sure all of the elected tea party candidates have an (R) next to their name so that should tell you something about the viability of the party as an alternative to the two party system

Wait, are you saying that it is viable, or that it isn't really an alternative? Because if you're saying that it isn't an alternative, I'm on board with that.