DISQUS

Braden · 8 months ago

So if Republicans didn't like the massive deficits George W was running up, why didn't they hold protests back then? Why didn't conservatives protest his Medicare bill, or No Child Left Behind? Bush's budget was $3.1 trillion, without Iraq and Afghanistan; and Obama's is about $3.8 trillion, with Iraq and Afganistan. I think it's pretty obvious this is a partisan protest.

Obama's approval rating is currently at 63%. According to Gallup, 61% say the amount of taxes they are paying is fair, and 71% say they trust Obama to handle the economy. So, to be clear, the average American is not taking part in these protests, nor do they seem to support the cause. This is not some massive ground swelling of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. This is a conservative, partisan protest, which is absolutely fine and within their rights.

Bob Ellis · 8 months ago

As I said before, we protested it back then. But Obama has taken it exponentially to new levels. You're aware of what a tipping point is, right? We've reached it and passed it. I wish more conservatives had got fired up more sooner (we might have avoided this precipitous mess), but that's a failing on the Right--the naive hope that when push comes to shove, our government will act rationally instead of emotionally. I think that illusion is now shattered for many people.

It's clear to anyone who isn't a liberal who's reveling in all this gargantuan spending that the current administration has taken Bush's irresponsible spending 3 or more levels higher. And then there's the fascist takeover of major businesses where the president is dictating terms, forcing executives out, and even advocating the breaking of legal contracts.

I also notice that you couldn't pass up an opportunity to bash national defense and fighting terrorism, either--one of the few things we spend money on these days that actually IS authorized by the constitution. And even in so spending, defense remains less than 20% of the annual federal budget--while more than 50% of it is spent on unconstitutional social spending. How pathetic.

If you're a Democrat who doesn't want to wake up to the dangerous waters we've entered, you're entitled to stay in bed and keep the pillow over your head to keep the light out. But there are other Democrats and Independents who realize the future of our very country is at stake, and they're banding together with Republicans, Libertarians and people from other political stripes as Americans to turn our country back from the rocks.

I think you'll be surprised by how many average Americans show up at the Tea Parties, even amidst bad weather and work days. And they will continue. And as many Americans who voted for this socialist face the music that they made a terrible mistake on Nov. 4, even more will join future Tea Parties.

Let freedom ring!

Braden · 8 months ago

"And even in so spending, defense remains less than 20% of the annual federal budget--while more than 50% of it is spent on unconstitutional social spending. How pathetic."

The Constitution grants Congress the ability to enact legislation that is necessary and proper for the country. Given this vague language I think we can agree why there is disagreement about what it means. If you feel that making sure retirees aren't homeless on the streets and paying for medical costs for those who can't afford it aren't necessary or proper to do, that's your choice.

I'm sure you know that if nobody is spending in America, that means there are no customers. That means more layoffs, more job losses, and more bankruptcy. I don't know a single economist who thinks that a federal government spending freeze could turn the economy around. If the federal government doesn't spend and create jobs, who will? I know that there are people spending and hiring in the U.S., but the principle is the same: the government as the employer of last resort.

I know conservatives have now convinced themselves that the New Deal didn't work, but in reality, it did. By every single measure of the economy: unemployment, GDP, markets- the economy improved. Some say the massive government spending of the New Deal didn't work and the economy didn't recover until WW2, when massive government spending turned the economy around- it's a self-defeating argument.

I can't change how you interpret the Constitution, so if you think the stimulus is illegal, so be it. But the principle of government spending to turn around a recession is almost unanimously agreed on by economists, and for the 'tea-baggers' to act like it is some unfounded, baseless idea makes them seem rediculous.

"Let freedom ring!"

You know, when someone says what they are going to do in an election, wins, and then does it, that's not tyranny. Tyranny is not the same thing as losing.

Bob Ellis · 8 months ago

Uh, no, the Constitution most certainly does NOT give Congress the authority do do whatever enters their greedy little minds.

Surely you've heard of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, right? The enumerated powers? I know the state of public education is pretty pathetic these days, but surely you've come across that. The powers of the federal government are specific and enumerated; in other words, they're listed. Anything not listed is illegal. Congress has no authority to do it.

Even the General Welfare clause doesn't amount to a Santa Claus list for congressional spenders. The founders were quite explicit about this:

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” - James Madison

With respect to the two words ‘ general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

If it wasn't crystal clear already, the Tenth Amendment nails the lid shut:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're also hilarious with your "government spending and creating jobs" nonsense. The government doesn't have a single dollar of it's own; it must take every penny it holds out of the pocket of an American citizen or American business. And it creates no job that...guess what...doesn't take more money out of the pockets of Americans to pay for that job.

Americans create jobs. Those evil rich people you socialists so despise. They take the risks, they put in the long hours, they build the businesses that create the goods and services that make a civilization function...and provides the jobs for other Americans.

For an average American like yourself to show such disregard for the Constitution--which is really quite clear--is pathetic. For elected officials--who swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution--to show such contempt for it is reprehensible.

And tomorrow those reprehensible officials will be getting a huge postcard to put them on notice.

Braden · 8 months ago

The founding fathers were smarter than the average bear. They knew that problems would arise which they could not forsee, and that the government would have to deal with these problems. This is why they included the necessary and proper clause and also a process to amend the Constitution. It's true that the federal government has expanded its powers well beyond those it had originally. But this isn't 1789.

Take airline travel for instance. There is no way Thomas Jefferson could have envisioned airplanes. Yet the federal government has a vested interest in regulating airline travel: making sure planes don't collide, making sure they don't fly over secure sites, making sure you don't smuggle C4 on board, etc. Does the fact the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government power to regulate airline travel mean it can't do it? No, because it is necessary and proper for the government to keep American citizens safe, (and because of the commerce clause) and because our elected officials have passed legislation enabling the government to do so.

The War on Drugs is another example. Are you saying that because the Constitution doesn't grant the government an enumerated power over what intoxicants citizens can take into their bodies, that marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional? I don't think you are, I think the only programs you believe to be unconstitutional are programs you personally disagree with.

"The government doesn't have a single dollar of it's own; it must take every penny it holds out of the pocket of an American citizen or American business."

That's not true. Most of U.S. federal revenue comes from taxes, but they also get some from tariffs, agreements or sales to other countries, and often time the federal government simply prints money. If you dont' think the government paying people to build a road or manufacture tanks when nobody else in the community is hiring will create jobs then I can't help you.

joyce · 8 months ago

Ummm...tariffs are taking out of other pockets too. We might agree with that, but it isn't the government's money. What does the government "sell" to other countries? They DON'T PRODUCE ANYTHING! ...except for hotair and bullsh*t...and threats. The government is the MAFIA....and this particular Mafia is OUT OF CONTROL. Where is Elliot Ness when we need him? All this govt produces anymore is the likes of Elliot Spitzer and other crooks.

joyce · 8 months ago

Went to the Tea Party here on the beach in the Los Angeles area (Dockweiler Beach). About 1000 people showed up, which is great since this wasn't one of the major Tea Parties going on in SoCal, and it is a very "liberal" city. But it was the one closest to where I live. Only Fox News and BBC sent a reporter and remote cameraman to cover (what a shock). Tammy Bruce (radio host and sometimes-pundit on Hannity's TV show) spoke to the crowd, as well as others. It was a real grass roots group...all parties (even disgruntled Democrats showed up to join with us), all ages, all races (white, black, Asians, Mexican), all soci-economic looking groups, both sexes.

No ACORN or disruptive types showed up. Too bad because this very enthusiastic group would have drowned them out.