Okay, then tell me this. Since Bush has clearly proven that an unregulated, supply-side, trickle down economy does not work in real life, why do the Tea Partyers seem to continue favoring an unregulated, supply side, trickle down economy? Where is all that "learning" you were telling me about?
you're generalizing. first tell me, specifically, what you're referring to when you say that the Tea Party is essentially supporting what Bush had in place.
Do they actually want increased regulation? I must have missed that part. Do they want fiscal responsibility in the form of taxation required to balance the budget? As for spending cuts, which items benefiting the most vulnerable do they wish to keep in place rather than simply favoring the strong and wealthy as a matter of course (which brings us back to supply side)?
I hope not cause I don't either. WE (as in NOT you) don't need higher taxes to balance OUR (as in NOT yours) budget . WE (as in NOT you) need drastic across the board spending cuts.
do they want increased regulation? in certain areas, yes. they want too-big-to-fail banks broken up. they want oversight on the federal reserve. once again, it depends on what youre referring to. give me a specific area. i can tell you they dont want increased government regulation in health care. do they want fiscal responsibility in the form of taxation required to balance the budget? HELL NO. we dont believe "fiscal responsibility" is about increasing taxes. it's about SPENDING LESS. the term "fiscal responsibility" is about spending what you can afford to spend. not spending out of control and then taxing higher to cover for it. as for spending cuts...this will vary on the individual. but generally they dont want bailouts. they dont want 99 weeks of unemployment. they dont want spending given to foreign countries in terms of aid while our own house is in disarray. they want less money given to things like NPR or unions. and quite a few of them even follow the ron paul idea of less spending on national defense (in the ideas of closing all those bases we have around the world) and a return to a more isolationist mentality.
Gabby, why do you insist on starting the same thread over and over again? We've had this debate on here countless times. I would make the argument that Ron Paul is the father of the tea party movement and it started in 2006 when Bush was in office. And a majority of that deficit was from 2006 on. In case you need reminding, it's the congress that writes the budget. We turned control over to the democrats in 2006. And about 70% of our current deficit is from the 2006 to 2011 budgets. That is the democrats. Do you have any other questions?
That's not true. The deficits in 2006 and 2007 were lower than the deficits in 2003, 2004 or 2005: 2002: -$157.8 billion 2003: -$377.6 billion 2004: -$412.7 billion 2005: -$318.3 billion 2006: -$248.2 billion 2007: -$160.7 billion And THEN the Bush shit storm hit, which left Obama with a $1.3 trillion deficit and a collapsing economy just as he was stepping into office. You're upset that there were cleanup costs after Bush's drunken-sailor-spending-and-tax-cut party? Perhaps Obama should have immediately eliminated all 8 years of fiscal and regulatory irresponsibility with a single wave of his magic wand? And anything less was unacceptable? Woujld that be the classical definition of the double standard? (The 2002 to 2007 numbers are actually from a conservative source, so you would be wise to check your own sources for verification.)
No, just the continuation of the tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. Which brings us back to supply side economics, of which you wanted examples. Glad I could help.