Thread: Tea Party = Teo-Cons

Not terrible points, but his crediblity (sanity) is questionable....


In a recent interview, Jimmy Carter made the call that the tea-party would eventually be absorbed by/merge with the Republican Party, and would quietly disappear.

the current political climate allows wack jobs that would not normally have a voice to be heard. unfortunately a lot of people make bad decisions in general when they are desperate.

Originally Posted by LAM

the current political climate allows wack jobs that would not normally have a voice to be heard. unfortunately a lot of people make bad decisions in general when they are desperate.

Agree.

That's why O'Donnell, Angle, and Palin are in the mix - for now.

Originally Posted by LAM

the current political climate allows wack jobs that would not normally have a voice to be heard. unfortunately a lot of people make bad decisions in general when they are desperate.

like electing a socialist? I agree.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

like electing a socialist? I agree.

yeah, this

Originally Posted by busyLivin

like electing a socialist? I agree.

I assume you're referring to Obama, but GWB is still much MORE socialist.

If you don't know what I mean - please ask.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I assume you're referring to Obama, but GWB is still much MORE socialist.

If you don't know what I mean - please ask.

GWB is more socialist than Obama? you are a total political loon. it blows me away that there are people like you out there. then again the KKK is still around and I don't understand how they can think the way they do either

Originally Posted by bio-chem

GWB is more socialist than Obama? you are a total political loon. it blows me away that there are people like you out there.

You can't argue the point, can you?

I'm referring to GWB signing the Medicare-D act. One of the most socialist moves in history.

then again the KKK is still around and I don't understand how they can think the way they do either

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Instead of personal quips about being a "loon" or changing the topic to the kkk, try to stay on the topic of my comment, and use points to contradict it.

Nothing wrong with disagreement.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

like electing a socialist? I agree.

much better to support a party who relies on the ignorance of it's supporters and whose economic policies if allowed to continue will ultimately lead to modern day serfdom in the US.

What party will make my life a little easier?

Towards the end GWB was a lot more left than right. Also, I'm sick of seeing Palin at Tea Party rallies too. I just want to tell her: "The party isn't for you. Don't worry though, we all still want to fuck you and you HOT daughter Bristol"

Wish that was my hand on her thighs. I would so violate her.

Originally Posted by TheGreatSatan

Uggh... Bristol palin is such an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by LAM

much better to support a party who relies on the ignorance of it's supporters and whose economic policies if allowed to continue will ultimately lead to modern day serfdom in the US.

I agree, LAM.

Reminds of that notable book that I haven't read, because it'll make me depressed. The book called The Road to Serfdom.

Obama's policies are leading us to serfdom, and he's a continuation of the last 60+ years of government policies by both parties, the bureaucracy, and special interest groups to control us, abscond our earnings, and regulate and dictate almost every aspect of our lives.

Originally Posted by Doublebase

What party will make my life a little easier?

Both parties are in collusion.

Both parties have promoted the same political and economic policies since the end of WWII.

There differences are minor, and cosmetic.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Both parties are in collusion.

Both parties have promoted the same political and economic policies since the end of WWII.

There differences are minor, and cosmetic.

Amen, by the way, we are paying for medicare part D with the Balanced Budget Act that cuts payments to doctors 20-30%. ( the repubs kept their promise, they did not pay for medicare part D by raising taxes, instead they are paying for it now). Most seniors, and even some uneducated doctors, think the medicare cuts are from Obama, thus, decreasing many medicare beneficiaries' access to doctors. ( For the record, private insurances are no better, once the medicare cuts go into effect, they will also lower their payments by the same amount... remember, private insurers pay X% above medicare allowable, so if medicare allowable goes down 20-30%, they go down by 20%-30 as well. ) This won't happen if the doctor does not take medicare or if he or she is in a group with 25 or more doctors. Goodbye small, independant practices.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1294

Medicare part D is part of the reason medicare is on a faster track towards bankruptcy. Thanks Bush.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

Amen, by the way, we are paying for medicare part D with the Balanced Budget Act that cuts payments to doctors 20-30%. ( the repubs kept their promise, they did not pay for medicare part D by raising taxes, instead they are paying for it now). Most seniors, and even some uneducated doctors, think the medicare cuts are from Obama, thus, decreasing many medicare beneficiaries' access to doctors. ( For the record, private insurances are no better, once the medicare cuts go into effect, they will also lower their payments by the same amount... remember, private insurers pay X% above medicare allowable, so if medicare allowable goes down 20-30%, they go down by 20%-30 as well. ) This won't happen if the doctor does not take medicare or if he or she is in a group with 25 or more doctors. Goodbye small, independant practices.

The Bankruptcy of Medicare: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Medicare part D is part of the reason medicare is on a faster track towards bankruptcy. Thanks Bush.

Thank you for you info, Bandaid woman.

I'm very interesting in the Medicare-D topic. If you have any other comments on material on it, I'd love to read it, and even copy and paste it and send it to some people I know.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Both parties are in collusion.

Both parties have promoted the same political and economic policies since the end of WWII.

There differences are minor, and cosmetic.

It is so rare that I agree with you about anything that I felt compelled to post.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone, that thinks their salvation lies in the major political parties is completely delusional.

The parties have been in almost complete control for the last 80 years and the country, both economically and morally, has continued to degrade under corrupt leadership.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Both parties are in collusion.

Both parties have promoted the same political and economic policies since the end of WWII.

There differences are minor, and cosmetic.

while both parties are at fault for allowing the corporate special interest system take over our government the mid 70's the GOPs econonmic policies only favor big businesses and the wealthy and always punish the poor.

Originally Posted by LAM

while both parties are at fault for allowing the corporate special interest system take over our government the mid 70's the GOPs econonmic policies only favor big businesses and the wealthy and always punish the poor.

Only GOP favors big business. Hmmm...lets look at big business favoritism under the Democrats.

● Bear Stearns 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. [B](Although Democrats controlled both House and Senate I'm sure liberals will still find a way to blame Bush for this as well.){/B}
● Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, (Tax Cheat) Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Total cost over $400 billion
● American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.) Total cost $180 billion.
● Auto Industry 2008 In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries. Total Cost $25 billion
● Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. (Another bill Bush was forced to sign after the House and Senate controlled Democrats issued a public warning the country would collapse if the bill wasn't signed. Nice little tidbit the country seems to have forgotten while the liberals continue to pin this on Bush) Total cost over $700 billion
● Citigroup 2008 Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion. $280 billion
● Bank of America 2009 Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.


Every one of these should have been allowed to fail just like any other business that continues to lose money.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Thank you for you info, Bandaid woman.

I'm very interesting in the Medicare-D topic. If you have any other comments on material on it, I'd love to read it, and even copy and paste it and send it to some people I know.

http://www.drugchannels.net/2008/11/...-d-reform.html

brief economics of medicare part D, contrary to belief, the government has no negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies( part of the reason why it never really drove down the costs of medicines). It is still a highly pluralistic, fragmented distribution essentially among private PBMs. I believe it is why Senator John Mccain did not vote for it.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

Drug Channels: Get Ready for Part D Reform

brief economics of medicare part D, contrary to belief, the government has no negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies( part of the reason why it never really drove down the costs of medicines). It is still a highly pluralistic, fragmented distribution essentially among private PBMs. I believe it is why Senator John Mccain did not vote for it.

Thanks for more info, bandaid woman.

And what I find very hypocritical is that McCain,

did NOT vote on Medicare-D at all.

He MISSED the vote. AWOL.

Originally Posted by twarrior

Only GOP favors big business. Hmmm...lets look at big business favoritism under the Democrats.

● Bear Stearns 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. (Although Democrats controlled both House and Senate I'm sure liberals will still find a way to blame Bush for this as well.){/B}
● Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, (Tax Cheat) Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Total cost over $400 billion
● American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.) Total cost $180 billion.
● Auto Industry 2008 In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries. Total Cost $25 billion
[B]● Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. (Another bill Bush was forced to sign after the House and Senate controlled Democrats issued a public warning the country would collapse if the bill wasn't signed. Nice little tidbit the country seems to have forgotten while the liberals continue to pin this on Bush) Total cost over $700 billion
● Citigroup 2008 Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion. $280 billion
● Bank of America 2009 Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.


Every one of these should have been allowed to fail just like any other business that continues to lose money.

FActs don't muddy the water with facts

Originally Posted by twarrior

Only GOP favors big business. Hmmm...lets look at big business favoritism under the Democrats.

● Bear Stearns 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. [B](Although Democrats controlled both House and Senate I'm sure liberals will still find a way to blame Bush for this as well.){/B}
● Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, (Tax Cheat) Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Total cost over $400 billion
● American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.) Total cost $180 billion.
● Auto Industry 2008 In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries. Total Cost $25 billion
● Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. (Another bill Bush was forced to sign after the House and Senate controlled Democrats issued a public warning the country would collapse if the bill wasn't signed. Nice little tidbit the country seems to have forgotten while the liberals continue to pin this on Bush) Total cost over $700 billion
● Citigroup 2008 Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion. $280 billion
● Bank of America 2009 Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.


Every one of these should have been allowed to fail just like any other business that continues to lose money.

those are all recent banking regulation changes and are directly tied to the power that the banking lobbyist have in DC.

Name a Bill or piece of legislation passed by the GOP or an economic era under the GOP which has directly put more money into the hands of the middle class? What economic policy under the GOP has but more disposable income into the hands of the middle class? the answers are none and never...

Any how many pieces of legislation proposed by the GOP have systematically reduced Veteran's benefits? all of them proposed by the GOP since Reagan...the GOP loves the military when it's protecting America's "interests" but once your out of the service, they could give a fuck what happens to you.

Originally Posted by LAM

Any how many pieces of legislation proposed by the GOP have systematically reduced Veteran's benefits? all of them proposed by the GOP since Reagan...the GOP loves the military when it's protecting America's "interests" but once your out of the service, they could give a fuck what happens to you.

And remember that retired military folks that "served" in the 1980s hold disdain for Reagan, and many outright hate him.

Reagan cut the military 20 year retirement plan for those ALREADY in for 10+ years by a full ten percent.

They still speak about this. They loathe him.

f

Originally Posted by lnvanry

f

Can you.....tell us more, sir.

no....i just saw the hot chick (bristol) and did a quick search on her...and found out she was 19.

felt like a dirt ball...but now I don't b/c I remembered that this is IM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I assume you're referring to Obama, but GWB is still much MORE socialist.

If you don't know what I mean - please ask.

Do you even know what socialist is or are you just thinking of socialist in the sense most other Americans do by associating it with our old nemesis the USSR, those commie socialist pigs....the same way people like to toss around fascist and nazi...