.
What is this site, a liberal blog trying to do its best to bring to light lies and misinformation from the right…and hopefully instill a little humor, truth and sanity along the way? Is that what this is all about?
Well, for the most part, yes…but we’re always open to hear from others of differing thought as long as its done with respect and reason. Tommy Pane, one of our regular readers, has been pushing his Libertarian ideas on these pages in exactly that manner.
In the following piece, Tommy explains why he believes teabaggers are justified to be in the furor they find themselves in. He wrote this as part of a dialogue he was having in the Roger Ailes – BSmeister post. I felt it deserved a larger forum.
-mario
___
Lets time-line this one a little. This playback is what most of the “tea-baggers” believe, so I feel we should all be aware of it.
1990 – The democrats, in charge of both houses, convince Bush(I) that tax increases are necessary, even though he made a campaign promise (“read my lips”) not to raise them. They passed the increase retro-actively to the beginning of the year, which meant that many people hadn’t planned for the extra expense. When the Gulf War hit, an already declining economy was pushed into recession.
1992 – The democrats campaigned on Bush’s recession (which they helped to create), and on his “read my lips” broken promise (even after they had talked him into not vetoing their tax increase by promising him they wouldn’t use it against him). Clinton wins the Whitehouse because Ross Perot took 18% of the vote, most of which were independents switching from their usual republican leanings. Without Perot, Bush wins a second term.
1992-1994 – Clinton, with a democratic congress and senate, tries to force many liberal agendas through. The voter’s revolt and put republicans in charge for the first time since 1947. There are two economically important accomplishments during this period; the commercialization of the internet, which led to the tech boom of the late 90′s, and the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which ultimately led to the 2008 housing collapse.
1995-2000 – The stock market skyrockets on internet speculation. Investors are wildly throwing money at anything tech; everyone is getting rich. Tax revenues are reaching all time highs. By the end of Clinton’s second term, so much money had come into the public coffers, that there was a budget surplus. Oh, did I mention that during this same time period, the people in charge of spending that money were republicans? Both houses. There was a surplus only because they kept spending in control.
2000-2003 – The tech bubble bursts, sending the economy into a tailspin. Bush(II) rides the bad economy wave and steals the Whitehouse (yes, even I voted for Gore). Tax revenues plummet. The budget surplus evaporates. Then 9/11 happens. Even with our economy staggered by a solid body blow, which meant an even larger decrease in tax revenues, the government increases the budget to fund the war on terror. A justified spending spree starts. In a decision to help stimulate more tax revenues, the republican congress passes a tax cut, and the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates. It works and the economy starts to take off again. Tax revenues begin to rise again.
2003-2007 – Housing values are increasing far faster than they should be. The Feds’ low interest rates, combined with the Community Reinvestment Act (that forces banks to make sub-prime loans), and a democratic push for Fannie May and Freddie Mac to lower their mortgage qualification thresholds, have brought a new base of (unqualified) consumers into the housing market. Something doesn’t feel right, but who can complain? Increased demand = increased prices = more tax revenues = more flat screen TVs sold. It’s an open keg and American voters are lying under the tap with their mouths wide open. But making money hand-over-fist isn’t fun unless you spend it, so Bush and the neocon republicans decided to buy the 2004 election with their unfunded pill-popper program. What a duffus.
2007-2008 – Now the real fun starts as democrats take control of congress and start spending money like drunken sailors. The voters get nervous because they see that Bush doesn’t have the backbone, or the inclination, to stop them. The stock market starts to trend down as institutional investors, seeing the writing on the wall, begin pulling out their money. Then the foreclosures start, and the housing bubble finally bursts. Tax revenues drop again, and massive spending, intended to “save” the economy, begins. Enter the era of the trillion dollar deficit.
And that is why the tea-baggers see liberal democrats and neocons as the real source of our economic problems.
-Tommy Pane
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
.
Sorry Mario, I got through his first two paragraphs and can not continue because they were so misinformed. From the first sentence that stated that pushy Dems caused the Republicans to raise taxes, when in reality, the Republicans ran into the wall called campaign promises vs real world. Then this gaping hole”
1992-1994 “The voter’s revolt and put republicans in charge for the first time since 1947.”
What happened is he forgot to mention recent prior 8 years (1981-89)of another Republican President, Ronald Reagan. It is funny how these Republican presidents seem to precede recessions.
After this bit of misinformation or fantasy, I need to move on.
Tommy, while there is much justification in showing concern for the fiscal policies of past administrations, you place undue blame on the Democratic held majority in Congress over the 2007-08 period. The current financial crisis has its roots in policies enacted long before George W. Bush but most economists would agree that those 8 years of misery were a disaster to the economy and only further fueled the crisis. Enacting tax cuts at a time when the country was fighting two wars was but one the failures of Bush economic policy.
As for the broader idea of who and what teabaggers are all about, while the anger might have originated in honest concern for economic policies and a growing debt, it has quickly morphed into outright irrational madness with little foundation in fact.
Here is a simple question: if the basis for teabagger anger is truly based on concern for the “economic problems” you describe, then where was the outrage in the 8 years when Bush drove the economy into the ground? Where were the protests, the signs, the denouncements and the outright anger we now see?
Mario – The outrage with the republicans was expressed by the voters in 2006 when they gave congress to the democrats. They saw the poor fiscal policies and were promised that the dems would do a better job, if given the chance. Would you say they’ve done better?
Tommy: Yes, I would say they have done better – not by much, but better nonetheless.
While I mostly agree with Azzanzphx, there is one fact I cannot let stand without refutation since I was on those battlements. CRA – Community REinvestment Act DOES NOT SAY BANKS MUST MAKE SUB-PRIME LOANS.
@Tommy Democrats winning back congress in 2006 does not begin to compare with what is going on now at tea parties. It is pure hysteria. You’d think Obama became president at the hand of a military coup.
Sandi, I am in total agreement with you about the CRA. I just did not read down that far in the post. I just could not read further than the first two paragraphs since those were so full of misrepresentations. I have to consider my blood pressure you know.
And, LaurieD you are right about what is going on now. All you have to do is look at the people that show up at their gatherings. There are so many racists that are on board the tea party express. Gun toting anarchists are also there. In reading about the splintering that is taking place right now, there is no central theme to put to them, except to say it is ignorant, misinformed, and hate fueled by watching too much Faux TV.