The Health Care Reform Effort - Part Deux

Why? Trig is where you learn about imaginary numbers.

 

I don't go out protesting, but I'll bet that the tea partiers have my take on it - very disgruntled at $300 billion deficits and aghast at $trillion deficits.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Democrats: Who you go to if you wanna buy votes.

 

What, are you taunting me a second time?

 

OK, a third time

If you're trying to channel Mel Brennan, you need to say the same thing three times with six paragraphs, in one post.

 

If you don't like being told the same thing three times, quit pretending he didn't just make a valid point...

 

It's not just me then...

 

I can see two possible points from what he said, and neither are what I'd call "valid"

1) That the tea party people are hypocrites, much like the libs who hated Bush deficits

2) That the Obama deficits and bailouts and takeovers are OK because the tea partiers are hypocrites

 

The liberal case against Bush's spending policy wasn't "Deficits bad!" but rather that tax cuts for millionaires and stupid wars are a bad thing to blow the government's surplus on (not least because it leaves us low on fiscal ammo when there's a genuine need). There's no hypocrisy there whatsoever, at least for those who can appreciate politics at a level higher than the average eight-year-old.

By the way, the current deficit is also largely a "Bush deficit" - something that the teabaggers are either ignorant of or choose to ignore.

Not at all. There are two separate questions, which can can be considered separately.

Question #1 - Is the Obama/Bush approach to financial crisis, including bailouts, takeovers, and fiscal stimulus, likely to be an effective response? Answer: Maybe, maybe not (On the deficit, note again that the current deficit is mostly due to pre-Obama policies and the hit to tax revenues from the recession).

Question #2 - Is the "Tea Party" movement (and its backers in the GOP) largely based on ignorance or dishonesty, and basically deserving of ridicule? Answer: Yes.

 

No doubt, Bush was an obnoxious big government spender and the Iraqi war ill advised, but his deficits were at least sustainable. Obama, however, is taking us into uncharted waters. He can blame Bush all he wants, but foisting all kinds of additional long term commitments on the US taxpayer is freakin’ trigomonics.

 

Now it's the Obama/Bush solution?

That has a nice ring to it. Obama is headed for where Bush was when he left office, but Obama will do it in half the time.

 

Uh, yes. TARP, the AIG bailout, and the auto bailout were all enacted under Bush.