Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Anti Big Government Tea Party Needs Economics 101.

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

opednews.com

So the Tea Party is concerned with "Big Government" and most tea partiers think that Obama is expanding the government at an alarming rate. They rally for their city, state, and country to reduce spending mainly in the form of deep cuts to social programs.

They are terrified of where our country is headed and worry that their grandchildren are going to carry the weight of our debt. And they blame Obama and direct all their frustration towards him. Any reference by Obama to "inheriting" the problems we have now are met with cynical taunts that Obama doesn't ever take responsibility for anything and that he just blames former president Bush.

How do they come to such an uneducated, irrational, and even lacking in common sense conclusion?

Obama did not create the current economic crises. That is an indisputable fact. The crises happened before his election. The first bank bailout was rushed through by President George W. Bush without even one regulation or requirement attached to it. Unemployment was at 8.1% when Obama took office, and amid an economic crises, recession and two left-over wars, the unemployment rate has gone as high as 9.7% (the highest unemployment rate in the post World War II era was 10.8% - and that occurred a couple of years into the Reagan term of office) and is now 9.5% and projected to improve as the economy is growing.

Bush inherited a 4% unemployment rate and more than DOUBLED it when he left office to 8.1%. Apply blame where it belongs - Bush who took us into two wars - one that we had no reason to even be in. From what I have heard from the tea partiers, anyone that mentions this is somehow unpatriotic and doesn't support our troops.

Which is a lie in and of itself.

Democrats, progressives, and liberals support our troops and their goals, but it should be acknowledged that President Bush, with the advice of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz (all of whom have never served in the military) sent our troops to Iraq with no provocation and with little forethought, planning, and concern for their safety.

Whether you agree with the war or not, though, it is a fact that these two wars are going to add to the U.S. budget around 4 Trillion over the next several years, because you not only have to count war expenditures, but the cost of veteran healthcare over the long term for our wounded vets. (over 35,000 wounded in Iraq alone). Then you have the fact that Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In addition, he cut taxes on capital gains and dividends which meant that millionaires that draw dividends on their millions upon millions pay a top tax rate of 15% on their "earnings" while a hard working doctor or fireman pays a higher tax rate while struggling to provide for their families.

So under President Bush we had less money coming in to the budget- and more money going out - a kindergartener could understand why he left with a huge deficit even though he started out with a surplus from the Clinton administration.

So if the shoe fits Bush, then Bush should wear it.

But back to the argument against "Big Government".

Tea partiers are idealogically against "Big Government" but would be without a lot of things that make America great if it weren't for "Big Government".

They don't mind enjoying their "socialized" education, police protection, firemen, and other social programs [there are too many to name here] but self-righteously accuse Obama of being "socialist" because he wants to make sure that every American has access to affordable healthcare. Even when the policy we have now leaves millions out and already cost the government a large chunk of our GDP...

AND, in comparison, providing healthcare for all would bring costs down and create millions of jobs resulting in an overall health cost reduction.

Let me repeat that:

Providing healthcare for all would bring costs down and create millions of jobs resulting in an overall health cost reduction.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

I am just a person giving my opinion, although I have been accused of working for the Obama administration in voilation of the FTC (lol). I love reading differing views and trying to seek out the "needle" truth in the media "haystack". I'm (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Replying to "FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER" email

Mark Levine's Lie of the Day

Crouching Tiger - Hidden Dragon (Republicans and Democrats Respectively)

Anti Big Government Tea Party Needs Economics 101.

Obama's longtime doctor says healthcare reform plan falls short

Why are we always apologizing, and what are we apologizing for?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments