Is Bush still in office? Where's the change?

[Wapiti]

I don't watch much of the news these days so can someone please catch me up on all the change Obama has implemented?

Thanks in advance.

[paleoeco]

1) Obama is black....well, at least half so. Bush was white.

2) Obama pretends to care about poor people; Bush never pretended to care about poor people.

3) Bush's daughters were drunk partiers; Obama's daughters still have tea time.

Maybe someone else can come up with some things I didn't think of.

[SShack]

Obama also pretends to care about gay people! How could you have missed that, Paleoeco?

[NoStoneUnturned]

Obama did take troops out and put them in afghanistan, like he said he would. I think he won some peace prize, in part, for that...

He also did stuff for the economy, it would seem.

[Aronnax]

Congress changes thing, presidents can stop those changes from happening. The only substantial change a president is capable of initiating is turning other countries into smoking craters.

We keep electing the same kinds of people to Congress, why is it a surprise when they keep doing the same kinds of things? Changing the letter next to their name isn't necessarily going to result in a change in policy.

[plotthickens]

Both parties are run like businesses. "What do we need to say to get the votes". Viewed from that perspective, Obama's gutting of Healthcare makes sense -- fulfilled the letter of his promises, but tried to keep most people (votes) happy.

This is SOP. Do whatever will get the most votes. Votes=elected=power=money. Everything else just doesn't add up.

[ArtistTyrant]

Obama=liar without priorities straight

Bush=didn't actually lie but didn't have priorities straight

i'd say Bush is better so far :)

[NoStoneUnturned]

Obama=liar without priorities straight

Bush=didn't actually lie but didn't have priorities straight

i'd say Bush is better so far :)

Thats not actually true.. Bush lied all the time..

I'm also interested in knowing what you perceive Obama's lies to be.

[Monte314]

Hey, the national debt has tripled... that's a change that will stay with us for a long time!

[NoStoneUnturned]

Hey, the national debt has tripled... that's a change that will stay with us for a long time!

Are you really holding the actions the Obama administration was forced to make due to the previous Bush administration against Obama?

[Monte314]

Thre are too kinds of statistical errors:

Type I: rejecting the truth.
Type II: believing a lie.

I think you are in Type II country here.

[Arkeph]

Here are a few things Obama did accomplish:

a) The stimulus bill. It doesn't qualify as the broad, political transformation that was advertised, but it did happen.

b) Ending the F-22 program. Not a controversial move, and only a small scratch on the defense budget, but it had been untouchable for a long time because of the jobs it created in so many congressional districts.

c) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was passed in response to a woman whose pay discrimination case was thrown out because she found out about her unfair pay when it was too late to act.

d) Expanded the SCHIP program. Self-explanatory.

e) The credit card reform bill. Haven't heard (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of it?

f) Eased restrictions on stem cell research. Not a big budget item, but certainly something that would not have happened under McCain or Bush, if he had been allowed 4 more years.

g) The movement of troops to Afghanistan. It's something, even if it's probably the wrong way to end the war.

There are undoubtedly areas where Obama has simply continued or expanded Bush-era policies and refused to act on crucial issues (i.e. the banks), but I don't think it can be said that he didn't do anything significant. As for whether he has provided any semblance of the change which he campaigned on, it's hard to imagine any politician actually doing so. That said, Obama has done a poor job of living up to the principles which he loudly and publicly proclaimed.

[Side note: it's the federal budget deficit which has tripled, not the national debt.]

[Holiman]

Obama when compared to bush is doing a fairly good job, however the problems of this country require more than a less bad administration. While Obama has not fixed the problems the US has aquired over the last 30+ years of fiscal and manufacturing errors it is foolish in the extreme to blame him for the sinking ship he has inherited. The only fact that comes through is even Pres. Obama had no clue the position that this country finds itself and while meaning well he is simply a compromise polititian and I felt and still feel we needed drastic action the type only Ron Paul could have provided.

Obama has broken some promises and compromised alot but is trying, I would say he tries to spin things as a politician instead of outright lying.

Bush broke international law, and US law. Evidence has been overwhelming that he purposfully falsified information and lied. In a real world where justice ruled he would be tried, and I wont even get into what I think Dick Cheney deserves who admitted masterminding the whole waterboarding fiasco.

BTW, you dont have to make stuff up there are sights that track the truth...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another BTW he di act on banks boy did he, however the dow dropped like a stone afterward.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nacht]

Hey, the national debt has tripled... that's a change that will stay with us for a long time!

Statements like this are disingenuous at best and could be characterized as a form of terminological inexactitude.

First, the "tripled" number comes from an old CBO projection which put the national debt as tripling in ten years. That number has since been revised (and whether it triples or doubles now depends on the reference point), and it hasn't tripled yet. If you want to include caveats about ending the term in 2008 (as opposed to 2009, when Bush's last fiscal plan is no longer in the mix) then you could say that his budget could triple the debt in ten years (assuming no corrections, fairly low economic improvement, etc), but this is a far cry from "the national debt has [past tense] tripled" which is nonsense.

Second, he inherited a deficit. The national debt will increase dramatically if left to its own devices unless that deficit is somehow corrected.

The deficit (not the debt) has tripled since September 2008, but one will note that is before the economic issues started to go full steam late 2008. In general, it would be a mistake to lay this at Obama's feet without more of an itemized breakdown of where those deficit issues came from.

[ArtistTyrant]

if you implement something that has little chance of being stopped or reduced, even if the full effect will be felt a decade from now, you're still doing it

[nacht]

if you implement something that has little chance of being stopped or reduced, even if the full effect will be felt a decade from now, you're still doing it

But you have not done it. "The national debt has tripled" is in the present perfect tense, not future tense.

Further, the "little chance of being stopped or reduced" is mostly hand waving, especially given the advocacy of paygo and things like working on health care bills that reduce the deficit.

[ArtistTyrant]

okay, the national debt will triple, with over 95% probability, it's pretty fucking safe to say that the people who puts that into place knows what they're doing, and they're going ahead with it anyways, like idiots

[nacht]

okay, the national debt will triple, with over 95% probability,


Please prove or provide citations for the probability figure.


it's pretty fucking safe to say that the people who puts that into place knows what they're doing, and they're going ahead with it anyways, like idiots

You seem to be arguing a tangent that is entirely unrelated to the current discussion.

You can make the argument that the national debt will triple if left to its own devices from Sept 2008 to Sept 2020, based on the CBO's estimates which themselves come with a variety of caveats about the rate of economic growth, etc. The statement that this has happened already (present perfect) is, however, false.

It is the equivalent to going to an employer and saying "I have graduated from college" when you have just been accepted to that college and returned the letter saying that you will be attending in the fall. More accurate is to say "I am going to X school in the fall with an expected graduation date of Y."

[LaoTzu]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

* Cut taxes for 95 percent of working families through the Making Work Pay tax credit
* Cut taxes for small businesses
* Provided loans to over 42,000 small businesses
* Funded over 12,500 transportation construction projects nationwide, ranging from highway construction to airport improvement projects
* Made multi-billion dollar investments in innovation, science and technology that are laying the foundation for our 21st century economy
* Provided critical relief for state governments facing record budget shortfalls, including help to prevent cuts to Medicaid and creating or saving over 300,000 education jobs

Economists on the left and the right have stated that the Recovery Act has helped avert an even worse economic disaster.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[NoStoneUnturned]

Thre are too kinds of statistical errors:

Type I: rejecting the truth.
Type II: believing a lie.

I think you are in Type II country here.

So, we didn't get into this mess while Bush was in office?

[ArtistTyrant]

this problem was predicated by the 1990s act of forcing businesses to give loans to minorities imo :) ARMs all over the place, bundled up and resold as AAA quality material when it simply wasn't

[LaoTzu]

It wasn't the act that was the problem... it was the uncontested abuse of it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Plastikcat]

Hell, real change would come from Ron Paul.

[ArtistTyrant]

:) better than anyone in the establishment, Ron Paul would be a huge step in the right direction

[rahdam]

As noted, it would be insufficient to install Ron Paul to the Presidential Office; as Congress holds the true means of hope and change, we need to clone Ron Paul some 500 times and install the clones in Congress. Send in the clones!

[kepstein8888]

As noted, it would be insufficient to install Ron Paul to the Presidential Office; as Congress holds the true means of hope and change...

You bring up a good point, which relates to all the criticism of Obama, and Clinton for that matter. No Democratic president can ever get anything done--even if he wanted to--because he will always be obstructed by the right in Congress and everywhere else.

The same would be true of Ron Paul. The Rabid Right has had the whole system locked down for 30+ years. Nobody has been able to break through it.

[ArtistTyrant]

lol Rabid Right?

if the real Right were in control of things, then why have the last 30 years been SPEND SPEND SPEND TAX TAX TAX, with the partial exception of Reagan? i guess you mean neocons, who are really only Democrats that try to appeal to more rational people

[kepstein8888]

lol Rabid Right?

if the real Right were in control of things, then why have the last 30 years been SPEND SPEND SPEND TAX TAX TAX...

I think you might be confusing the Right with real conservatives, which I have yet to see in office, and which brings us back to Ron Paul, sort of. Spending on foreign military adventures, toys and drug wars has been the Right's addiction since Reagan's first day. It's still spending in my book, and in the real conservative's book.

And "SPEND SPEND SPEND TAX TAX TAX..." might be more accurately stated as "Spend, spend, spend. Cut taxes on the wealthy. Run up more debt 'till it really hurts. Then start another war and run up some more."

[jm123]

You bring up a good point, which relates to all the criticism of Obama, and Clinton for that matter. No Democratic president can ever get anything done--even if he wanted to--because he will always be obstructed by the right in Congress and everywhere else.

The same would be true of Ron Paul. The Rabid Right has had the whole system locked down for 30+ years. Nobody has been able to break through it.

Are you forgetting that Obama had a super-majority for over 1 year. The democrats have had a chance to implement damn near anything they wanted, and yet have had to make illegal compromises to even get their own members to promise their votes. Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, and Regan never had a super-majority. Guess what, he has not done a fraction of what he promised and he had the most tools any president has had, in what I believe is our lifetime.(I could not even find the last time a president had a super-majority, as it is that rare.) Right now he has failed in his promises. To even think the rabid right locked down congress the first year of Obama's administration is f'ing ridicules. Democrats did not need a single Republican vote to pass anything they wanted.

Americans gave the Democrats 1 year with essentially unlimited power, and they failed. I am not saying that Republicans would have done better, as the same crap would probably have happened. However, to attempt to blame the Republicans, is ignorant beyond belief.

[Arkeph]

Perhaps the Right does not mean Republicans, just as it does not mean conservatives (i.e. there can be Democrats in the Right...right?). It means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. Discussing the term's appropriate usage is rather pointless.

Americans gave the Democrats 1 year with essentially unlimited power, and they failed. I am not saying that Republicans would have done better, as the same crap would probably have happened. However, to attempt to blame the Republicans, is ignorant beyond belief.

This is the crux of the matter. Regardless of which party is in power, certain policies and practices continue unabated. Wars are so common (and so acceptable to the public) that every president we elect is seen to be politically obligated to fight one. Neglect of important public goods like education, healthcare, and infrastructure is also common, while corruption and servility to corporate interests is rampant.

This has been true for a long time--too long to claim that the latest example is anything new, or something unique to either party, or even something unique to a political philosophy.

The problem, more or less, is that we don't know what the problem is. Individually, we "know" what it is, but there's no consensus, even on simple matters of what is or isn't legal, let alone ethical. Yet, most people (in my experience) avoid discussion and either accept the notion that all ideas are equivalent and we are obligated to avoid confronting each other when we disagree or simply regard anyone who disagrees as an idiot not worth talking to.

IMO, People are basically using government policy as a proxy for consensus, voting as a proxy for discussion. So long as that continues, I think we'll always be united--against ourselves.

[hubcap]

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson

The problem is that the people of the United States have allowed their elected political servants to take out mortgages that our grandchildren will be paying on for their entire lifetimes. Imagine if you bought a home expecting your grandchildren to make the mortgage payments on so you could live in a life splendor.

[Grimstad]

The dems have disappointed me deeply. Obama has tried to bring about change. Unfortunately “bipartisan” is something DC can’t seem to grasp. The dems should take a page from the pub playbook and toe the party line. Screw the pubs. Ram the legislation through. If dems had shown some backbone and not buckled under the “un-American” McCarthyism, we might have avoided the war in Iraq. Instead they operate in typical pussy fashion and we end up with a half assed health reform bill instead of medicare part E like we should have. No I’m not a communist. The only way to make health care truly cost effective is to put EVERYONE in the same pool and remove the middleman.

[Tristan]

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson

The problem is that the people of the United States have allowed their elected political servants to take out mortgages that our grandchildren will be paying on for their entire lifetimes. Imagine if you bought a home expecting your grandchildren to make the mortgage payments on so you could live in a life splendor.

This.

Yes, I know Bush ran the deficit up. That doesn't mean that Obama has the excuse to run it up two, three, four times faster. I don't care what causes we're spending it on; it is money which we do not have. It was bad in the Bush years, and now it's just plain horrifying. But I don't even blame the pair of big-spending presidents; I blame the people of the country. For generations, since the thirties really, financial austerity has been on a steady, almost-uninterrupted retreat and we now have an entitlement mentality. Just look at the post immediately above mine. We're America! We deserve the best schools, best health, the best army, the best tax rate! The best of everything! Think of the children! Bah... we need to get over ourselves. Voters need to stop thinking about what they deserve, and start thinking about what their actions earn them. Blame American people for electing and reelecting people to congress who steadfastly do the easy thing and spend more money, year, after year, after year. Blame American people for falling for good speakers and electing guys who are in over their heads. Like I say, we are not getting what we deserve, or what we think we deserve... we are getting no more or less than we earn.

All this Hope out there is just the problem. There is too much hope, and not enough expectation. Hope is a belief that things simply improve, whereas here expectation is evidence-based prediction of events. You perform an action, and you expect results. Hope is religious in nature, and expectations are scientific. Both have a place in our lives, but they are out of balance now. If you vote to spend money that your third generation descendants will pay off, are you hoping to be remembered kindly for your Universal Health Care?

[Arkeph]

I think that's partially true. There's always, though, the universal disgust with which tax dollars are simply wasted. We are both spending more than we should and getting far less value from it than we could be. Voters, however, are easily bamboozled, and are informed that huge cost overruns are worthwhile to guarantee success (especially in wars). Greater efficiency, meanwhile, is blasted as an effort to cripple necessary or popular programs (especially military ones) with spending cuts.

It always, at some level, comes back to the citizenry at large, and no one I've talked to thinks very highly of that group at all, although that group thinks very highly of itself. Its problems have been listed and described to the nth degree for decades, but they continue nonetheless.

For the most part, though, few have any concrete plan to change this beyond waiting for the whole of American society to magically move toward enlightenment, usually after suffering the consequences of its hubris, which in my mind boils down to "not my problem!".

[themuzicman]

Differences between Bush and IObama?

Bush: $400B Medicare RX ... Obama: $1.5T government take over of health care
Bush: Won the war in Iraq ... Obama: failed to support troops with reinforcements for almost a month
Bush: $700B TARP to help banks ... Obama: Bought GM, gave much of it to Unions

Obama is Bush squared. It's time we had someone who wasn't a lefty.

[Tristan]

It always, at some level, comes back to the citizenry at large, and no one I've talked to thinks very highly of that group at all, although that group thinks very highly of itself. Its problems have been listed and described to the nth degree for decades, but they continue nonetheless.

I differ a little bit; I think there is no shortage of people within "The People" who indeed love "The People." Too much, this is said to be a leftist or communist fixation, but it's not political. It's just a sentiment.

I think I've finally come to the founders' sentiment instead. I always passed off this particular viewpoint of theirs as "period-specific." They didn't trust The People. They wrote a constitution for the people, but didn't trust them. The founders thought the worst that could ever happen would be the common rabble taking the reins and voting themselves into power. I'm starting to accept their point of view after studying the macro evolution of the country in the last eighty years. Commoners will make a mess of the place (perhaps like they did when Andrew Jackson was inaugurated and reckoned it would be a good idea to have everybody over for hard cider at the White House). But the founders-- the austere, neoclassical elitists-- put all kinds of tricks into the constitution to make damn sure the government would remain austere, neoclassical, and elite.

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that men have responsibilities, and crowds do not. The last eighty years of departure from strict construction has eroded the founders' safeguards against crowds... and the decadence, and the loss of prudence, and the corruption that has emerged might indeed be evidence that their fear of common rabble wasn't "period-specific."

[Night Runner]

Differences between Bush and Obama?
Bush: $400B Medicare RX ... Obama: $1.5T government take over of health care
Our current healthcare system is the most expensive one (per capita) in the world. Fixing it isn't cheap, but will save a lot more money in the long run.
Bush: Won the war in Iraq ... Obama: failed to support troops with reinforcements for almost a month

If we won the "war" in Iraq, why are we still there? And why have most casualties resulted after our glorious victory? :rolleyes:
How about this?
Bush: invaded Afghanistan to supposedly capture Bin Laden and then forgot all about it, allowing the Taliban to rebuild itself and become stronger than ever before.
Obama: actually tried to do what Bush had promised and (gasp!) sent more troops to the country that actually had something to do with 9/11. (As opposed to Iraq.)
Bush: $700B TARP to help banks ... Obama: Bought GM, gave much of it to Unions
Bush: Presided over the second-greatest economic collapse in our history (or the greatest one if it becomes worse than the Great Depression).
Obama: Tried to clean up Bush's mess.

I like this game. Wanna do some more? :)

[INTJRyan]

2000: Suck it libs. Sore Loserman, 100 years of conservative rule, finally adults back in charge of white house, pendulum swinging back to the right finally.
2000-2008: Worst presidency in modern history, including Nixon.
2008: Bush was a liberal LOL.
2009: Obama sucks because he is acting like that liberal GWB! We need true Scots...errr...conservatives to run government! Both parties are equally bad...so vote Republican!

Ah RON PAUL! The man who is against spending and earmarks, except when they are for his District, like every other congress critter. He calls earmarks "tax credits" and labels pork spending as "requests" from his constituents. A true American hero, that RON PAUL!.

"The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to — it's like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. ...

I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative."

[Arkeph]

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that men have responsibilities, and crowds do not. The last eighty years of departure from strict construction has eroded the founders' safeguards against crowds... and the decadence, and the loss of prudence, and the corruption that has emerged might indeed be evidence that their fear of common rabble wasn't "period-specific."

Interestingly, part of the pathology of our politics is due to a problem which at the time wasn't foreseen at all. One quote I recall from the Federalist papers explicitly said that it would be inconceivable that people would continue to elect representatives who acted against their interests. Yet today, with congressional approval at impressive lows, re-election rates are still incredibly high.

Although it's certainly true that the founders were disgusted by simple majority rule, my perspective is that they anticipated the citizenry attempting to take as much control for themselves as they could, in effect reproducing the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Our modern politics seem to have the opposite problem: the citizenry have lost almost all of their power to effect a change in the political system.

Arguably, their ignorance and apathy are learned behaviors resulting from a loss of political power--a kind of self-justifying cynicism which dulls the pain of being just a cog in the machine--combined with the effects of a cultural shift which effectively exalted that very mindset.

[Krazy P]

First, let's talk about Sovereign Debt. After a financial crisis, public debt explodes. That just happens. I think it's a better idea to look at the marginal debt additions.

It is also true that the Executive branch can't DO anything. All it can do is approve something that Congress does.

Spending might be something to look at. Under the D's (ie since the Ds have been in power - in charge of the relevant committees and have the votes and that was in 2007), spending has gone up much, much, much (like a lot!) faster than in the past.

Since I know a lot of about one thing mentioned - the Credit Card Bill - or as its called in the industry, the CARD Act, I would not put that down on the "plus" side of the ledger just yet.

You might want to check out your VISA statement when it come this month and then let me know what you think. Did your rate up? The fees? I think it might have! Is that "better"? You will have to be the judge of that.

As far as the "stimulus" bill. Hmmm. Let's all wait and see how the stimulus works for China. They had a massive event there. A great test case. 2010 will be the year that shows if that works out for them.

I am going to say NO. We can all wait and see how it unfolds.

The Chinese stimulus success or failure will have much more of an impact on the U.S. than our "stimulus" bill.

Are we all Keynesians yet?

[Grimstad]

I have to concede points 2 and 3 to Night Runner but here’s my 2 cents on the topic. (Damn. I’ve been reading for the last hour and a half on these topics.)

Differences between Bush and IObama?

Bush: $400B Medicare RX ... Obama: $1.5T government take over of health care

Beginning with his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush pledged to keep the total cost of his proposed Medicare drug benefit to $400 billion over 10 years. But Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did his own estimate and put the cost at approximately $540 billion. This figure remained a secret while the bill was being debated, however, because Foster had been warned that he would be fired should the truth leak out.

The White House revised its projection to $534 billion shortly after Bush signed the program into law in December 2003, but refused to offer any details of its calculations. That figure turned out to be wildly inaccurate, as well. The White House released budget figures in February 2005 that put the cost of the 10-year tab for the Medicare prescription drug benefit at more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade. But even these numbers underestimated the colossal cost of this legislation. When the actuaries presented the cost in present values of the program in the 2004 Medicare trustees report, it came to $21.9 trillion, of which $16.6 trillion remained unfunded. How much is $16.6 trillion?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And thats just the prescriptions. If it was a government takeover we’d have VA hospitals for all.


Bush: Won the war in Iraq ... Obama: failed to support troops with reinforcements for almost a month
If Bush “won” the war then what the hell were the reinforcements for and why did Bush not bother to send them at all? And how long do you have to think about sending thousands of our sons and daughters to face death on a daily basis?

Bush: $700B TARP to help banks ... Obama: Bought GM, gave much of it to Unions So it’s okay to throw money into big banks so they can rebound at 100 cents on the dollar and continue to roll in mega bonus money but it’s not okay for the blue collar guy to get 40% of a seriously damaged company?

[Wapiti]

Hell, real change would come from Ron Paul.

I in a way agree and in a large way completely disagree. Real change wouldn't come from Ron Paul himself, he's not my savior, but from the American people waking up and getting off their collective ass to make a change and elect Ron Paul. They could elect anyone for change, it doesn't have to be Ron Paul. And they need not stop there but wake up to the fact that the American people make the change and that be me and you. But most of us are to busy with soccer and the internet to give a rats ass and don't wake up until it's broke bad, way bad.
The greatest trick the devil ever did was convince the world he didn't exist? The greatest trick congress and the president ever pulled was convincing the American people they couldn't fix this shit without them. Who is Keyser Soze....

[oowolf]

Corporate fascism is still "in office". The president is nothing more than a hood ornament for the SUV of business as usual. The congress is just a rubber stamp flock of capons, and the supreme court has just totally whored-out to their corporate masters.
Politics has become just another part of the sideshow designed to keep the hypnotised proletariat clueless to the impending, massive paradigm shift about to be imposed on the standing crop of human flesh by the laws of nature.
As peak oil, peak water, peak everything, Anthropogenic Climate Change, financial insanity, fiat foolishness, and the collapse of petroindustrial civilization institute bankruptcy proceedings against the collective infantilized, parasitic, overfed clowns human society has become--it is imperative for all would-be leaders to make the necessary adjustment to a future existence in the Age of Diminished Expectations.
Only individual/tribal acts will have any chance of "changing things". Don't expect any real answers from the psychotic monkeys than now constitute "TPTB" as society enters permanent decline.
The nascent cornpone Naziism of the so-called "Tea Party" is just the beginning of a new age of booboisie hysteria as the consumeroid zombies become increasing petulant due to the nasty nature of the real world disturbing their media induced dream of an eternal NASCAR Happy Motoring BigMac fiesta of orgiastic consumerism.
The party's over, kids...
NO one here seriously thinks all the unnecessary nonsense of the present "civilization" can go on, do they?

[Grimstad]

I do