And here we go.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2007
And here we go.....
70
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 6:25pm

This could get interesting. I wonder how long it will take, before Rove is called a RHINO? The GOP seems to be eating their own.



Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 7:54pm
LOL! It could be...I'm not sure. :-)
Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 8:04pm

My personal opinion is that the tea party was started by far right social republicans but it has grown into a group that can't stay to the far right socially and I believe isn't or else so many independents wouldn't be joining!

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2009
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 9:57pm

After reading this thread, I started wondering, do you on the left think that the tea pary movement is further right than say, for instance, Reagan? Is what you label

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 11:10pm

Yes...the tea party is farther right than Reagan. If they say that they are against the growth of government, then they would not consider Reagan to be far enough right for their liking because he grew government. Bill Clinton would be a better fit for them. That is, if they REALLY truly want smaller government.

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/big-government-republicans/

I just have this feeling that smaller government isn't what is really gnawing at them. If it is, then they surely were late getting into the protest. Where the heck were these people in 2002 through 2008? I'd say that many of the sentiments expressed about size of government, and the extreme animosity toward this particular president fall into this range:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

As you read through, you'll see that one of their presidents was Fred Koch. Yes that Koch whose sons Charles and David are the financiers of the Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which is the driving force for the supposedly "grassroots" groups calling themselves tea parties. Ten page article at the link below.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

It doesn't get much more right wing than that. Reagan wouldn't stand a chance with the tea partiers. They'd tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail. His tax increases and deficit spending and growth of government would make them think he was the ultimate socialist.

~Opal~
~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2009
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 11:32pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2009
Wed, 09-15-2010 - 11:46pm

"then they would not consider Reagan to be far enough right for their liking because he grew government"



He reconstructed the military, how else did he grow the government?



"Where the heck were these people in 2002 through 2008?"



Oh for pete's sake is this the ignorant racism crap again?



"Yes that Koch whose sons Charles and David"



I know I've read the New Yorker hit piece on the Koch brothers, so what, they fund their political beliefs just as that quirky little bilionaire, Soros funds the far left. Too, the Tea party does not just consist of the American's for Prosperity or

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Thu, 09-16-2010 - 12:03am

<Since Reagan took office when the upper tax rate was at a high of 70% and eventually lowered it to 28% I would say that would have (and did)

~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Thu, 09-16-2010 - 12:32am

Read the links I provided.

~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2009
Thu, 09-16-2010 - 9:32am

Reagan grew the military because the previous administration had decimated it. Again, where else did he grow government at an unacceptable rate?



The economy improved dramatically under Reagan, and yes he cut taxes and he didn't grow the government at an unacceptable rate.



"



Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace afterthe Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, they expanded by 24.1 percent.Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990-97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases,real federal revenues will have grown by 19.3 percent (see Table 5). The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s is consistentwith the supply-side theory that there are behavioral and investment responses to changes in tax rates."



"



If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? Therewere two primary explanations: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; and (2) the unexpected rapid decline ininflation and the recession in the early 1980s."



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa261.pdf



"I have no idea what you're saying about racism. I am asking a real question.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-20-2009
Thu, 09-16-2010 - 9:36am

"The tax bill which brought that about was also sponsored by the Democrats"



Yes Democrats understand the need for money to stay with