wrt #8

I agree with the CATO Institute about Bush and Congress, Because Congress writes the checks.

I will refer you back to my comments in my earlier post number number 3 for what the protests were about.

wrt#9

The Withholding Tables were shifted so less came out of your paycheck. You will still be liable for withholding based upon your amount of income.
All that President Obama and Congress is doing is letting you have it now and your refund amount on Federal will be less (if you get one) or if not enough Federal Withholding has been paid in you will need to pay it when you file 2009 taxes by April 15, 2010.

Most of the folks protesting yesterday, actually have had their taxes drop under Obama. Obviously they are not paying attention.

Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ. Here is what the Cato Institute wrote:

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either. Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.

It doesn't make sense these protesters are targeting Obama for out of control spending, he has only implemented the same tax rates that we had under Clinton. Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes but kept spending at about 20% of GDP. There was an increase in GDP that did not increase tax revenues enough to cover the deficit. It wasn't until Clinton came along that there was a budget surplus again. Bush did away with that and left no room for deficit spending in case of an emergency.

Has it occurred to the tea-bag protesters that any "populist" protest underwritten by corporate lobbyists is most likely not in the interest of the plain, everyday working people? Especially since the majority of people in our area make less than $250k and received a tax cut.

The Wall Street article was not the Journal's Analysis but Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian from UCLA
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

wrt#5
I was complaining during the Bush years. I wrote in my local newspaper. I called my Congressional and Senators to the point that I heard them sometimes laughing over the speaker voice. I was outraged when Bush expanded Medicare. I complained when Bush and Congress were spending like drunken sailors with Bailing out Wall Street.
I complained when Congress was passing bills without reading them.
I complained that Democrats are Progressives and the Republicans were Progressive-Lite

President Bush and the Congress started the Drunken Spending and The Debt Doubled- I complained

President Obama and the Congress are still spending and the Debt is double again. I complain.

Its about Right and Wrong, not Left and Right.

#3: where were your complaints when Bush was in office? That's where we saw the HUGE run up in federal spending, much of it off the table to finance the Iraq War.

And wrt #4, even my mother, who voted for her politics over her strongly held religious views when she voted for Nixon in 1960, has come to realize that what FDR did for the country was to bring it out of the Depression. Again I will take Krugman's analysis over that of the Wall Street Journal any day. The WSJ was complicit in the deregulation that occurred starting with the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, while Clinton was president (yes he bears some blame for this too. But it was the Republican administration that eviscerated the market regulators during the past 8 years. One I know something about is the SEC where the Bush administration appointed corporate hand holders (I was an enforcement attorney for the SEC from 1983-94 so witnessed it on the sidelines) and not tough enforcement types who would protect investors. We are reaping the folly of that approach now.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

This link to the Wall Street Journal debunks the Myth that FDR and the New Deal was a good thing for United States.

This is what the tea parties are about:

It's about spending " too much spending, to be specific. The idea that a business is too big to fail is anti-American; we've always been for the underdog.

It's about putting my family " my children " under $12.8 trillion in debt; all it took was two presidents and six months.

It's about the idea that we're all socialists now.

It's about the idea that the government can force companies, banks and states to take money and the strings that are attached to it, that they didn't want.

It's about power " too much power going to federal government.

It's about corruption " too much corruption, in both parties.

It's about the rule of law " that no one is above the law: if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful.

It's about if you write the tax code you should pay your taxes.

It's about the Republic, not mob rule.

It's about the concept of free speech " we've been called insane, lunatics and worse, just for speaking out.

It's about the years of lies from both parties " a Republican Party that claims to be for small government but gives us Medicare Part D that's got $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

It's about hypocrisy " both parties claim to be the most ethical, but we get corruption and not one damn person in Washington to speak out against it.

It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it.

But I'm the extremist.

Bush and Obama spend or put us on the hook for $12.8 trillion, but I'm the extremist?

Cap and Trade without any plan on who pays the taxes or where the money goes, but I'm the extremist?

States are looking to apply retroactive taxes " that's like changing the rules in the middle of the game " but I'm the extremist?

Vilifying AIG executives, without any law being broken, just for accepting money they were owed, but I'm the extremist?

Bush and Obama have taken over and want to take over banks, car manufacturers and insurance companies, but I'm the extremist?

The politicians in the House and Senate stuff $20 billion in pork and earmarks into spending bills when we have to beg the Chinese to loan us that money, and I'm the extremist?

A Supreme Court justice and Harold Koh, who will help run the State Department, talk about trans-nationalism and by definition a diminished role for the Constitution, but I'm the extremist?

Politicians openly talk of the Fairness Doctrine " or its ugly twin, "Localism" " and curtailing my free speech, but I'm the extremist?

Unions and big labor politicians want to take away the right to a secret ballot, but I'm the extremist?

I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Founding Fathers. I believe in the American people. When did believing those things make someone " anyone " an extremist?

I'm not the extremist.

I learned something from a lawyer friend of mine who won lots of cases in front of judges and lawyers " I asked him how he won so many cases. He said it's easy: If the law supports my client's position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don't support my client's position, I just attack the opposition.

They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger

Where was this Spangler woman for the last 8 years?
These Astroturf parties are pathetic at best,once again the very people this economic policy is going to help are the ones who rail against it.Wake up members of the Limbaugh party,your being played for fools for the umpteenth time.
I also hope that someone is there to get photographs of some of these potential domestic terrorists.