Saturday, May. 23, 2015    Login | Register           

Tea Party events coming April 15 to PTC and Newnan

This time last year a small handful of people in Fayette and Coweta counties decided to mirror similar efforts planned across America by protesting their dissatisfaction with the federal government at Tea Party rallies on April 15. Hundreds attended the local rallies.

Now with local mailing lists totaling a few thousand, the South Atlanta Tea Party Patriots, the Coweta Tea Party and the Fayette/Coweta 9.12 Patriots will be holding events again this year on April 15 in Peachtree City and Newnan.

The Peachtree City event will be held from 12-1:30 p.m. at Drake Field adjacent to Peachtree City Hall and Lake Peachtree. The event will feature radio talk show host Herman Cain.

The 2010 Tax Day Rally in Newnan will be held at Greenville Park from 12-1:30 p.m. The rally will kick off with live music followed by speaker Virginia Galloway, state Director for Americans for Prosperity, and comments from State Representative Billy Horne, State Senator Mitch Seabaugh and local businessman Rob Brass. Attendees are encouraged to bring tasteful protest signs and flags.

Fayette County’s South Atlanta Tea Party is the new name for the Southern Crescent Tea Party Patriots. The non-profit South Atlanta Tea Party is a grassroots non-partisan group concerned with the direction the country is headed. For more information on the organization and transportation to the rally later April 15 in Atlanta visit www.southatlantateaparty.org

The Coweta Tea Party is a non-partisan, non-profit social welfare organization dedicated to furthering the common good and general welfare of the people of the United States. CTP furthers this goal by educating the public and promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. CTP has not endorsed candidates for public office. Visit www.cowetateaparty.org for information on the organization and the Atlanta rally April 15.

The Fayette-Coweta 9.12 Patriots is a grassroots non-partisan organization of fiscally and socially conservative citizens dedicated to returning America to its founding constitutional principles. For more information visit www.fc912patriots.com.

Topic: 

Comments

S. Lindsey's picture

then who would get to set that standard.. I know a few I would not mind if they stayed home.. Then again it was never originally intended for the "Masses" to vote anyway.. Maybe they knew something we have forgotten.. ?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

JeffC's picture

My candidates wouldn't get elected.

Watch the movie Idiocracy, especially the first 15 minutes.. I hate to say I think we are going that way.

PTC Observer's picture

Better get a copy and study it before you post again, you're beginning to look mightly foolish.

The fact is that intellectuals use side arguments like these to deflect truth, it is much easier to do this than face those nasty facts.

Or maybe being rational is not an intellectual forte?

"<strong>Shrunk</strong> & White"? (sic) "mightly"?

You might wish to consider spending a bit more time proofreading your own posts before you lecture anyone else on the importance of good spelling and good grammar.

PTC Observer's picture

I thought I was lecturing people like you on deflection of facts, guess your post simply proves my point doesn't it?

Thanks for taking the bait.

Here's your link to The Elements of Style (1918) (aka Strunk & White), hope this helps you get your bearings.

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

The Wedge's picture

If one spends an entire blogging paragraph extolling the virtues of spelling, grammar, and sentence structure, then one would expect perfection for the rest of the body of work. But, alas, it was not to be. To wit, "The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drive away Democrats" should be "The 912 Fayette blog is stupid because it drives away Democrats" and "They show their true colors and its stupid" should be "They show their true colors and it's stupid".

Now I do believe that you are an educated man, even an erudite man. I am just pointing out inconsistencies of thought and action. Have a great day

carbonunit52's picture

I bet him did that on purpose.

The Wedge's picture

What a great spin miester you are! I would go with that too :-) Have fun, it cannot be easy being a carbon unit like you ;-)

I had a conversation recently with someone working in a retail establishment that made me wonder how he ever got through fifth grade--much less high school which he did.

Whtca wont? He say.
I say, Uh, a cup of black regular coffee, please.

Whatcha mean regular, he say.
I say, your house blend with nothing in it.

Yawont whut size, huh?
Oh, sorry, a small, please.

Gonna takit wifya, he say?
I say, whutchya mean---uh, I mean what do you mean?

Gonna drinkit here or on thu street, he say.
I say, just bring it and I'll decide where I drink it.

I say, I've had somewhat of a difficult day today, many service problems.
He say, maybe itschew not the other fellows!

I say, maybe so...forget the coffee, OK.

The Wedge's picture

I didn't notice that Tin Can took you to task on this already. Not trying to pile on. Cheers to you

JeffC's picture

I broke my rule about pointing out grammar errors and was reminded about how it got to be a rule in the first place.

However, to prove that I'm not just your typical liberal blogger, I will learn from my mistake.

So if you can't spell you're ignorant? Talk about arrogance.

First off...where have you seen me mention anything about being a part of the "tea party" movement. I believe what I want and don't need anybody to tell me what I think. I paid attention in school and know how to read and process information. I also paid attention to history and know that if a government gets to much power, economies fail, freedoms disappear, and people revolt.

Also I never said Liberals weren't patriotic. I do believe the majority of them in charge now ARE NOT in cluding Obama! Call me what you want , its my opinion and I am entitled to it and YOU are entitled to disagree. That's the great thing about living in the USA where that right is guaranteed by the constitution.

As for the constitution and its meaning, its not really all that difficult to interpret. The framers of the constitution made it pretty simple, yet over the years its has been interpreted by both the right and left to fit their ideas of what it should be.

Who really has a problem with "working together"? The Liberals say, "we want bipartisanship", but what they really mean is that they want conservatives to change their position.

I'll stop listening to Beck when you stop drinking the Liberal KoolAid!

How is the resurgence of the 'southern' strategy bringing us together? What about 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' do you not understand? WE have given our power over to private enterprise, corporations, and lobbyists by not VOTING. People throughout the world have died for the right to vote - and we appear to take it lightly. We did better in 2008 - and we'll do better in 2012. Georgia and other states can try all they want to limit the number of legal voters - but the law will win - and all legal residents will be able to vote throughout the United States. If you think there was a 'get out the vote' effort in 2008, just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters who have watched carefully what divisive measures have been used to separate the American public.

[quote=Davids mom]How is the resurgence of the 'southern' strategy bringing us together? What about 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' do you not understand? WE have given our power over to private enterprise, corporations, and lobbyists by not VOTING. People throughout the world have died for the right to vote - and we appear to take it lightly. We did better in 2008 - and we'll do better in 2012. Georgia and other states can try all they want to limit the number of legal voters - but the law will win - and all legal residents will be able to vote throughout the United States. If you think there was a 'get out the vote' effort in 2008, just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters who have watched carefully what divisive measures have been used to separate the American public.[/quote]

I haven't mentioned anything about Limtiting peoples right to vote, or who voted. But now that YOU brought it up I will. Your are right about on e thing, people for the most part have become complacent about voting. Hopefully there will be more people voting this fall and in 2012.

However, I think most 18 yr olds are ill-equipped to vote meaningfully in this country. Most of the 18 yr olds that voted for Obama had no clue who he really was or what he was really about, it was the "in" thing to do. Many of their votes were more a result of their buy in of the media hype than their knowledge of the candidate. At 18 yrs old there are few individuals who have taken the time to find out about our candidates. Our schools have bought in to the notion that everything must be for the good of the group, no individualism, that might offend someone. I'm not surprised that we are where we are now, this generation expecting to have the right to everything anyone else has although they didn't earn it.

The vast majority of 18 yr olds don't carefully watch anything that has to do with politics, they simply go with the loudest and flashiest candidate that promises the most goodies!

We'll see. The 18 year old of today will be 22 in 2014. Hmmmmmm. This Marxist, Socialist, Muslim, Black Theologian Christian, Communist, Kenyan that is currently described by some as our president is being judged by his actions - (bringing world leaders together; respected throughout the world; turning a failing economy around; (which Bush had started) finally going after Bin Laden; - achievements which are overlooked by a right-wing group in this country who have vowed that this administration will FAIL at any cost! (Including the loss of strength and prosperity of the American citizen) I believe you may have graduated from high school - but my little 'ole' contribution should not sway you from your researched beliefs.

Of course I would bring up the VOTE - and the attempt to limit that right - if we ever regain the control of our government in a non-violent manner. . .it will be through the VOTE. (I did bring it up and you agreed that citizens have become complacent about voting - right?) It's a beautiful day - enjoy it! (By the way, in your research, look up 'southern strategy'.

[quote=Davids mom]We'll see. The 18 year old of today will be 22 in 2014. Hmmmmmm. This Marxist, Socialist, Muslim, Black Theologian Christian, Communist, Kenyan that is currently described by some as our president is being judged by his actions - (bringing world leaders together; respected throughout the world; turning a failing economy around; (which Bush had started) finally going after Bin Laden; - achievements which are overlooked by a right-wing group in this country who have vowed that this administration will FAIL at any cost! (Including the loss of strength and prosperity of the American citizen) I believe you may have graduated from high school - but my little 'ole' contribution should not sway you from your researched beliefs.

Of course I would bring up the VOTE - and the attempt to limit that right - if we ever regain the control of our government in a non-violent manner. . .it will be through the VOTE. (I did bring it up and you agreed that citizens have become complacent about voting - right?) It's a beautiful day - enjoy it! (By the way, in your research, look up 'southern strategy'.[/quote]

DM you just keep drinking the Kool-Aid ok. You said<cite> just wait until 2012 when there will be more 18 year old voters</cite> not today's 18 yr olds. As you stated above, "todays 18 year olds will be 22 " and will have some life experience and should see that they have been robbed of their chance at prosperity by this administration.

Exactly what world leaders has he brought together? And what exactly on the foreign policy front has he accomplished? 15 months...still no Bin Laden (which of course your boy *democrat* CLINTON *democrat* allowed to go free)he's a little tough to catch, huh?

The loss of strength and proseperity of the American People will be a direct result of the success of this administration's implementation of their Socialist policies. We are about to begin the largest legalized robbery of citizens that the world has ever known.

If you think that wealth and proseperity are out of reach for the majority of Americans today....Just wait. The policies of this administration are about equalization, but its equalization to the lowest level.

I'm glad I'm not 18 again...I'd hate to have to suffer my ENTIRE life!

I still don't know where you get that I want to limit anyone from voting.

S. Lindsey's picture

he is being judged by his actions.. That's why his approval ratings are below just about every President for the same time in office.. Even the much HATED Bush had higher approval ratings then BO.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

<cite>There lies the problem Liberals think our strength and prosperity comes from Government not the PEOPLE!</cite>

Really? I consider myself a moderate/liberal. I was not supportive of what happened under the 'conservative' regime of the previous administration - nor were the majority of American citizens. The persons who want to work TOGETHER to bring prosperity and strength back to our country - I hope they do get together - and distance themselves from the fringe groups that have attached themselves to the Tea/Coffee Party movements. Hammer - we the people are the government. Let's get representatives that actually represent US and not the corporations! The banks have paid back their 'loans' and have refused to work with persons who need assistance with keeping their homes. The rhetoric about 'helping' is just that. Why can't they lower interest rates so that those who are unemployed can keep their homes? Oh well. . . anything to prevent American strength and prosperity. . . and regain the White House . . .eh?

S. Lindsey's picture

1st.. Bush was a Progressive and the Republicans went over the line towards Liberalism.. No where would anyone call the Bush term as a Conservative one..
Now Reagan you could consider it one..

2nd.. People made bad loans.. People screwed up.. Why is it my responsibility to "help out" those that made bad choices? Failure is LIFE.. One must be allowed to fail for one to grow.. Did you never allow "David" to fail?

3rd.. Let me get this straight.. You want the Banks to take a risk by lowering their rates to "help out".. Isn't that what got us into this mess after all?

4th.. and finally your last line assault implies someone is at fault I can safely assume you mean the Republicans.. Just how have they stopped anything DM.. They are not in POWER.. The Dems hold both Houses and the Presidency.

Anyway my 2cents worth..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

<cite>People made bad loans.. People screwed up.. Why is it my responsibility to "help out" those that made bad choices? Failure is LIFE.. One must be allowed to fail for one to grow.. Did you never allow "David" to fail?</cite>

The persons that I know did not make a 'bad' loan. THEY LOST THEIR JOB!! The financial industry should cooperate - with fiscally sound loans - but people without a job can't even apply. Small business loans would help so that people could be rehired . . . States should accept grants so that people can go back to work!
Whose at fault? WE THE PEOPLE - for allowing this to happen BECAUSE OUR 401's were doing great; we had a job; we had enough to 'save' for the future. We ignored the tragedy of Enron, etc. - since it didn't affect US. No simple answers here - but we can't continue more of the same . . tax refunds are helping; economy is moving ever so slowly 'up'. A decision, what can Americans agree to 'sacrifice' during these difficult times? What I hear you and others saying is: I made wise decisions/I still have my job/ don't bother me with trying to help out with a small increase in tax - it's not my responsibility.

americanpatriots's picture

The only spelling error I found was your spelling "patroits" - the correct spelling is patriots! Were you smoking something or having an adult beverage when you wrote that blog?

It was my intention to see if some could tell the difference!

However some errors are not ignorance, just carelessness. But to deliberately form a web page to convince others of your points and have so many errors on it and a sentence that is non-comprehensible, shows even less care!

<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approv... Job Approval</a>

Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 3/25-4/11 -- 46.3 47.0 -0.7
Gallup 4/9-4/11 45 48 -3
Rasmussen Reports 4/9-4/11 48 51 -3
FOX News 4/6-4/7 43 48 -5
CBS News 3/29-4/1 44 41 +3
USA Today/Gallup 3/26-3/28 47 50 -3
Marist 3/25-3/29 46 43 +3
CNN/Opinion Research 3/25-3/28 51 48 +3

You were absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong. Thanks.

S. Lindsey's picture

We all make mistakes from time to time.. Just when everyone points them out not all are trying to be know it alls..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

<cite>"Eliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would violate and destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the executive. The elimination of the filibuster would reduce any incentive for a President to consult with home-State Senators or seek the advice of the Senate on lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary. It is a leap not only toward one-party rule and absolute majoritarianism in the Senate but to an unchecked executive."</cite><strong>--Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), Congressional Record, April 6, 2005</strong>

<cite>"Look, the Constitution says that 51 senators can confirm somebody. It doesn't require 60 senators. I don't think there's going to be any kind of a filibuster. You know, this last year we had about 100 and some-odd filibusters that--totally unprecedented. Actually, that's the lazy person's way out. The American people pay us and, and elect us to vote yes or no, not to vote maybe. Every time you have a filibuster, you're saying, 'I'm not going to vote yes or no, I'm going to vote maybe.' That's irresponsible."</cite><strong>--Leahy, "<strong>Meet the Press," April 11, 2010</strong>

JeffC's picture

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote...Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that he would not rule out employing a filibuster to block Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee despite having vehemently opposed the use of the parliamentary procedure over judicial appointments four years ago.

S. Lindsey's picture

Being BORKED adds a whole new meaning to the term..

Remember this one..

"A quick Senate session blocks Bush appointees
By Damon Sims
May 23, 2008, 4:46PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is famed for its longwinded debates, but on Friday it took Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown just seconds to stop Republicans in their tracks.
With the Senate entering the first day of its Memorial Day recess, the Ohio senator was briefly in the chair, before a near-empty chamber, to gavel in and gavel out what is called a pro forma session. Without that procedural move, the Senate would technically be adjourned and President Bush could install administration officials or judges as "recess appointments" - without Senate confirmation."

Come on Jeff Politics is a contact sport you are only Hypocritical if you are a conservative?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

JeffC's picture

Thank God Bork got Borked! And no way about the hypocrisy being limited. Its just with Joe, every political deal is a bribe, every political statement is hypocrisy, every unlegislated promise is a lie.

Ready to compare?

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/12/05]

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)

"By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition...The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word 'filibuster.' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

"It's important to note that the Constitutional option is still on the table. If one of the president's nominees is filibustered at any point in the future, I will support the Senate leadership's implementation of the Constitutional option. [...] All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances." [Brownback.Senate.gov, "Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees," 5/24/05]

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. [...] I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." [Bunning.Senate.gov, "The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down," 5/29/05]

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

"If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman's agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

"But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/20/05]

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) & Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

"We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision. [...] Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty." [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09]
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

"For the first 214 years of our nation's history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional 'advice and c onsent' role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee...In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn't like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush's nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote." [Coburn.Senate.gov, "President Bush's Nominees Deserve a Vote," 5/11/05]

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)

"There should be no question in anyone's mind about my intentions. I will work in concert with our leader, and with the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. McConnell, to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate." [Cochran.Senate.gov, "Senator Thad Cochran Announces Support," 4/14/05]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

"I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]

"And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents' nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat... We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote." [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees," 5/9/05]

. Mike Crapo (R-ID)

"I think it should be clarified to the American people that the fact we are now seeing a filibuster sustained against nominees of the President turns the Constitution on its head and begins a very dangerous precedent with regard to how the nominees for the judicial branch are treated by this Senate." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

"We are pleased that three of the President's judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes - it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." [Craig/Crapo Press Release: "Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal," 5/25/05]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

"How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations - all had bipartisan, majority support. This was unprecedented. [...] We need to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees, which is why I have urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider the constitutional option. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct." [The State via Demint.Senate.gov, "It's Time for Votes on Judicial Nominees," 5/22/05]

"My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees... Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote," [US Fed News "Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters," 4/20/05]

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)

"We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/11/05]

Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)

"One has to wonder what Justice Marshall would think about what is going on in the Senate today. Would he agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is all right to put partisan politics and partisan bickering ahead of the rights of judicial nominees if those impacted are just a small fraction of society. Would he agree with them that justice denied for a few was acceptable? Or would he hold true to the basic tenets of the Constitution that all men are created equal and that everyone has the right to their day in court? [...] I think this is wrong, and I sincerely hope we move off this obstructionism and have an up or down vote on these highly qualified individuals, whose talents, experience and integrity can easily be considered the ideal for what we want in judges. [...] If you don't agree with them, or feel they are not qualified, then vote against them. That is your prerogative and duty as a Senator. But do not continue to deny justice for the nominees or the courts any longer." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

"History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor." [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]

"The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It's high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/23/05]

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)

"'There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

"From a constitutional perspective, judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate, and the filibustering of these nominations is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances." [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

"All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." [NPR, "Orrin Hatch Discusses Debate in Senate," 5/19/05]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

"In all these cases, she had a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation, but she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today. Why? Because her nomination is being filibustered by Democrats, and she has been held to a standard of 60 votes instead of 51. That is changing the Constitution of the United States. [...] It is not the rule that is being changed in this debate. It is the precedent of the Senate, for 200 years, that was changed in the 108th Congress, by requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges. And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges. Two hundred years of Senate precedent is being torn apart. Through Democrat majority control and Republican majority control over the years-the filibuster was not used as it was in the last session of Congress." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

"They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." [San Antonio Express-News, "Senate showdown looms on judges," 4/22/2005]

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)

"But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution," Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)

"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. [...] This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote... These men and women are great Americans who have devoted their lives to public service, universally regarded for their intelligence and integrity...Calling them names like 'radical' and 'extreme' is a partisan affront not only to them personally but also to the voters who have supported them and organizations like the American Bar Association that have declared them well suited for the bench " [Capitol Hill Press Releases "Kyl Calls for 'Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/18/05]

"No. It's not a religious debate at all. I know that some of the media have portrayed it as such. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are talking to all kinds of folks, but I know because Sen. Durbin and I have both discussed this in the Judiciary Committee that neither of us believe that there should be any religious litmus test. This isn't about religion at all. This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

"Well, as a member of the bar, it's not my inclination to criticize justices by name or even decisions that they've rendered except on the merits. I don't agree with all the decisions of the Supreme Court. But it is wrong to believe that because people of faith happen to disagree with pronouncements of the Supreme Court and choose to call some of those decisions arrogant to therefore suggest that they don't have a part to play in the national debate. Again, let's not get focused on that issue. It has nothing to do with the rules of the Senate and changing 214 years of tradition here in the United States Senate. That's following a tangent that's really not relevant to the debate that we're going to be focused on here." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

"Just quickly respond to one point here: There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee that had majority support in the history of the United States Senate. The incident that was mentioned by Sen. Durbin was a situation in which Trent Lott - the then majority leader - worked with Tom Daschle the then minority leader to be sure that two controversial choices of President Clinton got a vote up or down on the Senate floor. And we voted to allow them to have a vote. Now I voted for one of the candidates and I voted against one of the candidates. That's what we ought to allow here is an up or down vote. But we didn't stop those candidates from being voted on. They're sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals right now." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Gwen Ifill (PBS): "Well, let's talk about what Sen. Durbin just outlined in which the Democrats would allow debate only on the issues which they cared about and they would basically close off debate on anything else. What do you think about that approach?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I don't think it's productive obviously. And it kind of reminds me of the schoolyard bully. When the umpire makes a call against him, he picks up his ball and goes away. I don't think the American people will really appreciate that. [...] But what my colleague is talking about is using among other things the legislative filibuster. That's not going to go away. Senators want their right to filibuster. And they'll have it. But what would occur as a result of the question that will be asked to the presiding officer in this debate is basically, is it the tradition of the Senate to have an up or down vote to give these nominees an up or down vote with the majority vote prevailing or is the last two years the real precedent of the Senate to require 60 votes? And I think that the presiding officer will say no the tradition of the Senate has been that a majority vote prevails." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I'll tell you what is shutting down the judiciary is not filling vacancies. We have according to the commission on the courts several emergency judicial emergencies, situations in which we need to put judges in to vacant positions. They're not -- we're not being able to act on them. It really is true that justice delayed is justice denied. So we need to give these judges an up or down vote. That's all we're asking for, and if some of my colleagues think that they're too conservative or in some other way unqualified then vote against them." Gwen Ifill (PBS): "And should there be legislative oversight over individual judicial decisions?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "I don't think the Constitution allows us judicial oversight over individual decisions. Our authority under the Constitution is to define the jurisdiction of certain of the courts. That's really the only thing I think that constitutionally we can do. Now, I mean obviously we could change federal laws that the court has made pronouncements on." [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)

"As part of my duties as Senator, according to the Constitution, I have the obligation to provide 'advise and consent' on judicial nominees. I am unable to fulfill this duty when qualified judicial nominees are denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor [...] It is an integral part of maintaining a high-caliber judiciary that nominees are treated fairly and with respect. If we continue down this path and leave nominees in limbo for years - as has become common practice - we will be unable to recruit high-level attorneys to leave private practice and serve our federal judiciary. These people deserve their vote on the Senate floor." [Martinez.Senate.gov, "Judicial Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote," 5/19/05]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

"What we're talking about here is not the filibuster rule overall, but getting back to the practice of allowing judicial appointments for judge candidates who have a majority support in the Senate to have an up or down vote." [CBS News, The Osgood File, 4/25/05]

"...I don't want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader. What is unprecedented is the fact that the Senate, for the first time in 200 years, last Congress chose to filibuster judges for the purpose of defeating them. That had never been done before in the history of the Senate. That's what's new...What Senate Republicans are contemplating doing and what I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down - that is, a majority - vote." [Fox News Sunday, 3/27/05]

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

"I take very seriously my obligation under the Constitution to provide the advice and consent to the judicial nominations of individuals who are nominated by the President to serve on the Federal bench. I have heard repeatedly over the hours the term 'rubberstamp,' there is a rubberstamp approval. Those on my side of the aisle would automatically take the President's nominees. I do not take part of my job to mean that my vote is intended to be a rubberstamp of approval for the President's nominations to these critical judicial positions. I am frustrated that after serving in the Senate for almost a year, and contrary to what some Members may assert, the Senate has not been permitted to vote up or down on the merits, on the qualifications of the individuals who are embroiled in this current dispute. Rather, we have been prevented, I have been prevented as a Member of the Senate, as an individual, from voting for or against a nomination by a legislative procedure, legislative procedural rules unique to this body." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

"Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/23/05]

"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster," 3/15/05]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)

"As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them. Federal judges are invested with extensive power and are given lifetime tenure. Therefore, I pay particularly close attention to the records, backgrounds, and philosophical views of all judicial nominees prior to voting. Given the tremendous shortage of federal judges, it is my hope that the Senate will move quickly to confirm judicial appointments." [Shelby.Senate.gov, "Issue Statements: Judiciary," accessed 4/15/2009]

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

"Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars." [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05]

"You're getting my dander up now. It's not only Estrada; it is a new standard. If this sticks, if the filibuster sticks, it will mean that you will have to have 60 votes for any nominee. We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge." [Fox News Sunday, 03/03/03]

Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

"I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor." [Thune.Senate.gov, "Senator Thune statement on judicial nominee compromise," 5/23/05]

"According to the Constitution, the President is entitled to nominate the individuals he desires to have on the courts, and we in the Senate must determine whether the nominee is fit and qualified. There should be no ideological litmus test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or she should be confirmed." [Senate Floor Speech, 9/28/05]

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

"This issue is primarily one of fairness to these individual nominees. As stated by our Majority Leader on numerous occasions, this chamber can confirm or reject nominees, and we will accept the outcome. We insist, however, on a yes or no vote on judicial nominees. [...] I think that every nominee deserves a vote. It's a matter of fairness." [Vitter.Senate.gov, "Vitter Supports Senate Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/19/05]

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)

"Comparing the Senate now to the Senate prior to the 108th Congress when filibustering of judicial nominations first occurred, I have to say that I think the old system was a lot better than what we saw in the 108th Congress. Under that system, a nominee who had the support of a majority of Senators, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, would get an up-or-down vote after review of the nominee's record and a robust debate. That was the fair way to proceed. It has been that way many times. It has been that way, as a matter of fact, for 214 years. No judicial nominee sent to the Senate floor who had the support of a majority of Senators was denied an up-or-down vote. There were no judicial filibusters. Thus, I do not consider the constitutional option as a change in the rules but a restoration of a Senate tradition, the tradition that filibusters." [Senate Floor Speech, 05/19/05]

S. Lindsey's picture

"On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony.[6] There was immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice.[7][8] Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was "trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation."[9]
From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlledSenate Judiciary Committee.[11]
With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became <strong>the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.</strong>[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were<strong> also filibustered.</strong> These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad,Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress."

Sorry for the C&P time is short right now..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Welcome home!! Very informative post.

The only Supreme candidate I can think of who the republican senators would vote for would be Sarah Palin!

doright's picture

Mike Pence

but they want to win, I think!
He is a Christian, conservative republican, wants the Jews out of Palestine, no laws to protect sexual orientation choices, no amnesty for illegals but wants them here with labor permits, wants more fences at Mexican border, wants big tax cuts for corporations and the very rich, doesn't like Katrina spending, no stem cell research to cure anything, no pork barrels, no date out of Iraq, ever, keep Guantanamo prisoners at least ten more years THERE, no gambling, and he is supported by Eastern Indiana (Kentucky border!) and Limbaugh and Ingraham!

Sounds TEA and red-nek to me!

doright's picture

Bonkers are you dissing the rednecks? They provide free entertainment (ever see a tractor pull?) LOL!

I think Congressman Pence will play a major role and yes if he runs it will be a landslide victory for this Congressman.

And I will go out on a limb to say that in future years look for Congressman Paul Ryan but in the meantime check out his www.americaroadmap.org site. HE'S BRILLIANT!

Why yes, a wonderful fellow:

Wants to terminate children's insurance program--issue vouchers begged for.
Privatized social security---401-k's I assume.
Replace Medicare, Retirees buy own insurance.
Wants a flat tax 10% (EXXON could pay 10% not 35%
Across the board tax reduction.
No capital gains taxes, investment taxes, interest taxes.
No corporate tax if so small.
No estate tax (none now up to a million) who is that for?

What are the states supposed to do without federal money as grants?
I know, raise their own taxes for roads, dams, bridges, unemployment, schools, even the army!

He should have proposed a "chicken in every pot," every day as did Hoover.
Or "let them eat cake," as did Marie.

There is a gray area between socialism and no central government.

Since a vast majority in this discussion claim Conservative values, please share with me how you divide 'liberals' from 'progressives'. Thanks
<cite>(Definitions from Dictionary.com)</cite>

<strong>lib·er·al</strong>
   Show Spelled[lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14.
a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

<strong>pro·gres·sive</strong>
   Show Spelled[pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
(initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6.
noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7.
of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8.
Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9.
Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.
–noun
10.
a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11.
(initial capital letter ) a member of a Progressive party.

Just wanted to share the Dictionary.com definition of 'conservative'.

<strong>con·serv·a·tive</strong>
   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.
(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.
(initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.
Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8.
a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9.
a supporter of conservative political policies.
10.
(initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.

S. Lindsey's picture

Liberals tend toward BIG GOVERNMENT and show a lack of personal responsibility towards others. Liberals believe the Government for the most part is a benevolent organization who "Just wants to help their fellow man"

I use this to explain the difference between Libs and Conservatives..

A Liberal will give a man a fish to feed him for a day...

A Conservative will teach him to fish so he can feed himself..

Now Progressives.. Well contrary to what Megan McCain thinks it not all about "Like Progress and stuff"... unless you think progressing towards Socialism is the right direction.

Progressives are by their very nature Socialist. FDR and Woodrow Wilson are fine examples of Progressives. But then again so is Bush and McCain.

Obama is a Progressive.

Progressives believe in re-distribution of wealth. You know spreading the Wealth around as Obama said it..and Big Government much like Liberals only Liberals generally do not believe Government should Nationalize private Industry.

Maxine Waters said it best.."And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies." She said to a bunch of Oil Executives. She is a Progressive.

Progressives believe that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership and Nationalize all Wealth. We are seeing that with GM and Chrysler as well as the Banks..

There are many nuances of each some not all bad but most not what we would call American Free Market Capitalism.

References:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0331-22.htm
"It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663/page/2
"Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. "

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

I'll look at your references. What would Conservatives have done to begin to turn the economy around?

S. Lindsey's picture

I don't speak for anyone but myself.. However with that said..

Study the "Forgotten Depression of 1920" Have you ever heard of the Depression other than the 1930's? Doubt it why.. Because generally CONSERVATIVE philosophies where brought to bear and the Depression lasted only 1 year.. It was actually worse than the 1930's depression but what made it "Great" where the Progressive programs instituted that made the depression last for a decade..

A slashed Budget.. Government REDUCTION.. and FISCAL responsibility..Fixed it before it became the "GREAT" depression.. Corporate greed and Big Government created the depression in the 30's and the Great Society made it a tragedy.

Here is some info:

The experience of 1920–21 reinforces the contention of genuine free-market economists that government intervention is a hindrance to economic recovery. It is not in spite of the absence of fiscal and monetary stimulus that the economy recovered from the 1920–21 depression. It is because those things were avoided that recovery came. The next time we are solemnly warned to recall the lessons of history lest our economy deteriorate still further, we ought to refer to this episode – and observe how hastily our interrogators try to change the subject.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Okay, Lindsey the Budget Cutter, you've shown us that you can "talk the talk", let's see if you can "walk the walk".

You gave us the usual conservative "talking points": "slashed budget", "Government reduction" and "fiscal responsibility".

Please tell us WHERE you would make budget cuts!

Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Defense Spending?
Interest on the public debt?

The above items make up 2/3 of the federal budget right there! <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/">LINK...

Do you think a politician could get reelected if he cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? Hmmmm?

Tell us.

Cyclist's picture

While you are waiting for SL's response why don't you tell us which budget bucket(s) should benefit from an additional $1 trillion of borrowed money? Talk about deficit spending.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

And federal, state, and local budgets are being cut dramatically - to keep taxes low. And everyone is whining. Are Americans willing to sacrifice to correct this mess? Are there any creative thinkers in America that can show that sacrifice will = improvement?

Cyclist's picture

The federal budget is being cut dramatically??? I thought we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago. Remember "bleak". As for state and local budgets in decline; it's not about keeping taxes low it's about not spending more than revenue.

I do find it interesting that flim flam Geithner has said the current federal deficit is not sustainable.

BTW, increasing taxes to cover the US deficit of $1.1 trillion; how about increasing taxes federal taxes by 30% to make up the difference.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

ENJOY PARIS!! We won't settle this mess - and yes, I remember 'bleak'. Difficult to increase federal income taxes, when for too many there's no income to tax. Hope you're out walking and enjoying the sights - and just using your BB to catch up on this nonsense!!

S. Lindsey's picture

for an answer.. Oh he's good at making a lot of noise but actually backing it up..well he is lacking in the performance department.. if you know what I mean.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

[quote=S. Lindsey]for an answer.. Oh he's good at making a lot of noise but actually backing it up..well he is lacking in the performance department.. if you know what I mean.[/quote]

Your mother never had any complaints about me in the performance department... if you know what I mean.

S. Lindsey's picture

Can I call you dad?

Being 6'6" and the rest of my family barely touching 6' I knew a bull jumped the fence somewhere..

Welcome back.. Are you going to change your name back?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content

Opinion

The problem: Cousin Alex and Cousin Ryan wanted to make snow cones, but their 3-year-old electric snow cone machine broke just after it was loaded with ice cubes.

Community

Sports

The Starr's Mill Panthers boys golf team finished fourth in Monday's AAAAA state tournament. The McIntosh Chiefs finished eighth as a team. Cambridge won the team title with a +6 (290).

Lifestyle

Author Reem Faruqi said his newest release, a children’s book titled “Lailah’s Lunchbox,” is about a young Muslim child named Lailah who moves from the Middle East all the way to Peachtree City.