Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff

posted at 12:11 pm on December 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Plenty to unpack from the most contentious roundtable on yesterday’s talk shows.  Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform squared off against CNBC’s Jim Cramer, who angrily challenged Norquist over his apparent protection of the “two percent” on NBC’s Meet the Press.  Norquist parried by arguing that he supports growth rather than continued confiscation, and that Reaganomics would generate much more revenue over the next ten years than higher taxes and Obamanomics.  If Washington doesn’t learn that lesson, Norquist warns, then the next version of the Tea Party will make the first look like, er … a tea party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvj-19Xtwro

MR. CRAMER: Well, he’s talking about seducing that the Republicans have been seduced. He talked impure thoughts. This is not a pornographic debate, Grover. What this is about is avoiding a recession which is going to happen. I know you don’t want a recession. You don’t want people laid off. You’re going to sacrifice that on the cross of two percent. Is that what you want?

MR. NORQUIST: No. You have to listen to both what the Republicans are talking about. And again, I’m supportive of the Republican position, which is we need to have economic growth, not higher taxes. If we grew at four percent a year instead of two percent a year, Reagan levels instead of Obama levels, for one decade we’d net five trillion in additional revenue. That would pay down the debt that Obama has run up with the slanderous, stimulus stuff. That is…

MR. CRAMER: Clinton did so much better at the stock market with these rates.

MS. BARTIROMO: Well, that was– that was a different time where– where– where we’re at the edge of the new innovation, internet boom.

MR. NORQUIST: No Obamacare, no threat of regulations. Understand how ugly the next four years are going to get. Everything in Obamacare that Obama didn’t want you to focus on or think about, the– the ninety percent of his trillion dollar tax increase was pushed over till after he got himself safely re-elected. All those regulations you’re now hearing about, okay, that are being rebelled about, those all hit after the election. We had four bad years of regulation taxes. He wants to add higher taxes to that. Tea party two is going to dwarf tea party one if Obama pushes us off the cliff. Let’s not pretend who’s pushing us over the cliff.

When did we go from the “one percent” to the “two percent”?  The “two percent” reference appears no fewer than eight times, six of them from Tim Geithner and Claire McCaskill prior to Cramer’s parroting of it here. Sounds like a talking point is being birthed.

Bartiromo pushes back on the “Clinton rates,” but fails to point out as so many conservatives have that the Clinton rates were married to Clinton levels of spending.  Spending as a percentage of GDP during that time was significantly lower — and dropping, in fact:

That’s another reason for the late-90s boom, as well as lower regulation — we had just escaped HillaryCare, if you’ll recall — as well as the cusp of the Internet boom years.  We are now well past the peacetime peaks of federal spending as related to GDP, and that’s still going up, not down.  That’s the reason for our staggering deficits, and unless we reform the drivers of that spending (entitlements), we can’t possibly raise taxes fast enough to make up that ground.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The outrage from 0bamacare will dwarf anything the Democrats try to spin out of this fiscal cliff.

Sekhmet on December 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

When Obama is done the rest of us will be too broke to care let alone fund any sort of Tea Party, which has been co-opted anyway. Bush/Paul 2016. Yeah.

quiz1 on December 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

For the love of Pete…

The Tea Party is not a party, never has been.

it is an amorphous movement…and one that really hasn’t done much but let itself be used and used by both sides of the aisle, for ridicule and derision.

If you believe in what the so-called Tea Party stands for, might do better by registering as a Libertarian…or actually establishing a political party that can fill ballot slots in all 50 states.

The GOP used the Tea Party since its inception…and its followers went right along, dumb as sheep.

Sorry, Grover.

You’ve no clout.

None.

coldwarrior on December 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff

Hope so.

petefrt on December 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I do not see me being part of the Tea Party II or Tea Party original…
The people who make up the Tea Party are just as craven about government spending as every liberal progressive Obama supporter. Every aspect of government spending they benefit from is sacrosanct, any other spending should be cut. The drivers of the debt are the items everyone benefits from. Social Security and Medicare.

Screw the Tea Party unless they actually turn towards conservatism, and not just fiscal.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

When did we go from the “one percent” to the “two percent”? The “two percent” reference appears no fewer than eight times

And then it will be the “five percent”, then “ten percent”. The goal is the destruction of the middle class. Communists don’t want a middle class.

Kungfoochimp on December 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Since the tea party failed to show up for Election 2012, why care?

Plenty of those that did voted Obama, anyway.

Moesart on December 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I will believe it when i see it. I haven’t seen jack sh-t from anyone or anything concerning opposition to Obama

GhoulAid on December 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Cramer?…………….that guy that screams all the time?

How about the Pappy Plan?

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board federal spending cuts.
(every program, clean as a whistle). If the budget is $3.5 trillion cut it by $350 billion in the first year, then cut it $310 billion the following year, and on and on.

There you go. The private sector would come roaring back. And after enacting #2 for a few years you’d have an automatic balanced budget as revenues exceeded federal spending and then you would have surpluses and you could pay them on the national debt.

“easy to understand”, “fair”, “shared sacrifice” and REAL REFORM.

PappyD61 on December 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I have to admit that I’m not enthralled with going to Tea Party rallies anymore. All it did was get me called a racist.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I will believe it when i see it. I haven’t seen jack sh-t from anyone or anything concerning opposition to Obama

GhoulAid on December 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Exactly. We also thought that the presidential election was gonna be a slam dunk….

ChrisL on December 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Grover Norquist is a idiot, why does anyone listen to him? L.I.B (Let it burn) Burn baby Burn…

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

The Tea Party? You mean that grassroots Tea Party that has been taken over by a few for their own personal gains who now send out relentless e-mails looking for cash?

JPeterman on December 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Grover Norquist: Our Fearless Leader?

Get out of bed with this man as fast as you can.

thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Mehhhh

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff

…hope so!…were they sitting on the toilet for Romney in November… instead of voting?

KOOLAID2 on December 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

A racist is anyone who opposes the policies of the Prog movement and Dear Leader…the legacy media has been very successful in putting down the the TEA Party rebellion. Why are Conservatives so afraid of the legacy media..?

d1carter on December 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

If Norquist’s Tea Party is anything like Atlanta’s Tea Party, there will be no Part II.

In Georgia it was the regular taxpayers who fought off a new SPLOST bill for transportation development. The Atlanta Tea Party wanted to increase the gasoline tax instead. There is more waste in the Georgia DOT and absolutely no reason to increase taxes for this.

Then at election time, the Atlanta Tea Party partnered with the legislative black caucus and education groups to oppose an admendment for charter schools.

Thankfully, the voters of Georgia voted no for SPLOST and yes for charter schools.

It just goes to show anyone can co-opt the name Tea Party.

moonsbreath on December 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Tea Party Two?

We are beyond the tipping point. The Republican House leadership is only debating the size of the surrender flag with their “PRESENT” vote.

You don’t need to worry about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or organizing political movements.

You need to be figuring out how to NOT end up in the ocean.

Everything else is a distraction.

PolAgnostic on December 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Every aspect of government spending they benefit from is sacrosanct, any other spending should be cut.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

1.That’s a helluva generalization
2. Speak for yourself.

I’d cash out my SS this instant if the Feds would let me, and I wouldn’t ask for a thin dime from government after that. Same with Medicare and what I’m paying in. I’d gladly insure myself with that money.

Bat Chain Puller on December 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The outrage from 0bamacare will dwarf anything the Democrats try to spin out of this fiscal cliff.

Sekhmet on December 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

not sure …. the FSA doesn’t understand anything but free stuff …

conservative tarheel on December 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Plenty of those that did voted Obama, anyway.

Moesart on December 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

In your theory, was this in order to start the downfall sooner? Since, you should know, LESS people voted in 2012 than in 2008.

I believe the real TEA Party types are already 2 years into prepping mode, (excluding some local and state politics) have given up on the Federal government and pretty much waiting for the riots to start.

LoganSix on December 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

It’s not about getting more revenue. Dear Liar has told us he just wants taxes to be “more fair” (whatever that means) not that he wants a growing economy with attendant tax revenues.

rbj on December 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

TP: First Blood
TP II: The Reckoning
TP III: Alien Vs. Predator
TP IV: Jason Lives

portlandon on December 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I have to admit that I’m not enthralled with going to Tea Party rallies anymore. All it did was get me called a racist.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

You’re going to let this turkey call you a “racist”? Shake it – no one is a bigger racist than Obama.

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Meh… we’ve seen the extent of the Tea Party’s electoral capability on a national level.

The next GOP candidate will be lucky, after factoring in the mortality of seniors, to get as many votes as Romneys. Within a generation, the Tea Party folks have gone from being the silent majority to being the vocal minority.

SAMinVA on December 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

1.That’s a helluva generalization
2. Speak for yourself.

I’d cash out my SS this instant if the Feds would let me, and I wouldn’t ask for a thin dime from government after that. Same with Medicare and what I’m paying in. I’d gladly insure myself with that money.

Bat Chain Puller on December 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

They polled Tea Party people at the height of their power. In the end the only things that got a majority of support for cuts were farm/corporate subsidies and foreign aid.

I went to four Tea Party Protests and talked to the people there. I found two people out of dozens that had the same statement about social security and medicare you made. 2… Willing to give up SS and Medicare.

I quit supporting after that. I was already wary of them due to their social stances. But when even their fiscal stances stand on foreign aid and corporate welfare… Well, that just is not going to make the cut.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Cramer is full of it and anybody using him as a knowledgeable economist shouldn’t be trusted and just using him as a tool for Obama.
Consider in March of 08 he was saying don’t take your money out of Bear Stearns they are doing fine when the rumor was the opposite and less than 2 weeks later they lost 90% of their value. He was also saying banks were fine and don’t buy gas and oil, well we know that was wrong.

plutorocks on December 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I’ve still yet to see a better alternative to the Vote ‘Em All Out, Every Time approach. Even the “good” ones.

Christien on December 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I wonder which Tea Party he is referring to. The original one that was a true grassroots effort in opposition to TARP and bailouts or the one that was co-opted by Dick Armey and company.

The former I was proud to be a part of. The latter, not so much.

voiceofreason on December 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Ed,

Kramer and his Wall Street ilk desparately want the argument to be about taxing the rich – and then move on. The real goal here is to maintain Trillon-dollar deficit spending by erecting a facade of deficit reduction (always quoted in ten-year totals to throw us off). I guarantee that if there is a deal it will result in no more than a combination of $100 Billion in tax hikes and spending cuts annually before the impending recession wipes it all away.

Kramer’s post-2008 economy is propped up with federal deficit spending, which accounts for 7-8% of GDP. The “fiscal cliff” is the instant reduction of that deficit by $700 Billion all at once, which translated to a 5% drop in GDP. That doesn’t even count the ripple effects that might deduct another 2% or so. That GDP cliff means another stock market crash, which should have happened two years ago.

The Very Rich have far more to gain from a tax hike combined with continued deficit spending than lower tax rates but recession-level returns and restrained government spending.

I am all for going off the fiscal cliff – like ripping off a Band-Aid. Unfortunately, that plays right into Obama’s hands. The resultant, severe recession will displace the severe recession we would have had circa 2015 if the cliff is avoided. The wascally Wepubwicans will get the blame for the recession by having derailed the negotiations (no matter what their share of responsibility would be), saving Obama from taking the blame for a recession of his own making just a few years down the road.

shuzilla on December 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Only if we get to throw tomahawks this time.

Bishop on December 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I’ve still yet to see a better alternative to the Vote ‘Em All Out, Every Time approach. Even the “good” ones.

Christien on December 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yup, only political strategy with any hope of having a genuinely positive outcome.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

The GOP used the Tea Party since its inception…and its followers went right along, dumb as sheep.

This is not necessarily true. The TEA Partiers were a true grass roots movement with no leader or organization, so it made sense that they would have to work and vote within one of the two parties, and they were very successful in the midterms. The TEA Partiers still exist, but neither of the two parties represent them, since they are both corrupt. The last presidential election is proof of that. I changed my affiliation to Independent, and am leaning libertarian.

lea on December 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I’ve turned off the news and am happy watching Mayberry reruns. Call me when it’s time for Tea Party II and I’ll be there!

tnarch on December 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

The tea party was a grassroots uprising that spun out of Obamacare in 2009/2010. It had no leaders, however, people live Palin, mark Levin, Jon voight etc.. would speak at their rallies. Once these loosely knit groups started to become a force in mid 2010, the scum republican establishment co-opted the tea party. They made themselves leaders etc.. Once the tea party principles got the GOP the house and senate seats, after the 2010 mid terms, these groups became backballed.

Today, the leaders of some of these tea party groups are part of the establishment.

What the tea party needs to do is file as a national party, get a national leader (palin?. Get rid of some of these establishment tainted tea party leaders and compete against the crud democrats & republicans. My view, the tea party can become the conservative alternative to the two liberal party.

Now is the time, the republican Beltway slime is too in the tank to the bushies, their hanger-ons, etc.. The GOP now has generation of people in the beltway who make a living off running the same people or their kids. They have no principle. It’s not going to change. The Bush family alone has been in power at the GOP since the Hoover administration in the 20′s.

Danielvito on December 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

If, as Mr. Norquist would have us believe, a second Tea Party will rise from the fiscal cliff, it will rise already too late.

The Tea Party was scheduled to show up last month. Glenn Reynolds was so sure. How big is Mr. Norquist’s new expectation, because the Tea Party fell short on November 6 by 4.7M.

That the Tea Party emerges and submerges only to re-emerge doesn’t argue for it as an effective political force. The Democrats will do what they did last time — sit tight and wait out the ruckus.

DGB

Damian Bennett on December 3, 2012 at 1:09 PM

What the tea party needs to do is file as a national party, get a national leader

And you would end up with the same issue as the Republican party. A few people working their magic to get certain types of candidates nominated that the majority of the party doesn’t want.

LoganSix on December 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Here is the failure of the Republican Party. Federal spending increased by $1 Trillion, from $2.7 to $3.7 Trillion, from 2007 to 2010. IN JUST THREE YEARS! The 2009 bail-out is now done and the 2010 stimulus as well, so why aren’t Republicans demanding that $Trillion back each time a Democrat screams “we need more revenue?” Hell, congressional Republicans don’t even bring that fact up. Why? They must be complicient.

Republicans should do nothing at this point but demand half that $Trillion back in cuts, in a united front. (Demanding only half back allows for $100 Billion in spending growth each year since 2007). Anyone who wants to scream over cuts in Medicare or AIDS research or women’s health can be reminded post haste that those things were all funded in 2007 when we spent a $Trillion less, and would only be cut if Obama chose to do so instead of cutting spending he added since 2008.

If the people want all the added spending then give them the fiscal cliff to pay for it, which includes a $550 Billion in new revenue annually.

shuzilla on December 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Okay..not reading anyone’s comments yet, not even diving deep into the article. Just going to say the following: I didn’t join the Tea Party movement and wasn’t a big fan. I felt they lacked direction at the time, this was before I met the Occupy movement mind you.

I knew they weren’t racist or extreme although the media wanted me to think so. I just had no interested in joining with them in their efforts.

Since volunteering for the Romney campaign and making phone calls from home (not many, less than 50) I have been increasingly supportive of nearly every grass-roots conservative group and Foundation. From Americans for Prosperity to Cato to AEI I’ve become much more involved.

Here’s the kicker: I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay everything Atheist and I’m registered as an “Independent”.

Anecdotal, I know, but if my enthusiasm for conservatism and against Progressive Government is representative of even a tiny minority of this country maybe Grover is right. Big maybe admittedly.

That said, as I continue to say: we have to be proactive and take our economic and social arguments to the American people. If we can educate the low-information voters about economic principles and civil liberties we can change the game come 2014 and 2016 respectively.

DeathtotheSwiss on December 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I’m still in mourning, don’t give up on me, I’ll come around.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Here is the failure of the Republican Party. Federal spending increased by $1 Trillion, from $2.7 to $3.7 Trillion, from 2007 to 2010. IN JUST THREE YEARS! The 2009 bail-out is now done and the 2010 stimulus as well, so why aren’t Republicans demanding that $Trillion back each time a Democrat screams “we need more revenue?” Hell, congressional Republicans don’t even bring that fact up. Why? They must be complicient.

shuzilla on December 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

That is the failure of the Democrat Party who was in power during that period of time. Our failure was reaching into every single community in America and making our argument.

DeathtotheSwiss on December 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

You don’t need to worry about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or organizing political movements.

You need to be figuring out how to NOT end up in the ocean.

Everything else is a distraction.

PolAgnostic on December 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Honestly, I think this started in 2004, maybe sooner. Millions have simply tuned out and given up on our political class to do the right thing and take the candy away from us. They didn’t vote in 2008 or 2012 because the Republican Party has utterly failed to admit that it is part of the problem and become a true reform party.

At some point you simply have to work as hard as you can and try to protect yourself and your family from what is coming.

rockmom on December 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Twice as much of nothing is still nothing, genius. But then again math isn’t your strong suit.

MelonCollie on December 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Here is the failure of the Republican Party. Federal spending increased by $1 Trillion, from $2.7 to $3.7 Trillion, from 2007 to 2010. IN JUST THREE YEARS! The 2009 bail-out is now done and the 2010 stimulus as well, so why aren’t Republicans demanding that $Trillion back each time a Democrat screams “we need more revenue?” Hell, congressional Republicans don’t even bring that fact up. Why? They must be complicient.

Republicans should do nothing at this point but demand half that $Trillion back in cuts, in a united front. (Demanding only half back allows for $100 Billion in spending growth each year since 2007). Anyone who wants to scream over cuts in Medicare or AIDS research or women’s health can be reminded post haste that those things were all funded in 2007 when we spent a $Trillion less, and would only be cut if Obama chose to do so instead of cutting spending he added since 2008.

If the people want all the added spending then give them the fiscal cliff to pay for it, which includes a $550 Billion in new revenue annually.

shuzilla on December 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

THANK YOU. This is so bloody simple! Why would so many new Republicans in Congress who didn’t vote for any of this spending not be demanding that it be rolled back? I don’t get it.

rockmom on December 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM

While camping as a Boy Scout, we honed our knowledge on how to build, manage and control fires. While waiting for a dutch oven to complete or a hobo meal to finish cooking, we would try to discover different ways of controlling the fire, without it getting out of control. Of course, we would also do stuff like spit hot chocolate powder into the fire to watch the flame explosion.

I’m guessing dry tea leaves are also very flammable.
L.i.B.

LoganSix on December 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM

There are important differences between where the economy is now and the environment which kicked off the Tea Party response to Obama’s election and the financial collapse. It’s the nature of politics that an opposition will coalesce and organize for the mid terms but I seriously doubt that 2014 will look like 2010.

I think the way forward is a rethink of GOP policies and the way those policies are communicated. There are successful GOP strategies at the state level that need to be examined and replicated at the national level. The GOP has a pretty secure lock on the House until the next census but using their power there is very risky. A political impasse now with the obvious ramifications will not endear the public to Congress or the GOP and will likely have the opposite effect. It’s not an ideal platform to relaunch the GOP and the impact of the Tea Party 1.0 hasn’t made it more effective.

Local issues and successes are the path back to power. Build it from the ground up and create cadres of local organic support and you will have a better platform for policy formulation and for effectively contesting elections. Use media effectively rather than creating alternative realities and blaming media for political failures. If the Democrats can do this successfully…anyone can.

lexhamfox on December 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Why wouldnt Tea Party 2 have been on election day? Many sat out, so I have no faith in the power of the movement anymore

Jack_Burton on December 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Going from 1% to 2% is much like the last two years, where we were going to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires who make $250K per year” to merely those who make $250K.

Obumbo establishes the duplicitous narrative and the lap-dog media obediently follows.

MikeinPRCA on December 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The Tea Party would be great if not for all the SoCons.

hatecraft on December 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Why wouldnt Tea Party 2 have been on election day? Many sat out, so I have no faith in the power of the movement anymore

Jack_Burton on December 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What you said. The Tea Party launched a new website (sorry I deleted the link) a few weeks before the election and then did big post that they were endorsing “none of the above”.

I was certainly no fan of Mitt Romney, but I got out there worked the GOTV for him because anything was better than King Obama.

I wonder how many hardcore Tea Party people sat home and didn’t vote?

JPeterman on December 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM

The “next version” of the Tea Party?

I’ll have you know that the existing Tea Party is very much alive and well. You don’t hear too much about us through the Marxist Socialist Media for reasons that need no explanation. Meanwhile we’re out here, working and building.

We’re also covertly attacked by members of the Republican Bureaucracy. The reasons for this are best explained by Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

“Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

The Republican Party is top heavy with people who are more concerned with their position within the party than whether the party achieves its aims. They don’t care if the ship goes down, as long as they get to be captain. We in the Tea Party are a threat to them and their position, so they hate us and try to undermine us and generally act like babies who have been forced to give up the teat.

Politics is and always has been, as Ambrose Bierce once wrote: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

leereyno on December 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Screw the Tea Party unless they actually turn towards conservatism, and not just fiscal.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

you mean endorsing pro life zealots and opposing gay marriage? yeah, that did lots of good in the last election. keep it up and you’ll get Hillary 2016

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

you mean endorsing pro life zealots and opposing gay marriage? yeah, that did lots of good in the last election. keep it up and you’ll get Hillary 2016

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

It won’t matter when the enabled by you degenerates vote for all the money of the producers to be theirs.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Take a good look at the graph.

Notice spending was FLAT (barring a few spending binges) until about 1921. Since then,spending has steadily increased – and with no end in sight.

So what happened @ 1921? oh yeah, the 19th amendment was passed.

Patton531 on December 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Sorry Grover, you don’t speak for the tea party..Hotair, you really need to start posting other articles on this fraud..He’s been long exposed by frank gaffney and david horowitz for his pretty extreme ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas..please stop quoting him…he is not one of us

sadsushi on December 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I’ve still yet to see a better alternative to the Vote ‘Em All Out, Every Time approach. Even the “good” ones.

Christien on December 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yup, only political strategy with any hope of having a genuinely positive outcome.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Do we have any evidence that their replacements would be any better?

thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

meh, looks like Obama has us where he wants us. We’re all ridiculing each other over BS while he is the source of the out of control spending, taxes and misery.

The Tea Party is solely focused on fiscal sanity. That is too extreme for all things liberal but they have successfully divided us for political conquest.

Math doesn’t lie and there will be no solace in pointing that out later but a reckoning needs to occur. Stay focused.

DanMan on December 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

hatecraft on December 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Lovely name.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Doubt it. Who the heck is going to go for a Tea Party II when Tea Party I gave us a Romney candidacy and a GOP completely unwilling to advocate and promote free market principles and solutions.

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

It won’t matter when the enabled by you degenerates vote for all the money of the producers to be theirs.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I’m for small govt, unlike you. you wanted big govt to manage everything for everybody, and it blew up in your face. you enabled the takers to worm their way into the system, better check your principals…

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Do we have any evidence that their replacements would be any better?

thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM

We don’t even have evidence that the existing people won’t get worse. Are you ready to follow any of these folks into metaphorical battle? Do any of them appear ready to lead such a battle?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM

yeah, that did lots of good in the last election. keep it up and you’ll get Hillary 2016

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

You know what else did us a lot of good in the last election? Running a big government statist as the GOP presidential candidate.

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Tea Party II? Yeah, sure, trembling showing up on the Richter Scale already from the White House. My gosh, folks, even the GOP crushed the tea party as inconsequential.
It certainly couldn’t overcome all the free tainted candy and self-absorbtion offered by the left in this last election. Folks who boo God at their conventionaren’t about to quiver at a threat of tea party II, as if life is a horror movie and Jason comes back stronger and more fearsome. Sorry, but this threat is adolecense gone astray.

Don L on December 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

But apparently the so-cons hijacked the Tea Party.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If the Tea Party has any effect, it will not have anything to do with Mr. Norequist. People should not have tried to become leaders of this movement on a national level.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

you mean endorsing pro life zealots and opposing gay marriage?

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Not many people oppose gay marriage – at least support state action against it. I don’t think that there is any state that bans it (or that they even could given Supreme Court jurisprudence). Or, do you mean people opposing state recognition and affirmation of gay marriage? Well, the state getting involved in marriage should only get involved for a compelling state interest – is there one for gay marriage? If so, let’s hear it. Pretty sad that you’re susceptible to leftist strawmen like that.

As far as abortion, many libertarians are the most stalwart pro-lifers out there. Because the most fundamental liberty of the individual is that of life. But whatever. You want a state that has the power to unnecessarily regulate marriage and decide who lives and dies. And you probably consider yourself a non-statist too. Quite amusing.

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The Tea Party birthed nothing more than a platform from which the likes of Jon Runyan (NJ), Grover Norquist and Sarah Palin have milked for personal gain and advanced the cause not a single step.

bloviator on December 3, 2012 at 2:25 PM

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

But apparently the so-cons hijacked the Tea Party.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Yep – that’s how Romney got the nod … So-cons hijacked the Tea Party. Installed Romney as the GOP presidential candidate. And then didn’t vote for him in the general. So it’s their falt he got the nomination and their fault he lost. Or something.

It’s almost like these statist Republicans are Democrats. Always blame everything on everyone else.

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

the Clinton rates were married to Clinton levels of spending. Spending as a percentage of GDP during that time was significantly lower — and dropping, in fact:

Take a look at that chart and give the majority of credit and/or blame to the political party which held majority control (i.e., the party that held 2 (or 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency).

Clinton took office in January 1993 and had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate for his first two years in office.

Then, from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2007, Republicans held majority control for 12 straight years. Those are the years where spending as a % of GDP decreased.

Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took majority control when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House and Harry Reid became Senate Majority Leader. Democrats have held majority control for nearly 6 years, and look at how spending as a % of GDP has skyrocketed under the Democrats.

The last Republican majority budget was passed in 2006 for FY 2007.

The FY 2007 budget featured:
(Receipts $2,568 Billion) – (Outlays $2,729 Billion) = Deficit $161 Billion

FY 2012 estimate:
(Receipts $2,469 Billion) – (Outlays $3,796 Billion) = Deficit $1,327 Billion

The FY 2012 estimated deficit was OVER EIGHT TIMES THE SIZE of the FY 2007 deficit.

Why? Not because receipts were down less than 4%, but rather because outlays were up over 39%, adding well over $1 TRILLION in additional outlays… for what?!?

Let’s immediately cut spending back to FY 2007 levels before we even talk about raising taxes!

And oh, by the way, the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts led to four straight years of revenue INCREASES. Employment improved and more people were earning income and paying income taxes.

It’s logical to question whether the plan to increase revenue by raising tax rates would actually backfire, resulting in more job losses, less people earning income and paying income taxes, and LESS tax revenue collected!

ITguy on December 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

If the Tea Party has any effect, it will not have anything to do with Mr. Norequist. People should not have tried to become leaders of this movement on a national level.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

My wife gets emails from various Tea Party groups. One she told me about talked about how Obama and the Democrats bring the full aresal to a fight with the GOP, whereas the GOP shows up with a spork. I liked that. I think that was a good contribution. :)

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

How great is it that the Republicans have a group to blame everything on? It’s probably the only thing the two parties actually agree on. Oh, besides spending money they don’t have.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

It is dead on accurate. What we need to know is whether they are too stupid or too cowardly to stand up form what is right. I guess it doesn’t make much difference though, as long as we know what to expect.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Let’s immediately cut spending back to FY 2007 levels before we even talk about raising taxes!

ITguy on December 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Would be nice. But that ship has sailed. Somehow we ended up with a presidential candidate who refused to make this case, refused to make the case for how this spending would personally impact the voters, and refused to make the case for how free market principles and solutions would benefit all Americans. And he lost, and got the John “the Capitulator” Boehner as the only standard bearer for individualism, liberty, and free markets. Almost makes me want to cry, but I’ll leave that to him.

besser tot als rot on December 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I’m for small govt, unlike you. you wanted big govt to manage everything for everybody, and it blew up in your face. you enabled the takers to worm their way into the system, better check your principals…

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You have brain damage?
I’m for small government as well.
The difference is the following.

The morons of the small government mantra think that the way to a small government is to have the government give incentives to people to be degenerates. Such as forcing everyone to approve of gay relationships. Such as allowing people the ability to commit murder, because their feelings are going to be hurt otherwise. While backing up all of their bad choices with other people’s labor.

The smart people of the small government mantra understand that so long as the government is back stopping all of these bad choices by all of these people, that giving them additional incentives to partake in them is going to lead to bigger government which cannot be gotten rid of.

Your ideal way of getting small government. MAKE MORE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT DEPENDENTS.

My ideal way of getting small government. Get rid of the incentives that make people dependents on government.

You seriously think your way will ever work…

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

The Tea Party would be great if not for all the SoCons.

hatecraft on December 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Your name constitutes Truth in Advertising.

kingsjester on December 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

So what happened @ 1921? oh yeah, the 19th amendment was passed.

Patton531 on December 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM

While I will agree with you on principle. The spike in 1918 was WWI, it dropped in 1921 – 1931.

LoganSix on December 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

It is a pun.

hatecraft on December 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

hatecraft on December 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Gee, imagine no one “getting it” when attached to that comment. You might want to look into who your actual opponents are. Fiscal responsibility (we assume) is all that separates you from liberals. You think they are going to help you achieve your goal?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I have to admit that I’m not enthralled with going to Tea Party rallies anymore. All it did was get me called a racist.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Aaah, Miss Cindy, that’s where I think you may not be recognizing the force that you helped to create. If the Tea Party had not become a power to be reckoned with…the Liberals would not have even bothered to attempt to discredit the movement. If they are calling us racists, bigots, etc., then that is proof that the left perceives a viable threat. No?
Whether or not the Tea Party re-emerges I think it’s important to remember that, IMO, the Tea Party can be credited with bringing to the forefront the concerns over the deficit and debt…. above nearly every other policy consideration in Washington. Republicans and Democrats, yes, even some Democrats, both now see that we need to enact some kind of austerity to avoid becoming like many economies in Europe. Wasn’t that a victory?

lynncgb on December 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

coldwarrior on December 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I guess you were talking about a dream you had. Well and actions of people like you.

2010 was the biggest victory for the GOP in HISTORY.

It was extremely successful.

Steveangell on December 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM

2010 was the biggest victory for the GOP in HISTORY.

Steveangell on December 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM

There-in lies the problem. Republican victory. Not conservative victory.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM

When waxing nostalgic about the Clinton economy, why does no one ever talk about the Dot Com stock market collapse during his presidency? Bush “inherited” this but I don’t ever recall him whining about it.

If the Tea Party has any effect, it will not have anything to do with Mr. Norequist. People should not have tried to become leaders of this movement on a national level.
Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

He’s been around a lot longer than the Tea Party. Among other things, he co-wrote Contract With America with Newt. I don’t see him as trying to claim to be its leader but clearly there is much in common philosophically. And I agree with everything he said on M.T.P. about the best approach to solving our fiscal problems.

The Left is demonizing him the same way they went after the Koch Bros. They always have to have a face to demonize, and Norquist is it now. I would urge our side not to fall into the Dem’s trap.

Buy Danish on December 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Sorry Grover, you don’t speak for the tea party..Hotair, you really need to start posting other articles on this fraud..He’s been long exposed by frank gaffney and david horowitz for his pretty extreme ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas..please stop quoting him…he is not one of us

sadsushi on December 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Wow.

Jihad Watch isn’t a fan of him either.

First I’ve heard of any of this. I can’t find him responding to the accusations anywhere.

DeathtotheSwiss on December 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Buy Danish on December 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Thanks, I know who he is and I didn’t mean to imply that he was trying to become a leader of the Tea Party but others have tried. I liked the grass roots feel of the meetings. I’m still feeling down about finding out how many truly stupid people live in one country. I’ll get over it.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

lynncgb on December 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Considering the outcome (so far) we won a battle but lost the war. I’m still looking for my pony in this barn full of sh!t. Sorry about the language.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Your ideal way of getting small government. MAKE MORE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT DEPENDENTS.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM

hard to debate stupid comments like that. in what universe does smaller govt include more parasites? its fools like you that give the GOP a bad name

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM

We don’t even have evidence that the existing people won’t get worse. Are you ready to follow any of these folks into metaphorical battle? Do any of them appear ready to lead such a battle?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Personally, I follow what Milton Friedman said on the matter:

“People have a great misconception in this way,” Friedman explained. “They think the way they solve things is by electing the right people. It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.”

thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Since the tea party failed to show up for Election 2012, why care?

Plenty of those that did voted Obama, anyway.

Moesart on December 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Don’t forget the TruCons who sat on the couch in a snit because nobody would do as they said and vote for ronpaul – or johnson(who?).
Or who voted for dohbama “just to teach the pubs a lesson.”

Why consider a TruCon candidate? No reason. None at all.

Solaratov on December 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM

thebrokenrattle on December 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I can easily buy this, it’s just going to take me a while to figure out how to put into practice.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Solaratov on December 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM

At one point (I don’t know the final) Gov. Romney was down by 36K in Florida and 39K had voted for Gov. Johnson. Soc-cons? True-Cons? Why not blame the stupid people who actually voted for Obama?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I’m still feeling down about finding out how many truly stupid people live in one country. I’ll get over it.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Don’t get over it. Just protect you and your family from them, from the left to the right. Said stupidity have destroyed the last drop of decency and sanity in the US, not to speak of devouring freedom/independence and all which once was given to the special land. It’s all self-made, thus fully deserved.

May all who brung/enabled Obama, from the left to the right, and their families be Fluked, painfully, until they bleed, starve, in the dark/cold. They all deserve NO less.

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Why not blame the stupid people who actually voted for Obama?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Blame all who enabled Obama to be there, first, and second rounds.

It all matters. Know your enemies, Cindy.

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM

We are trying to protect ourselves the best we can. It’s hard for me to consider people who disagree with me as enemies but dang, what has to happen around here before the people buy a clue?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Ed, Grover Norquist is out for the big bucks.

There is stuff out there now that he is aiding and abetting known terrorist Muslim groups.

In other words, the word is he has sold out.

Take what he says with a grain of bacon.

bumsteaddithers on December 3, 2012 at 4:17 PM

It’s hard for me to consider people who disagree with me as enemies but dang, what has to happen around here before the people buy a clue?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM

They are not people who merely disagree with you – they are people, from the left to the right, who destroy you and yours.

No mercy.

Schadenfreude on December 3, 2012 at 4:34 PM

hard to debate stupid comments like that. in what universe does smaller govt include more parasites? its fools like you that give the GOP a bad name

burserker on December 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM

In yours. The one where you throw away all social conservative mores and replace them with big government special interest laws.

astonerii on December 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Thanks, I know who he is and I didn’t mean to imply that he was trying to become a leader of the Tea Party but others have tried. I liked the grass roots feel of the meetings. I’m still feeling down about finding out how many truly stupid people live in one country. I’ll get over it.
Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I know what you mean about people trying to become the “leader” of the Tea Party. Lots and lots of opportunists around. As for feeling down, I watched Occupy Unmasked last night and plan to watch it again tonight. Righteous indignation is a great way to beat the depression we have all felt so deeply since the Con Man-in-Chief was re-elected by his marks.

Buy Danish on December 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Considering the outcome (so far) we won a battle but lost the war. I’m still looking for my pony in this barn full of sh!t. Sorry about the language.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

My work took me away….I’m sorry.

Yes, I can’t disagree…but we were a force once and we can be again. I’m just trying to cheer you up a bit. I have to believe that we can at some point figure out how to be effective again. It may take awhile, but we must try.

lynncgb on December 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2