Is there absolutely any reason to take the "Tea Party" seriously?

[iNow]

Dude, calling people idiots isn't really the best way to continue leading by example. Responding to "idiocy" with flaming isn't the best strategy.

 

When an attack is made on a friend, I tend to respond, however, I completely take your point.

 

Ecoli, jryan, Pangloss - As I mentioned, if you dislike the fact that bascule is trying to encourage discussion regarding a topic about which he genuinely cares, and if you think he is discussing this topic too often, then please either refrain from participating and/or use the report post feature so you guys can discuss in the mod forum (except jryan, who can report a post, but not discuss administrative action) whether or not bascule's actions are appropriate and take action should it be deemed necessary. Otherwise, your comments appear intended only to ridicule, and that's not really helpful for keeping a thread on track. Also, I apologize for "back-seat moderating" here, but I posted in a hurry and also note that you guys are staff members, so I'm really not sure who else is going to request this of you if someone like me does not. Cheers.

 

 

 

Per the thread topic... I take the tea party seriously, only in that I am really concerned with the path down which they seem to be taking political discourse in our country, and how they mobilize to elections in a much "denser" manner than folks more like myself.

 

My primary concern is that what they are doing is more about raw unfocused anger, and that they will exercise that anger in an unfocused way. I take that very seriously, and see it is a definite threat to our collective well-being. For that reason, I've voted "Yes" on the poll.

 

I can appreciate concerns against "big government." I can appreciate a desire for freedoms, and I can appreciate much of what they claim to represent. What I don't appreciate is how often their logic is broken, built on flawed premises, and disconnected with reality.

 

I see the movement as less about government, less about freedom, and more about rage and more about selective ignorance.

[toastywombel]

When an attack is made on a friend, I tend to respond, however, I completely take your point.

 

Ecoli, jryan, Pangloss - As I mentioned, if you dislike the fact that bascule is trying to encourage discussion regarding a topic about which he genuinely cares, and if you think he is discussing this topic too often, then please either refrain from participating and/or use the report post feature so you guys can discuss in the mod forum (except jryan, who can report a post, but not discuss administrative action) whether or not bascule's actions are appropriate and take action should it be deemed necessary. Otherwise, your comments appear intended only to ridicule, and that's not really helpful for keeping a thread on track. Also, I apologize for "back-seat moderating" here, but I posted in a hurry and also note that you guys are staff members, so I'm really not sure who else is going to request this of you if someone like me does not. Cheers.

 

 

 

Per the thread topic... I take the tea party seriously, only in that I am really concerned with the path down which they seem to be taking political discourse in our country, and how they mobilize to elections in a much "denser" manner than folks more like myself.

 

My primary concern is that what they are doing is more about raw unfocused anger, and that they will exercise that anger in an unfocused way. I take that very seriously, and see it is a definite threat to our collective well-being. For that reason, I've voted "Yes" on the poll.

 

I can appreciate concerns against "big government." I can appreciate a desire for freedoms, and I can appreciate much of what they claim to represent. What I don't appreciate is how often their logic is broken, built on flawed premises, and disconnected with reality.

 

I see the movement as less about government, less about freedom, and more about rage and more about selective ignorance.

 

Same reason I voted yes on the poll.

[ecoli]

Otherwise, your comments appear intended only to ridicule, and that's not really helpful for keeping a thread on track.

 

I was teasing, not ridiculing. I used to hang out with some tea party people, so I can speak from experience that bascule is right about most of them, and that the movement itself is worrying.

 

HOWEVER, I can't fathom what the effect of harping on this point over and over on SFN will have on the movement. At this point he/you/nobody seems to be effectively informing or swaying opinion.

 

I enjoy seeing our various political factions duke it out (amicably, of course) but this topic has seemed to reach the point where nothing usefully new is being said.

 

I will bring it up in the mod forum.

[iNow]

I was teasing, not ridiculing. I used to hang out with some tea party people, so I can speak from experience that bascule is right about most of them, and that the movement itself is worrying.

Thanks for that. I sensed a much deeper disagreement here than actually existed. Your words above offer quite a significant degree of clarification.

 

 

HOWEVER, I can't fathom what the effect of harping on this point over and over on SFN will have on the movement. At this point he/you/nobody seems to be effectively informing or swaying opinion.

And how might you demonstrate this? Have you effectively reached out to each and every person who has read these threads? ... Members, guests, and otherwise?

 

 

this topic has seemed to reach the point where nothing usefully new is being said.

Your opinion, not some objective fact.

 

 

I will bring it up in the mod forum.

I'll be interested to hear the outcome.

 

 

Thanks again, ecoli... and also sorry for my own ridicule toward you. I just know from experience that you are better and that when you contribute something sincere... when you articulate a point clearly... not like what I myself did above with my own first offering to this thread... you really do contribute something useful and sway opinion.

 

I also think that bascule and I tend to take an exorbitant amount of unnecessary heat around here for being so transparent with our thinking on these matters. Tact is all well and good, but I find sincerity sometimes more worthy of fierce protection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it's looking like it will have a major effect on the governance of this country.

It already has. What the future may bring remains an open question.

[bascule]

Per the thread topic... I take the tea party seriously, only in that I am really concerned with the path down which they seem to be taking political discourse in our country, and how they mobilize to elections in a much "denser" manner than folks more like myself.

 

My primary concern is that what they are doing is more about raw unfocused anger, and that they will exercise that anger in an unfocused way. I take that very seriously, and see it is a definite threat to our collective well-being. For that reason, I've voted "Yes" on the poll.

 

I can appreciate concerns against "big government." I can appreciate a desire for freedoms, and I can appreciate much of what they claim to represent. What I don't appreciate is how often their logic is broken, built on flawed premises, and disconnected with reality.

 

I see the movement as less about government, less about freedom, and more about rage and more about selective ignorance.

 

All that said I too am a bit disappointed by the substance-free response I'm receiving in this thread. I would contend that anyone who is serious about the governance of this country would distance themselves from the Tea Party. If you place partisanship above substance, by all means, embrace them.

[Moontanman]

I've tried to debate some of them, like trying to nail jello to a tree

[ecoli]

Thanks for that. I sensed a much deeper disagreement here than actually existed. Your words above offer quite a significant degree of clarification.

 

This is my fault, probably. I'm not as funny as I think I am.

 

And how might you demonstrate this? Have you effectively reached out to each and every person who has read these threads? ... Members, guests, and otherwise?

Just the sense I'm getting.

 

Your opinion, not some objective fact.

I guess so. We don't seem to have any tea partiers on here (not hard core ones, anyway) so it's difficult to judge how they'd react to bascule's and your postings.

 

I'll be interested to hear the outcome.

I'll keep you posted.

 

Thanks again, ecoli... and also sorry for my own ridicule toward you. I just know from experience that you are better and that when you contribute something sincere... when you articulate a point clearly... not like what I myself did above with my own first offering to this thread... you really do contribute something useful and sway opinion.

I try my best. My primary motivation isn't to sway others, but to test my own priors.

 

I also think that bascule and I tend to take an exorbitant amount of unnecessary heat around here for being so transparent with our thinking on these matters.

perhaps... though I often feel this about myself and paranoiA. I'm sure jryan feels the same way. It's just how you feel when you're "under attack."

 

Your transparency and thinking is appreciated, however.

 

and now back to our regularly scheduled programming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It already has. What the future may bring remains an open question.

[bascule]

For what it's worth, ecoli seems to be one of the few people I've encountered who may have sympathized with the Tea Party when it began as a libertarian movement but now recognizes it has been co-opted by forces who desire practically the polar opposite in terms of policy.

 

I hope I'm not mischaracterizing you there, ecoli.

[ecoli]

nope, that's spot on.

[Pangloss]

Hey I wasn't trying to ridicule anybody, I just love Star Trek quotes! But I apologize if it came out derogatory. It really wasn't intended. I'm sorry bascule.

 

----------------

 

My primary concern is that what they are doing is more about raw unfocused anger' date=' and that they will exercise that anger in an unfocused way. I take that very seriously, and see it is a definite threat to our collective well-being.[/quote']

 

I know a lot of conservatives who had that same concern about the anti-war movement, but nothing ever really materialized out of it. I think you should review Sisyphus' post on this, which had a really great point:

 

Inasmuch as it's co-opted by Beck and Palin, the signal to noise ratio has dropped to incoherent levels. I don't think the movement as a whole currently has anything useful to say.

 

If that's true then ultimately the movement will bear little fruit, just as the anti-war movement incensed liberals but ultimately bore little fruit, and for the exact same reason -- people aren't really radical, by and large.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For what it's worth, ecoli seems to be one of the few people I've encountered who may have sympathized with the Tea Party when it began as a libertarian movement but now recognizes it has been co-opted by forces who desire practically the polar opposite in terms of policy.

 

I hope I'm not mischaracterizing you there, ecoli.

 

You yourself also deserve a lot of credit for being open-minded about things like this, IMO. If this movement had not been co-opted by the likes of Palin and Beck, if it were taking a more sensible path in its objections and were more consistent and intelligent in the application of them, I think you'd be right there with them.

[Mr Skeptic]

For what it's worth, ecoli seems to be one of the few people I've encountered who may have sympathized with the Tea Party when it began as a libertarian movement but now recognizes it has been co-opted by forces who desire practically the polar opposite in terms of policy.

 

I hope I'm not mischaracterizing you there, ecoli.

 

That's how I feel too.

[jryan]

I find this rather ironic.

 

If the composition of the Tea Parties were as this website says, and as some here seem to believe, then why would they need to perform this stunt at all?

 

I don't, for instance, feel the need to infiltrate a G8 protest and throw bricks through shop windows and light cars on fire as I know the G8 protesters are already prone to do that anyway.

[Sisyphus]

You don't think anyone is infilftrating G8 protests?

[Phi for All]

I sympathize with the Tea Party movement as a conceptual attempt by Americans to voice their concerns over what they perceive to be wrong with this country. I just feel like many of those concerns have been tossed onto the original "pile" and get unvalidated acceptance simply because they were voiced by a like-minded entity.

 

It's obvious that many of their concerns have no merit, like not wanting more "czars" who wield unbalanced power over our lives. Many of these concerns are just snow that the ball picked up on its way downhill. Each of these needs to be carefully removed through education, which can't happen if you condemn the movement as a whole, or vow not to take them seriously as a group.

 

Some of their concerns are legitimate, like how the government is bailing out Wall Street bankers. These deals weren't done with the eye towards profit that the auto bailouts were. This is actually one area where the Tea Party could turn against the Republicans if the Reps continue to defend the likes of Goldman Sachs and CitiCorp.

 

And some of the stuff they are against is just partisan grumbling. Blaming Obama for things done under Bush, objecting to proposals originally raised by Republicans but now somehow tainted by Democrat support, these things may never be addressed properly. Get both the left and the right to support third and fourth parties and we may gain some ground there.

 

So I would say yes, there are reasons to take them seriously. Acknowledge their legitimate concerns while pointing out that some of those concerns are just hand-waving designed to either inflame the movement or discredit it. I've been impressed by some of the stances that seemed to cut across party lines, like the banking concerns. The Tea Party has its merits, but like any mob action, it can be mislead by those who know how to spin things their way.

[jryan]

You don't think anyone is infilftrating G8 protests?

 

Not until there is evidence.

[Pangloss]

A Fox News poll from just a few days ago found that the tea party movement has a lower approval rating than the Internal Revenue service -- and that's a week before tax day!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/040810_Obama_HC_2010_web.pdf

(see page 4)

 

Other polls have shown many conservatives identifying with some of the movement's ideas, but apparently actually following its lead is another matter. That poll also showed that while amongst Republicans general favorability towards the TPM is around 60% (page 5), they still feel represented by the Republican party 2:1 over the tea party movement (page 6).

 

Certainly still a lot of stuff here to motivate the liberal base. But actual danger to the country? Not so much.

 

 

BTW, I got that from the Daily Kos, who said:

 

It's hard to blame Brown given the political toxicity of the Tea Party outside of the South and some extremely conservative congressional districts. Despite the tea party movements outsized media coverage, Americans just don't support it. Last week, for example, a Fox poll found that the IRS is more popular than the Tea Party. When you're an anti-tax movement and you're less popular than the IRS less than two weeks before tax day, you know you've got problems -- and apparently Scott Brown is savvy enough to see that.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/12/856483/-Scott-Brown-throws-the-Tea-Party-into-Boston-Harbor

[jackson33]

bacule quotes;

What are you talking about specifically? And surely you're not insinuating that Bush never signed any budgets containing pork...[/Quote]

 

Of course not, but the pork dollars involved until the FY 2009 Congressional Budget were reasonable, by comparison. The 2009 Fiscal year started October 1st, 2008 and Congress tabled the Budget, first until the Elections, then till after the inauguration, Obama passed the bloated budget and Bush NEVER had the chance to veto. Bush had also made an issue out of the FY 2008 Budget, with out success.

 

TARP was signed into law by Bush, not Obama.[/Quote]

 

Yes and you know I'm aware of that. TARP was designed and passed to back up or stabilize the Banking Industry, to prevent "runs" on the major banks. It was to be repaid, with interest, if and when the storm passed. Of the 700B$, Henry Paulson and the FED distributed a little under half, leaving it to the incoming administration (some was loaned to GM/Chrysler), to evaluate circumstances and use accordingly. Not all the money was used, even though some funds were used to buy stocks in various bank, GM and no telling what else, think it was Geithner, that first suggested using the 700B$, or what was/is being returned, as a slush fund.

 

Sidenote; Not suggesting Paulson, was working directly with the FED and/or the pending administration, however he certainly has advocated many of the same liberal tendencies and has stated his approval of Geithner, to replace himself.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/22/why-henry-paulson-must-be-contained/

 

You're comparing the Republicans to Republican Hank Paulson's TARP plans that were signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush? You seem to be awfully confused about TARP. [/Quote]

 

I hope this clears up my position on TARP. As for the rest of post 20, your side tracking the issues. The last Budget Bush signed was for the fiscal year 2008, which ended September 30th, 2008. As far as I'm concerned, once the Election was decided in November, any financial and/or economic problems that happed after this and not otherwise created by Congress, were on Obama's clock....

[bascule]

I enjoyed this:

 

 

Of course not, but the pork dollars involved until the FY 2009 Congressional Budget were reasonable, by comparison. The 2009 Fiscal year started October 1st, 2008 and Congress tabled the Budget, first until the Elections, then till after the inauguration, Obama passed the bloated budget and Bush NEVER had the chance to veto. Bush had also made an issue out of the FY 2008 Budget, with out success.

 

Bush went his first 6 years in office without ever vetoing a bill. It was only when Democrats began to retake Congress that any vetoes started to happen whatsoever.

 

You're seriously giving Bush a bye here, and making excuses for him. If you were legitimately concerned about government spending you'd concede he did an absolutely horrible job managing the federal budget:

 

 

Republicans presidents have a terrible track record on the national deficit. You're criticizing Obama for spending intended to curtail the nearly complete global economic collapse years and years of deregulation and a "hands off" approach to managing the financial sector.

 

Bush cut taxes and started an expensive, unnecessary war, and sat idly by while the financial sector collapsed. He is far and away responsible for the present deficits, and a substantial chunk of the national deficit.

 

All that said, if you're legitimately concerned about the national debt, why in the world are you defending Bush? You should be heavily criticizing both Bush AND Obama...

[Pangloss]

Here's one I liked, from a CBS News story:

 

 

And this one seemed tailored right to one of my personal pet peeves. (lol)

 

 

Michele, the activist from Georgia, said she has repeatedly been referred to as a racist. She carried a sign with the infamous image of President Obama as "the Joker" with the word "socialism" underneath. On the other side of the sign was a similar image of President George W. Bush that read "fascist." Either image should be acceptable in a free society, but only the picture of the current president would draw criticism, she said.

 

"I'm not racist," she said. "If Hillary Clinton came in and did the exact same thing that's going on right now, I'd be out here."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002659-503544.html

[padren]

And this one seemed tailored right to one of my personal pet peeves. (lol)

 

 

 

Just to take note of her quote:

 

Either image should be acceptable in a free society, but only the picture of the current president would draw criticism, she said.

 

Since when is it unacceptable for some individuals in a free society to criticize an image they don't like?

 

On the rest of her comment, frankly you couldn't even suggest Bush might be making a mistake without being branded a terrorist apologist anti-American by some people. You could say that the left found it acceptable to mock Bush whom now criticize mocking Obama, however you can't forget that the right were railing against the left in the exact same fashion as she is complaining the left is doing now.

 

The real mess is you can't even honestly simplify it that much, since everything boils down to individuals. Some people will call her a racist - people I think are wrong if they are basing it all off the Joker sign. Others will call her insensitive or stupid or a bigot... how is this news?

 

Seriously, who goes to a political rally full of fiery rhetoric weighted with extremely heavy charges against the sitting President, the majorities of the House and the Senate... and then is so surprised that some people criticize her with mean words? There is also a big difference between whether people approve of her sign, think her sign is acceptable but in poor taste, if they think it's racist, if they think she should be arrested for hate speech - and I don't think she's meeting resistance from people telling her she is not allowed to use that sign without risking criminal charges. She's not complaining that her free speech is being impeded, just that she doesn't like how some people think her commentary is dumb, misdirected and tasteless.

[toastywombel]

I enjoyed this:

 

 

 

 

Bush went his first 6 years in office without ever vetoing a bill. It was only when Democrats began to retake Congress that any vetoes started to happen whatsoever.

 

You're seriously giving Bush a bye here, and making excuses for him. If you were legitimately concerned about government spending you'd concede he did an absolutely horrible job managing the federal budget:

 

 

Republicans presidents have a terrible track record on the national deficit. You're criticizing Obama for spending intended to curtail the nearly complete global economic collapse years and years of deregulation and a "hands off" approach to managing the financial sector.

 

Bush cut taxes and started an expensive, unnecessary war, and sat idly by while the financial sector collapsed. He is far and away responsible for the present deficits, and a substantial chunk of the national deficit.

 

All that said, if you're legitimately concerned about the national debt, why in the world are you defending Bush? You should be heavily criticizing both Bush AND Obama...

 

Well said, and excellent graphic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And this table from wikipedia, showing National Debt as a percentage of GDP seems to agree with the trend of the graph bascule provided.

 

Every Democratic President since FDR (including FDR's last term) have experienced reduced National Debt, by percentage of GDP in the time they were in office.

 

Six out of nine Republican Presidents left with an increase in debt per GDP. George Bush experienced a +20% increase in debt, per GDP. That is the most out of everyone on the list.

 

But I guess that is the liberal bias of life.

[Pangloss]

At least until Obama, who just submitted a budget that spends at least $1.56 trillion more than it takes in. Assuming no other spending will be necessary for that year.

 

But I guess that is the conservative bias of life.

[bascule]

A really great article about Tea Party demographics on FiveThirtyEight:

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/tea-party-bears-becks-imprint.html

 

The one thing they have in common more than anything else: a majority of them (59%) have a favorable opinion of Glenn Beck, versus an 18% national average.

 

At least until Obama, who just submitted a budget that spends at least $1.56 trillion more than it takes in. Assuming no other spending will be necessary for that year.

 

Now take a step back and ask yourself why this country is so deep in the red...

[Pangloss]

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit.

 

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what President Obama seems to be doing with the space program. Although certainly there the scale is tiny in comparison, but there isn't a lot of defense spending that can be pushed anymore so I guess he figured the $1.56 trillion in red lettering would be enough. (Although some interesting delays seem to have appeared in the F-35 program recently.)

[toastywombel]

At least until Obama, who just submitted a budget that spends at least $1.56 trillion more than it takes in. Assuming no other spending will be necessary for that year.

 

But I guess that is the conservative bias of life.

 

That is one Democratic President, furthermore, you cannot judge Obama on this graph yet, National debt per GDP, the GDP might grow in the time he is in office.

 

And how can you blow off the entire graph on and just point to Obama, I mean seriously. Do you just block these facts out of your mind?

 

 

Furthermore, the Democrats aren't really known for a platform of reducing spending, yet Republicans are known exactly for that, they run on it every single election. The problem is it is so obvious that every Republican President including Reagan and after have not only increased spending per GDP, but have raised the National Debt per GDP.

 

Also lets put that figure in perspective Pangloss, 1.56 trillion deficit for the 2010 budget. The GDP this year is projected to be 13.271 trillion. That is a 11% increase in National Debt per GDP.

 

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2050_projection.html

 

Now lets compare that 11% increase in debt per GDP (just one year) to the other Presidents, and we will go term by term.

 

Reagan 1981-1985 10.8% increase in Debt Per GDP

Reagan 1985-1989 9.3% increase in Debt Per GDP

George Herbert Walker Bush 1989-1993 13.0% increase in Debt Per GDP

Bill Clinton 1993-1997 0.7% decrease in Debt Per GDP

Bill Clinton 1997-2001 9.0% decrease in Debt Per GDP

George W. Bush 2001-2005 7.1% increase in Debt Per GDP

George W. Bush 2005-2009 20.0% increase in Debt Per GDP

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

 

So how is it okay for Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. to post deficits comparable, if not greater than Obama, but its socialist when Obama does it?

 

Finally I would like to point out that it is not just tax cuts that caused those Republican deficits.

 

Years Party of President % Increase in Spending % Increase in Debt

1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2%

1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4%

 

So under Republicans since 1978 there has been a 12.1% increase in spending, opposed to 9.9% under Democrats. And spending is the big issue many of these Republicans run on. I love the increase in debt number though. Under Democrats it is 4.2% increase in Debt, under Republicans it is 36.4% increase Debt.

 

That means under Republican Presidents, the deficit has been increased around eight times as much as it has been increased under Democratic Presidents.. And if you include Obama's first year the debt under Republican Presidents has still increased twice as much as under Democratic Presidents.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

 

Then also compare the difference between Democrats and Republicans being President, and increase in GDP.

 

1978-2005 Democratic 12.6% increase in GDP

1978-2005 Republican 10.7% increase in GDP

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Federal_spending.2C_federal_debt.2C_and_GDP

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit.[/Quote]

 

Eh, it seems you are being too fair to Bush.

 

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation allowing $612 billion in defense spending for the 2009 budget year, including a pay raise for troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438006,00.html

 

"President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html

 

"Figures for the regular military budget exclude the costs of the current wars that the United States is engaged in. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of $141.7 billion brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II - higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup. There will also be a proposed supplemental of $93.4 billion added to this year's (FY 2007) budget, bringing the total for the year to $622.4 billion."

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm

 

Okay and lets put the above articles in comparison with the costs associated with the f-22 and f-35

 

The f-22 development didn't start under Clinton, it started under Reagan first of all,

 

"In 1981 the United States Air Force (USAF) developed a requirement for a new air superiority fighter, the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), to replace the capability of the F-15 Eagle, primarily the F-15A, B, C and D variants. ATF was a demonstration and validation program undertaken by the USAF to develop a next-generation air superiority fighter to counter emerging worldwide threats, including development and proliferation of Soviet-era Su-27 "Flanker"-class fighter aircraft. It was envisioned that the ATF would incorporate emerging technologies including advanced alloys and composite materials, advanced fly-by-wire flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems, and low-observable/stealth technology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

 

The production of the f-22 did not start until 1997 though,

 

"The production F-22 model was unveiled on 9 April 1997 at Lockheed Georgia Co., Marietta, Georgia. It first flew on 7 September 1997"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

 

So for you to imply that it was Clinton pushing the production of the Raptor, well first it was already in production for the last three years Clinton was in office, plus the plans had existed since 1981. Of course Bush wasn't going to cancel the spending on it, but it wasn't just Clinton pushing for that spending.

 

Finally lets get to the numbers,

 

The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion.

So the total cost of the program as of 2006 was 62 billion. That means the whole cost of the f-22 raptor project, from 1981 to present, was about one tenth of Bush's military spending just for 2008, which was in the range of 647.8 billion.

 

So it seems disingenuous to say that much of Bush's debt increase was due to the f-22 raptor being pushed heavily by Clinton. Not only because the raptor had been a project since 1981, but also that the entire cost of the raptor project from 1981 to now totals 62 billion, when Bush put up 400-600 billion dollar per year defense budgets.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now onto the f-35,

 

The Joint Strike Fighter evolved out of several requirements for a common fighter to replace existing types. The actual JSF development contract was signed on 16 November 1996.

The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. According to Department of Defense officials and British Minister of Defence Procurement Lord Bach, the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements. The designation of the fighter as "F-35" came as a surprise to Lockheed, which had been referring to the aircraft in-house by the designation "F-24".[16]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

If you read further on the same wikipedia article,

 

Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion

 

So even that, total development cost (remember we only have 13 flight tested f-35, and 15 on hold at 83 million a piece) is 40 billion, the production costs so far have been minimal.

 

Again that 40 billion total developement cost is less than 1/10 of Bush's 2008 defense budget, and about 1/10 of Bush's 2007 defense budget.

 

So again, how can you say,

 

I agree with the carry-over premise, I just think it's got a couple of blinders attached to it (one for each eye). One of the reasons defense spending is so high during the Bush administration is that so many programs were pushed by the Clinton administration (F-22, F-35, etc). By avoiding making a decision he couldn't be accused of killing those programs, but he greatly increased the costs, especially when looked at per unit.

 

If you subtracted the total cost, all time, of the f-22 and f-35 together, it would be around 100 billion, even if you subtract the total production cost from Bush's defense budgets, his defense budgets are still 300-500 billion dollars for each year. And those figures aren't even including the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

So if you wan't to elaborate on the 'etc.' Pangloss, I would be happy to educate you on that as well.

Edited April 16, 2010 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.