So, you want to through silly tax parties that stem from your protests against $754b in stimulus, yet you can so easily ignore the $700b Bush bailout of banks, and the $3-5 trillion in misadventure.
The $787 Billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a lot of spending but no stimulus. Personally, I get peeved when a bunch of lunatic liberals led by Dear Leader decide to flush $787 Billion of my tax dollars down the drain.
While the $700 Billion TARP bill was highly objectionable, highly questionable, and of dubious constitutionality, it is worth noting that Dear Leader's disciples use the recent efforts of banks to return those funds as proof of the program's efficacy and the improved health of the financial sector.
You have to choose one side or the other (unless you invoke the Kerry Kode of being for something before being against something), so if you argue the efficacy of the bailouts it is fatuous to criticize anyone for not criticizing TARP. If you argue against the efficacy of the bailouts, then your challenge to folks who criticize the porkulus bill but did not criticize TARP under Bush has merit, although how one can criticize TARP and not the porkulus bill escapes me--at least TARP made some effort to be timely and targeted, if not altogether temporary, whereas the porkulus bill has none of those qualities.
(Trivia note: the advocate for "temporary, timely and targeted" stimulus was none other than Dear Leader's NEC chair, Larry Summers; guess that didn't comport well with Rahmbo Emmanuel's desire not to let a good crisis go to waste)
Well at least your team found those WMDs in Iraq right? Oops.
Well at least you caught Bin Laden right? Oops again.
Talk about irony. When monday morning quarterbacking the Bush Administration, it's "your team", but when folks weigh in on the manifold shortcomings and incompetencies of Dear Leader's reign of error, it's "we should all get behind him so this country succeeds" or some similar pile of dog feces.
If the Bush spending was wrong, how is Dear Leader's spending not ten times worse? If the Bush bailout bill was, as one Republican in Congress observed, a "crap sandwich," how is Dear Leader's porkulus bill not a feast of feces?
Dear Leader properly gets the brunt of the tea party protest commentary for one simple reason:
he's the President now, not Bush. When you attack ongoing policies of spend spend spend, you attack the man who is in the Oval Office, not the man who was in the Oval Office. Sure, some of the spending worthy of protest was due to Bush and not Dear Leader. That does not make Dear Leader's continuation of those policies of spend spend spend automatically right.
If you don't want your beloved but benighted Dear Leader to be contemned for furtherance of corruptocracy in government, get him to mend his ways, stop his bailouts and non-stimulus spending sprees, focus on instead doing the right thing for this country and its economy: shrink federal spending, shrink federal debt, shrink federal taxes, and shrink federal government. When Dear Leader does that, he will no longer be worthy of America's spittle.
