http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/where-were-the-teabag-pro_b_187066.html
Quote
Today there are supposed to be many teabag rallies across the country. They are getting together to protest reckless government spending or the large deficits the Obama administration is racking up implementing their policy. My only question is this: where were these people 8 years ago? More importantly, where were these people 30 years ago?
Under Reagan, the budget was never balanced and debt ballooned. In fact, under Reagan the total debt/GDP ratio increased from a little over 30% to a little over 60%. Yet there were no protests. And the fact the budget was never balanced didn't seem to bother anybody. Of course, you could argue that the current teabaggers weren't around then so this doesn't count.
But when Bush took office the exact same thing happened. According to the Cato Institute, the Republican Party became the "Grand Old Spending Party." Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ. Here is what the Cato Institute wrote:
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
Yet there were no protests. And here is a report from the Bureau of Public Debt of the annual federal debt outstanding at the end of the last 8 federal fiscal years:
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
To anyone with an ounce of common sense, it's obvious what's going on. Republican/conservative rank and file are protesting because they are out of power and their leadership is terrible. But they aren't protesting spending; they are protesting the Democratic Party's governance. And that is fine. But please, don't tell me it's about spending or debt. If that were the case, you guys should have taken to the streets years ago.
I agree with your article about the Bush spending. It was my biggest beef with the bush administration, but also with the GOP during his 8 years. But your article leaves out the "growth" part.
I'm glad you brought this up. It warrants some discussion.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324516474442231
Taxpayers Get Really Tea-ed Off
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Tax Revolt: The Boston Tea Party helped free us from an oppressive king. This week's nationwide anti-stimulus tea party demonstrations have a tougher goal: ending the tyranny of big-spending politicians.
"If you want to stimulate the economy, you just need to reduce the taxes and regulations," Kansas real estate agent John Todd told the Wichita Eagle, explaining in the clearest terms why he is organizing one of 500 anti-stimulus "tea parties" to take place in cities and towns across America on Wednesday, April 15, Tax Day.
If that is the message heard loud and clear from this unprecedented national movement against the liberal Democratic rule in Washington, and if Republicans endorse those tax-reducing principles, then this grass-roots uprising could succeed.
What the tea parties aim to accomplish is really a much taller order than gaining independence from a tyrannical monarch and far-away parliament two centuries ago.
They are trying to persuade Congress and the states to reject what comes perfectly naturally to them: the opportunity to fritter away a fortune in other people's money, and the idea that we should spend our way out of this economic downturn.
That is not the tried-and-true means of lifting ourselves out of distress. When America suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's first term of office more than a quarter-century ago, the president spurred Congress to cut income taxes across the board.
The longest, strongest expansion in history soon began, extending well beyond Reagan's two terms in office.
And when our country, already suffering from a shaky economy, was in 2001 hit by the first attacks on domestic soil since Pearl Harbor, President George W. Bush similarly rallied Congress to cut the rates of everyone who paid income taxes, as well as investment taxes.
The result was the same: a recovery generating many millions of new jobs.
But the ideology now dominating Washington sees those successful steps as capitalistic greed. As such, it was not Reagan or John F. Kennedy or Bush 43 who had it right when they cut taxes. Rather, it was Franklin Roosevelt, who may well have extended a bad recession into a full-scale collapse by using it as the rationale for a massive expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
Or so the statists on the left believe.
In the case of today, the notion that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" as trillions of taxpayer dollars are about to be spent is not being accepted by one and all.
Standing on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade in February, CNBC commentator and former financial trader Rick Santelli told viewers the reality of what Congress was doing.
The government was rewarding bad behavior, having American taxpayers pay their neighbors' bad mortgages, he pointed out.
And it was Santelli who, as traders cheered him on, suggested a repeat of the famous Boston Tea Party in 1773, in which cases of British tea on ships in Boston Harbor were dumped by colonists dressed as Indians in protest of new British taxes on the beverage.
Millions saw computer postings of the Santelli clip. The result is that Wednesday's protests will see armies of protesters from sea to shining sea wearing, burning or mailing tea bags to politicians in a 21st-century version of the colonial protest.
Can it work?
Howard Jarvis' Proposition 13 movement to cut California's property taxes started small, then expanded to other states in the Midwest and Northeast, and even helped inspire the Reagan tax cuts.
There is an opportunity here for Republicans to bring some fiscal integrity back to their tarnished brand.
GOP senators and House members can appear at their local tea parties and apologize for squandering more than a decade of control of Congress because they wouldn't resist the spending impulse any more than Democrats would. Or they can sit in their offices and hope the storm of anger passes them by.
If Republicans commit to becoming a new "Grand Tea Party," this week's demonstrations could be as consequential as the events in Boston that inspired them.
While I think the gov't has been throwing to much money at recovery, I agree that this whole tea-party idea is partisan. Sounds like a bunch of whiny sore losers to me.
Many of them are libertarians promoting the fair tax idea. :)
QuoteRather, it was Franklin Roosevelt, who may well have extended a bad recession into a full-scale collapse by using it as the rationale for a massive expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
What a load of revisionists history bull shit this is. For the four years
PRECEEDING FDR's first term, the economy was in a downward death spiral the likes of which this nation had never seen. Yet it is described as a 'bad recession'. The 25% unemployment that FDR inherited was not a 'bad recession', it was the GREAT DEPRESSION.
And as is typical of right wing revisionism, the article TOTALLY ignores the fact that REAGAN, BUSH -41 and CLINTON all
raised taxes and the result was, -- economic expansion and a reduction of the deficit. Also, that jobs expansion that Bush 43's tax cut supposedly created, came after a multi-million loss of jobs.
I guess the right is going to ride that one trick pony until it collapsed beneath them. After all, it's the only idea they have.
Quote from: Deuce on April 15, 2009, 12:47:09 PM
While I think the gov't has been throwing to much money at recovery, I agree that this whole tea-party idea is partisan. Sounds like a bunch of whiny sore losers to me.
It basically came from and was promoted by Fox News.
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
These events were not originated by Fox News nor were they initially sponsored by any large group of any sort. The first "tea party" was started by some bloggers. Then a few more popped up around the country. Jacksonville has already had one. Fox News wasn't there nor did they act as organizer or cheerleader. These were and still for the most part are grassroots organizing efforts. Liberals are not the only group of people in the nation that understand the power of the internet to network and organize. That is precisely what happened here. When the guy on CNBC had his famous rant from the floor of the market in Chicago calling for a Chicago Tea Party on July 4th, these movements had a common banner to call themselves and more and more began to organize. It was decided to not wait until July 4th, as people were outraged now and April 15th was plenty symbolic. I am disappointed that several of these are having any politicians speak at these rallies, as I do not think that is what these should be all about. The organizer of the Chicago event today had totally correct when he was quoted in today's Wall Street Journal saying "This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around." These people are not sore losers, they are people who are genuinely fearful of the trillions of dollars in debt that the nation has embraced and the further expansion of the federal government into other sectors of American society, bringing with it the inefficiencies and wasteful spending that almost always seems to come along.
It is surprising just how many frequent contributors to this site would have the government meddle in unprecedented areas of American life. Are you not the same people who constantly bemoan the pathetic vision, leadership and fiscal decisions of local government? Are many in Washington actually cut from a radically different cloth? In Jacksonville our local officials are mere minutes away. Our officials serve a relatively small number of people. Yet just how often do the motivated members of our community actually get their message across and see results from Hemming Plaza? Not nearly enough for anyone's liking. Yet we wait in staggering numbers with glee for the Federal government in Washington, proven to be totally detached from the average citizen, to answer our problems and provide solutions that serve us and not them.
Yet these people will be villified today. They will be cast as malcontents and sore losers. The same people hurling these verbal barrages were blindsided with the same when they protested the Iraq war. People branded them cowards and traitors. I disagreed with them, but applauded their exercise of their right to organize and protest. Those same people will today disparage and typecast every tea party participant as "some conservative nut job" or "people who just can't get over the fact that Obama won." I suppose those generalizations apply equally to the war protesters who were "a bunch of hippie pinkos". Or is it only big government collectivists who are allowed to stage demonstrations?
I am not going to a tea party. I think largely their spirit has been hijacked by politicians who want to use the opportunity to give a stump speech and tell the people "I'm on your side", then return to Washington and insert a pork project into a defense bill. I am not going to a tea party because I think it will ultimately be an ineffective way to get our point across to the leaders of this nation.
I do, however, stand steadfast by the ideological basis for these demonstrations in the first place. Running trillion dollar deficits and putting a massive debt on Americans who will not even be born for another 30 years is something I cannot stomach. Abdicating personal responsibility for one's own well being to a federal nanny in DC who watches over us and intercedes in all aspects of life is something I am not willing to do. It's not sour grapes and it isn't Fox News telling me what to think- and I say kudos to the tea parties, may your message be heard loud and clear.
Stephen, while you are sitting there reading at the cafe, read my first line of the post. It was not fine, which is my biggest complaint. The Republicans, as I have said before squandered billions, and they have no right to represent conservatives.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 15, 2009, 01:04:42 PM
QuoteRather, it was Franklin Roosevelt, who may well have extended a bad recession into a full-scale collapse by using it as the rationale for a massive expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
What a load of revisionists history bull shit this is. For the four years PRECEEDING FDR's first term, the economy was in a downward death spiral the likes of which this nation had never seen. Yet it is described as a 'bad recession'. The 25% unemployment that FDR inherited was not a 'bad recession', it was the GREAT DEPRESSION.
And as is typical of right wing revisionism, the article TOTALLY ignores the fact that REAGAN, BUSH -41 and CLINTON all raised taxes and the result was, -- economic expansion and a reduction of the deficit. Also, that jobs expansion that Bush 43's tax cut supposedly created, came after a multi-million loss of jobs.
I guess the right is going to ride that one trick pony until it collapsed beneath them. After all, it's the only idea they have.
You are correct that FDR inherited the depression and not just a "bad recession". However his massive government expansion may have actually extended the length of the depression rather than stopping it. That is the key point to take away from FDR's economic policies. His own Treasury Secretary and friend admitted as much to members of the House Ways & Means Committee on May 9, 1939. He said "we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started, And an enormous debt to boot!"
Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 15, 2009, 01:57:17 PM
These events were not originated by Fox News nor were they initially sponsored by any large group of any sort. The first "tea party" was started by some bloggers. Then a few more popped up around the country. Jacksonville has already had one. Fox News wasn't there nor did they act as organizer or cheerleader. These were and still for the most part are grassroots organizing efforts. Liberals are not the only group of people in the nation that understand the power of the internet to network and organize. That is precisely what happened here. When the guy on CNBC had his famous rant from the floor of the market in Chicago calling for a Chicago Tea Party on July 4th, these movements had a common banner to call themselves and more and more began to organize. It was decided to not wait until July 4th, as people were outraged now and April 15th was plenty symbolic. I am disappointed that several of these are having any politicians speak at these rallies, as I do not think that is what these should be all about. The organizer of the Chicago event today had totally correct when he was quoted in today's Wall Street Journal saying "This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around." These people are not sore losers, they are people who are genuinely fearful of the trillions of dollars in debt that the nation has embraced and the further expansion of the federal government into other sectors of American society, bringing with it the inefficiencies and wasteful spending that almost always seems to come along.
It is surprising just how many frequent contributors to this site would have the government meddle in unprecedented areas of American life. Are you not the same people who constantly bemoan the pathetic vision, leadership and fiscal decisions of local government? Are many in Washington actually cut from a radically different cloth? In Jacksonville our local officials are mere minutes away. Our officials serve a relatively small number of people. Yet just how often do the motivated members of our community actually get their message across and see results from Hemming Plaza? Not nearly enough for anyone's liking. Yet we wait in staggering numbers with glee for the Federal government in Washington, proven to be totally detached from the average citizen, to answer our problems and provide solutions that serve us and not them.
Yet these people will be villified today. They will be cast as malcontents and sore losers. The same people hurling these verbal barrages were blindsided with the same when they protested the Iraq war. People branded them cowards and traitors. I disagreed with them, but applauded their exercise of their right to organize and protest. Those same people will today disparage and typecast every tea party participant as "some conservative nut job" or "people who just can't get over the fact that Obama won." I suppose those generalizations apply equally to the war protesters who were "a bunch of hippie pinkos". Or is it only big government collectivists who are allowed to stage demonstrations?
I am not going to a tea party. I think largely their spirit has been hijacked by politicians who want to use the opportunity to give a stump speech and tell the people "I'm on your side", then return to Washington and insert a pork project into a defense bill. I am not going to a tea party because I think it will ultimately be an ineffective way to get our point across to the leaders of this nation.
I do, however, stand steadfast by the ideological basis for these demonstrations in the first place. Running trillion dollar deficits and putting a massive debt on Americans who will not even be born for another 30 years is something I cannot stomach. Abdicating personal responsibility for one's own well being to a federal nanny in DC who watches over us and intercedes in all aspects of life is something I am not willing to do. It's not sour grapes and it isn't Fox News telling me what to think- and I say kudos to the tea parties, may your message be heard loud and clear.
Very well said. I think the tea parties may be getting some attention to the Fair Tax as well, which is positive.
Thanks for the pix Stephen... Looks like a very big crowd. What was the mood? Can you provide some insight or commentary?
Ahem. The Libertarian Party of Duval County had a "Tea Party" in '93 or '94 at Friendship Fountain. I was afraid we'd get arrested for throwing tea, so we threw fish food into the St. Johns. We tried to make it more festive than whiny. :)
Since that era I think the Libertarians and Fair-Taxers have become more blended and more vocal; these pics show a heckuva lot larger crowd!
This is a waste of time, just because the Reps. had their toys taken away and now they want to cry because they've been told to go to their room.
Stephen- Where is the proof for the Playboy Blog? All the blogger does is cite the traditional old white man in a dark room who is a head of the "vast right wing conspiracy". What factual proof at all is offered? The fact is that there are hundreds of facebook groups, etc, devoted to these events. I personally know a couple of people organizing events in some small towns. Maybe they were sworn to secrecy, but there was no mention of a right wing oligarchy contacting them and infusing them with big bucks handed down from "the man".
The quoted comments from the Secretary of the Treasury were given in 1939, just after the outbreak of war in Europe and a full 27 months before Pearl Harbor. In 1939 the United States had a paltry military. It was smaller than places like Portugal. FDRs massive increases in government spending during the 1930s had nothing to do with military spending, although I do agree that military spending IS government spending.
Steven- Thanks for that recitation of the event. It is actually heartwarming to read, as one of my main points was that this should not be a Republican rah-rah event. I am sure Ander Crenshaw was dynamite right? Friendly people speaking passionately about old time conservatism before the republican party got crazy. Perfect. And for what it's worth, both the republicans and the democrats are crazy now. Go listen to a speech by JFK. Amazing. Hell, even Robert Kennedy would only be a "moderate" democrat these days. Oh well, it is what it is.
That was my assessment as well, Stephen.
Looking at the title of this post -
These guys were around 8 years ago, and even before that as evidenced by hooplady. I think it has gotten so bad that it has rattled people who are normally not so outspoken.
I am a bit out of my league once we get into a deep economic discussion. I don't doubt that the Keynes crowd wanted more spending. One thing I do know is that Keynes and Keynesian economic theories have been routinely criticized by scores of economic thinkers. (yes, likely all with converse political views.) Point is, Keynesian economics is not gospel and many would claim it is an economic model that cannot sustain. Anything more and I'll be talking out of my rear..
I hope this ends up doing more good than harm for the fair tax.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 15, 2009, 01:04:42 PM
QuoteRather, it was Franklin Roosevelt, who may well have extended a bad recession into a full-scale collapse by using it as the rationale for a massive expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
What a load of revisionists history bull shit this is. For the four years PRECEEDING FDR's first term, the economy was in a downward death spiral the likes of which this nation had never seen. Yet it is described as a 'bad recession'. The 25% unemployment that FDR inherited was not a 'bad recession', it was the GREAT DEPRESSION.
And as is typical of right wing revisionism, the article TOTALLY ignores the fact that REAGAN, BUSH -41 and CLINTON all raised taxes and the result was, -- economic expansion and a reduction of the deficit. Also, that jobs expansion that Bush 43's tax cut supposedly created, came after a multi-million loss of jobs.
I guess the right is going to ride that one trick pony until it collapsed beneath them. After all, it's the only idea they have.
Try reading what the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat called "What is Seen and What is Unseen" - it may help you understand.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
I'd like to take a moment to thank all the unborn taxpayers who will pay for the gifts we are about to receive. Wait, if we just continue to refinance the debt over and over again no one will ever have to pay for anything we do with borrowed money. Bread and circuses for everyone!
Wonkette... :D ::)
Quote from: stephendare on April 16, 2009, 05:48:45 PM
wouldnt something from the previous 100 years be more appropriate? Or even something written after the Great Depression itself?
Actually, no, Stephen. One reason is because the great depression was not the first instance. Previously they were called "panics" until the government wanted something that sounded better - "recession" and "depression" were born. Another reason is that it is a very simple read, something that even vicupstate could possibly understand.
Now go read your wonkette and huffington post. ;D
While many tea-baggers may have had a noble ideology, I still don't really understand the point of yesterday's rally.
Taxes have not gone up yet under the current administration. In fact, the gov't has done the opposite and put more money back into the paychecks of middle and lower income earners. These people (advocates of lower taxes) should have been cheering the current administration yesterday, not booing it. It just seemed too political and by political I mean Fox news, republican jargon.
The original intent of the protesters may have been good, but it did not come out that way. To me at least, it looked like a bunch of people who were sore they lost the election. The left wingers did it too under the last administration and it pretty much looked the same as well (just with the opposite message).
Also, I wish the right winger radio guys would just put all the conspiracy theories to rest. It makes them sound absolutely insane, not to mention stupid.
Neal Bortz said it best "these people went and wasted their time and for what? Did anyone in Washington DC notice what they did"?
Quote from: stephendare on April 15, 2009, 02:26:12 PM
Trip. It was argued all the way through the 30s that FDR wasnt spending enough. Every single one of the keynesian theorists were demanding that he increase, not decrease spending. In fact, directly as a result of FDR bending to Republican pressure to stop the social spending, the depression widened and deepened in 37. All evidence prior to that was that the spending program was working. The Republicans used the facts in order to end the programs.
The result was almost instantaneous.
Finally, the military spending not only equalled what keynes had already been saying, but exceeded it.
As a result, America became an economic superpower.
WWII WW II!!!!!!!! Thats the way to stimualte an economy!
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 17, 2009, 02:52:10 AM
Neal Bortz said it best "these people went and wasted their time and for what? Did anyone in Washington DC notice what they did"?
Will anybody remember next week?
Chip-
The fact that taxes (except on cigarettes of course) have not gone up under the administration misses the point. There is a very simple 'connect the dots' between the actions of this Congress and Administration since January and taxes. When people see Congressional Budget Office numbers showing the national debt almost tripling within ten years due to all of the spending that has taken place in a matter of weeks, when people see that this administration has obligated the United States into more debt than the first 43 presidents combined, and when people hear the CBO's estimates that within ten years the interest payments alone on all this debt will be $780 Billion dollars a year, we realize we the nations finances are rapidly heading toward a budgetary cliff. It does not take a leap of faith nor does it induce blind partisanship to realize that taxes will have to be raised to pay for all of this. It is truly a scary scenario to consider how much debt we now have, what a horrible quagmire medicare and social security are, and that this government wants to lay the groundwork for socialized healthcare in the next couple of years. Look at the runaway costs of medicare. Where is the money going to come from to socialize the entire healthcare system? Taxes.
The fact that those in favor of the constitutional principles of limited government, free markets and lower taxes happen to typically be republicans and therefore disagree with the most recent electorial "winners" should not serve to instantly disqualify them because they were the most recent "losers". What is the moratorium on exercising your right to free speech and free association after an election so that you aren't dismissed as a "sore loser"? 6 months? A year?
QuoteApparently, the first thing that comes to their ‘minds’ is some arcane, disgusting sexual perversion and not American history and tradition.â€
Apparently I'm a lefty then... because when this story first broke and "teabaggers" / "teabagging" was mentioned I shot milk through my nose.
Agreed Shwaz. I guess I will always be immature because I have given an almost butt-head like "heh heh heh" most every time I have read the term "teabaggers" or "teabagging" in like a respectable publication.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324775037199992
Tea Party System
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Politics: The hundreds of tea parties thrown Wednesday were part of one of the most extraordinary grass-roots uprisings in our history. And they spell a golden opportunity for freedom-loving politicians.
Less than three months after a landmark election, throngs of demonstrators everywhere gathered to object to the revolution that our new president is steamrolling into law. It was a landmark protest in the history of the republic.
But how can the voices of tens if not hundreds of thousands of angry taxpayers be turned into concrete political action?
Investor's Business Daily attended one of these historic events, the Fishkill Tea Party in upstate New York, just east of the Hudson River. The original Fishkill Tea Party took place Aug. 26, 1776, when 100 women forced a storekeeper named Abram Brinckerhoff to sell them tea at the lawful price of 6 shillings per pound. This year's Fishkill Tea Party nearly filled Dutchess Stadium, the county's minor-league ballpark.
In a region of liberal New York state where Democrats have been consolidating their power during the last two elections, thousands traveled long distances to support pretty much the classic Reagan political agenda â€" and not just on taxes and spending.
Banners and placards sported slogans that included "Don't Spread My Wealth. Spread My Work Ethic," "Who'll Bail Me Out?" "Atlas Will Shrug," "Tea Today. No Kool-Aid," and "Acorn Didn't Have To Bus Us Here," referring to the left-wing activist group that specializes in voter registration drives benefiting liberal Democrats.
The crowds responded with thunderous applause to the various local activists' rallying cries, ranging from "How about those Navy Seals!" referring to the recent rescue of Americans from Somali pirates, to attacks on Hollywood for its role in moving America away from traditional Judeo-Christian values.
The audience roared when resentment was expressed toward illegal aliens who eat away the social welfare resources funded by taxpayers. When unemployed information technology manager Troy Johnson took the podium, he elicited an ovation with the quip:
"Just to prove how radical I am, I believe we should all be speaking English!"
The throng cheered calls for term limits to curb the power of elitist career politicians; applauded taunts that the establishment media would proceed to underestimate and misreport the size of the turnout; shouted in approval for blocking the president's planned federal intrusion into health care; and rose from its seats for a speaker who called Washington's march toward socialism "a slap in the face to those who have served in the military."
It was quite clear, however, that the tea partiers feel betrayed by Republicans, not just the Democrats now in power in both the executive and legislative branches in Washington.
One youthful speaker described the cause of the financial crisis as an "assault on our free market system paired with corporate bailouts." The Bush White House late last year lobbied skeptical congressional Republicans hard on a $14 billion auto industry bailout.
Johnson pointed out that "we know that they know that nobody can read 1,000 pages overnight," referring to the rush to get a stimulus bill passed and to the lawmakers who signed it without knowing much of what was in it.
The crowd may not have been aware that apart from liberal Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, the GOP in Congress formed a united front against the Democrats' tax-and-spend behemoth. But the Republican brand is blemished.
During 12 years of dominance in Congress and eight years in the White House, the GOP failed to kick its addiction to pork and make tough decisions on controlling entitlement spending. It found it too politically risky to secure the U.S. borders â€" even in the post-9/11 years when homeland security trumped all other concerns.
It's almost as if Republicans were daring the kind of people who attended this week's events to go the dead-end route of starting their own third political party.
The tea party movement proves that even in the left-leaning Northeast, a huge natural constituency exists for these bread-and-butter American issues â€" lower taxes, less government, a strong military that's allowed to win, tough measures to end illegal immigration, term limits and family values.
It's all there, waiting to be tapped into â€" if only a few smart politicians would grasp the opportunity.
Janeane Garofalo quoted by the Washington Times:
"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."
"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with..."
I'm glad we have someone who can look into the hearts of these people who appear to be relatively average and show us their true colors. ;)
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 18, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
Janeane Garofalo quoted by the Washington Times:
"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."
"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with..."
I'm glad we have someone who can look into the hearts of these people who appear to be relatively average and show us their true colors. ;)
well if Janeane Garofalo said it its got to be true,anyone have a quote from Troy Spelling?
The Collectivist Threat and Capitalist Promise
By Jonathan Hoenig
Delivered at Chicago's Tax Day Tea Party Protest , April 15, 2009
Federal Plaza, Chicago IL
What an honor to be with you today! I'm the finance guy here, so let me clue you in on some truly frightening numbers. The US Government has pledged, promised or spent an unfathomable amount of your money over the last year. The total amount, as calculated by Bloomberg, is over $12.8 trillion dollars, which amounts to $42,105 for every man, woman and child living in America today.
It is 14 times the total amount of currency in circulation and approaches the entire GDP for 2008. It's enough to pay off every home mortgage in the country and still have two trillion to spare. To put it in perspective, twelve trillion is the number twelve followed by twelve zeros.
To those who solely blame President Obama, remember that it was the Bush administration that expanded the federal budget by $1 trillion, passed the disastrous Sarbanes Oxley regulation and the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Bush added more than $4 trillion to the national debt, a 70% increase.
It was Bush's administration who got the entire bailout orgy started. You might recall him telling CNN that "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system". If that's not doublespeak, I don't know what is.
But today's protests, being held in over 500 cities nationwide, aren't simply about taxes, rather the philosophy behind those taxes.
It has been described as socialism, fascism or communism. In various contexts, all are true, but let's refine it. From loans to the automakers to the bailouts for the banks, the taxation, spending and control, the primary philosophy that's powering the country now is collectivism.
Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights. Your life and the product of your labor now belongs to the group. If the group wants a bailout, heath care, green cars, low mortgage rates, a job, an education - anything at all, it now becomes your responsibility to provide it, whether you want to or not.
You see it in taxes that take money from people who've earned it and give it to those who have not. You see it in the language itself. Phrases like "we're all in it together", "I am my brother's keeper" and "shared sacrifice" all speak to the same idea: you are here to serve. And unlike charity of volunteerism, the "will of the people" is implemented by force, not by voluntary trade.
This is a profoundly un-American ideal. From the original Boston Tea Party came the Declaration of Independence which put forth the morality of individual rights. In this country, you are born free, not with a duty to serve the King but with a moral right to live your own life. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" refers to your life, your liberty and your happiness. You do not owe society a thing.
For socialists, collectivists, and others who support a high tax, high spending, government controlled economy, sacrifice is an absolute. You're expected to sacrifice for your neighbor, your government, for AIG or Citigroup, or deadbeat homeowners or poorly run municipalities, whomever the geniuses in Washington decide deserves your money.
This is wrong. The Founding Father's view of government was that its scope was limited and clearly defined.
Is the purpose of government to own and run a car company? An insurance firm? A bank? A mortgage company? Of course not. We've become one of the state-owned basket case European economies we used to make fun of in this country.
This country was the once land of "rugged individualism."
"Individualism" is a term you might hear a lot. Fundamentally, what it means is that the individual, not the group, is what is important and valuable. Individuals have rights, groups do not, because groups after all, are only collections of individuals.
You want to help a needy deserving homeowner? Fine. Write them a check. Charity is a perfectly legitimate thing -- but government doesn't own you, nor does your neighbor, the needy, the children or anybody else. In America, there are no masters, there are no slaves.
In recent decades, and certainly over the past year, we've moved away from rugged individualism and toward a collectivist society that forces everyone to sacrifice for the group.
In a political context, individual rights means free market capitalism. AIG never cost me a dime until Tim Geithner put my hard earned savings into it. The financial crisis can be directly traced not from capitalism, but from a collectivist, interventionist government. The Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, not to mention the $12 trillion bailout and stimulus efforts are not mechanisms of the free market.
Tax Day Tea Party Protests are rallies against taxes, yes, but even more so against collectivism, that immoral notion your life, your energy, your wealth are Washington's property.
Look around at this incredible city. It wasn't a bailout that created the most prosperous country in the history of human civilization, but a society that limited the role of government and protected the individual rights of each citizen to live his own life.
A return to that philosophy is our only hope.
Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitalistpig Hedge Fund LLC
Quote from: stephendare on April 18, 2009, 11:18:43 PM
I think you mean Tory Spelling Civil.
And despite the relative niceness of the local crowd (a real credit to our city, I think) the rest of the teabagging has been kind of nasty and racist in other cities, as thousands of videos and photos have shown.
Thousands of videos showing nasty and racist, Stephen? Please.
Please, I looked at a few last night. It seems that most of the nastiness came from CNN and MSNBC trying to sell a story of bigots and racists. No wonder they are getting their azzez handed to them by Fox.
No, but they definitely set up and focused on a few signs that compared Obama to Hitler (not like the left did that to GW).
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=4498570&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/
Probably not, Stephen. But, they found the two or three (dozen) bad apples in a sea of thousands and singled them out, thus skewing the headline and story to reflect the overall event into a negative hate-fest.
It's nothing new.
And one of the field reporters was all "we're going to leave coverage now because it's not suitable for family viewing." What?
Sigma - good find.
Unfortunately, today's typical political discourse boils down to "Everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid, evil, racist, irrational or all of the above."
Why can't someone with a different opinion just be wrong but respected?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 21, 2009, 08:23:37 PM
Unfortunately, today's typical political discourse boils down to "Everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid, evil, racist, irrational or all of the above."
Why can't someone with a different opinion just be wrong but respected?
Just not possible these days, just look at the brew-ha-ha about miss california. Loved Perez hilton response to her answer. He set her up so nicely to give the correct answer and she dissapointed him. Was watching Youtube and was waiting to see him explode into flames. He has been saying stupider comments ever since. Boy has she been paying the price. Hopefully someone will let him and the senior staff of the Ms usa contest know that there was actually a vote on the issue and sorry you lost. Personally I am a supporter of gay marriage, but understand the position that those that don't, just don't agree with it.
Well here's the 8 minute Daily Show cover of the Tea Parties. I thought it was pretty funny to see Stewart's comparison of protest coverage.
It is one sided, but like everything else on the Daily show, it is meant to be funny. You can to agree with the protesters, you can disagree, but laughing seems to be the best political discourse for me.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=Nationwide-Tax-Protests