Tea Party Nonsense

Politics US Politics
1

I hate to even dignify it with comment, but WTF is this tea party nonsense that the conservative controlled media is promoting like a drunk new orleans hooker? Yeah, um, we’re against, um, government! Yeah! and Taxes! and uhhhh… Obama yeah, we hateses it! Last time I checked, the Boston Tea Party was about taxation [color=#0000BF]without representation.[/color] While I am no fan of taxes, I think you would have to admit that most of them are [color=#0000BF]from our representatives[/color]. Well, half the USA has an IQ under 100, so I guess we can find them at these rallies. And where exactly were these “fair and balanced” media and their teabags when Bush screwed all expats by raising our taxes?

There is only one conclusion to be drawn about these rallies: a public spectacle demonstrating the embarrassing cluelessness and lack of direction among conservatives, republicans, and their media outlets. I mean really, its pathetic. I almost feel sorry for them, but then I think about the ruinous Bush policies of the last 8 years…

Maybe this tea party scheme was hatched in the oxycontin-deranged mind of Rush Limbaugh? (See my new Avatar… I sent some Oxy photos to Rush’s email address to make his mouth water…)

2

Yeah the conservative controlled media is playing this up as much as they can, at the tea parties that they are allowed to attend. It isn’t a national movement like Moveon.org was so every region has different grievances. A lot of the tea parties aren’t conservative at all, but anti-establishment. For 8 years the Republicans spent money on anything they could and now the Democrats are doing the same.

Here’s a Wall Street Journal article on it.

3

If the right-wing nuts wish to engage in teabagging each other, let them.

Right-wingerism at its truest:

youtube.com/watch?v=JteMzV81Ij8

“Burn the books!”

4

Chief -
You have raised the intelligence level of this thread by 50% with your post… :bravo:

700+ locations with Tea Partys in all 50 states. 100’s of thousands of participants. Grass-roots at its finest.

Yeah, its almost enough to make one think that George Soros or Accorn funded it…Oh wait!…they support the [o]'other[/i] side…never mind.

5

Great post by Matthew Yglesias on the spending priorities and tax issue in the US:

6

[quote=“Jaboney”]Great post by Matthew Yglesias on the spending priorities and tax issue in the US:

Interesting post but rather than decreasing military spending, how about the US stop borrowing money so there isn’t 8% of the budget going towards interest repayments. Then you could add that 8% to something important like education (2%) or properly funding the VA and the GI Bill. That or if we cut back the amount we are spending on: Social Security (21%), Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (20%) and other safety net programs (11%) we could really lower taxes! 53% of the budget is going to those three programs which are growing faster than military spending. I ask you, when was the last time spending on social programs resulted in any kind of breakthrough? :wink:

Off the top of my head, DARPA has developed/invented: the Internet, Kevlar, GPS, and now a robotic prosthetic arm for those who lost their limbs. It was on CBS’s 60 Minutes last week.

7

a bunch of ignorant retards complaining about higher taxes when the government is actually lowering the taxes of 99.9% of the participants (basically everyone there except Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent).

when people say Americans are dumb (and Euros do it too much, often in a disgusting manner lacking any self reflection), these are the people they are referring to.

8

I watched a reporter question one Tea Party participant, asking if the original tea party wasn’t about taxation without representation, and the guy said, “yeah, well we elected our representatives, but we didn’t elect these taxes!”

No one knows anything in America any more if it doesn’t happen on American Idol! This was a pretty big culture shock issue for me when I first came back here and it still takes me aback sometimes. It’s near impossible to have a conversation or debate about anything, because no one knows more than soundbites of information about anything.

9

I spoke too soon. It appears Montana is now the second state to have signed a sovereignty bill by the governor. Perhaps Oklahoma will be third.

10

[quote]Here, then, are 10 Republican Tax Day lies:

  1. President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.
  2. The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.
  3. 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
  4. Tax cuts always increase revenue.
  5. The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
  6. Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
  7. FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.
  8. Obama’s cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.
  9. Obama’s tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.
  10. The rich pay too much in taxes already.[/quote]

crooksandliars.com/node/27410

FOX is stirring up the villagers. Grab your pitchforks!

11

Blame Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s tea party for dollars, December 16, 2007

[quote]“This basically shows that Ron Paul is a viable candidate,” said Rachael McIntosh, a spokeswoman for what was dubbed Boston TeaParty07. “People are so engaged in this campaign because it’s coming from the grass-roots.” . . .

Supporters also re-enacted the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor, by tossing banners that read “tyranny” and “no taxation without representation” into boxes that were placed in front of an image of the harbor.[/quote]

12

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”][quote]Here, then, are 10 Republican Tax Day lies:

  1. President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.
  2. The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.
  3. 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
  4. Tax cuts always increase revenue.
  5. The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
  6. Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
  7. FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.
  8. Obama’s cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.
  9. Obama’s tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.
  10. The rich pay too much in taxes already.[/quote]

crooksandliars.com/node/27410

FOX is stirring up the villagers. Grab your pitchforks![/quote]

Interesting article. My two thoughts. First, I’ll assume they are talking about income taxes and not excise taxes. When you raise a tax on income, you alter the value of work vs. leisure. If you get to a point where marginal taxes are too high, then people won’t be willing to work for that small amount of extra. That’s a subjective criterion that depends on the individual though, which makes it hard to quantify. The main issue though is whether you believe we are on the left or the right side of the Laffer curve, not whether or not it exists. The article you linked to has that issue, that he calls Laffer a snake oil peddler, without addressing that mainstream economists all accept that the Laffer curve does exist. They just don’t agree whether we are on the left side of it (and increasing tax rates will result in increasing revenues) or the right side of it (decreasing tax rates will result in increasing revenues).

Second is #7. While it makes for interesting reading, the website isn’t what I would call objective. The quote below is rather self evident. No one has

Jonathan Chait wrote an interesting piece however I disagree with his assertion that revisionism is bad. If new data becomes available in a field that shows a previous theory or belief to now be invalid, it is replaced or amended. I don’t see why history is a field in which that shouldn’t be allowed.

There are parts of the New Deal that worked and parts that failed, and as time goes on with more documents being analyzed with new economic tools, new theories emerge. Chait ignores the statistics that show that the National Recovery Administration increased the cost of business and raised unemployment instead to focus on the 1937 recession. He doesn’t question Schlaes’ assertion that the undistributed profits tax were more influential on the recession than trying to balance the budget because he doesn’t address it. It would have been better to use Krugman’s criticism of her book because at least he’s an economist and can address the economics of the book.

13

I think I might have a tea party this weekend. I made some peach iced tea last weekend, but it’s been chilly lately so I think some hot green tea will do nicely.

14

For those who want to know what it is really about you can go to their website and see what it is about at:
www.taxdayteaparty.com

15

Alright, let’s take a look at their FAQ:

[quote]

  1. What were the protests about?

I was surprised that there appeared to be such a uniformity of purpose to the protests. By all reports I’ve read, there was the occassional anti-aborton or anti-immigration protestor in some of the groups. And small groups of Ron Paul supporters showed up at many venues demanding the dismantlement of the Fed and a return to the gold standard. But by and large, the overriding theme of the protests was as organizers hoped; a broad critique of Obama’s economic policies with an emphasis on the maintenance of economic freedom. This included protestors who were anti-high tax, anti-bail out, anti-goverment control of business, and anti-ruinous spending. The signs at many protests pointed to the idea of “generational theft” as another dominant theme.

Were the protests anti-government? Given the diversity of opinions present, that theme cannot be dismissed. There is no doubt that what anger there was at the demonstrations came from those who see government as the enemy. And given that the Democrats are currently in power, there was certainly a partisan bent to the events. But as Jennifer Rubin reported from the Washington, D.C. protest, there was plenty to say against spendthrift Republicans also and there seemed to be at least some bi-partisan finger pointing at other venues as well. It was probably more pronounced at some locations than at others but it would be wrong to say that this was completely an anti-Obama or anti-Democratic party slugfest.[/quote]

That would be consistent with another report I read that a tea party in Chicago refused to allow the RNC Chairman speak, insisting that members of the government and political parties should not speak. Hmm, what to think? Anti-government sorts, some of whom perceive the government as their enemy. Here’s a few definitions for treason:

[ul]a crime that undermines the offender’s government

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation

The crime of betraying one’s government;[/ul]

Are you Republicans sure you want to associate yourselves with these people?

16

Another funny thing is these Republicans seem clueless as to the meaning of “teabagging”! :laughing:

17

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Alright, let’s take a look at their FAQ:

[quote]

  1. What were the protests about?

I was surprised that there appeared to be such a uniformity of purpose to the protests. By all reports I’ve read, there was the occassional anti-aborton or anti-immigration protestor in some of the groups. And small groups of Ron Paul supporters showed up at many venues demanding the dismantlement of the Fed and a return to the gold standard. But by and large, the overriding theme of the protests was as organizers hoped; a broad critique of Obama’s economic policies with an emphasis on the maintenance of economic freedom. This included protestors who were anti-high tax, anti-bail out, anti-goverment control of business, and anti-ruinous spending. The signs at many protests pointed to the idea of “generational theft” as another dominant theme.

Were the protests anti-government? Given the diversity of opinions present, that theme cannot be dismissed. There is no doubt that what anger there was at the demonstrations came from those who see government as the enemy. And given that the Democrats are currently in power, there was certainly a partisan bent to the events. But as Jennifer Rubin reported from the Washington, D.C. protest, there was plenty to say against spendthrift Republicans also and there seemed to be at least some bi-partisan finger pointing at other venues as well. It was probably more pronounced at some locations than at others but it would be wrong to say that this was completely an anti-Obama or anti-Democratic party slugfest.[/quote]

That would be consistent with another report I read that a tea party in Chicago refused to allow the RNC Chairman speak, insisting that members of the government and political parties should not speak. Hmm, what to think? Anti-government sorts, some of whom perceive the government as their enemy. Here’s a few definitions for treason:

[ul]a crime that undermines the offender’s government

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation

The crime of betraying one’s government;[/ul]

Are you Republicans sure you want to associate yourselves with these people?[/quote]

I think you mean sedition rather than treason because I seriously doubt that any of the protesters want to overthrow the government and replace it with some other form.

Sedition: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.

Either way though that’s quite a leap from peaceful protests to treason/sedition. How did you make it?

18

I find myself agreeing with Spook for once, Gao, How did you make the leap from peaceful protests to treason? Do people not have the right to protest their govt with legitimate grievances if they see fit to do so?

I also like the name calling from the left using the term, teabagging. I forget which rule that was from Saul Alinsky, but I expect CNN to take a huge hit from this in ratings.

19

Let them eat testicles, what do I care as long as they’re not mine. They have every right to protest free of the jibe of treason, as did that Cindy Sheehan woman, a grieving mother of a slain soldier, and duly given all the respect and compassion befitting such status in a society where the war dead and their kin are venerated.

Oh wait!

[quote]On August 9, 2005, The O’Reilly Factor host Bill O’Reilly spoke critically of Sheehan, stating:
I think she has been hijacked by some very, very far left elements…there is no question that she has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country…I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous. [19]
That same day, Sheehan stated her reasons for cancelling her appearance to a blogger, via telephone.[3] On the August 15, 2005, episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show, host Limbaugh said:
“I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There’s nothing about it that’s real, including the mainstream media’s glomming onto it. It’s not real. It’s nothing more than an attempt. It’s the latest effort made by the coordinated left.” This was criticised on the MediaMatters blog. [20] [/quote]
HG

20

[quote=“Jaboney”]Great post by Matthew Yglesias on the spending priorities and tax issue in the US:

Sorry, any European complaining or commenting about American military spending should go directly to jail, should not pass go, and should not collect $200. Part of why Europeans were able to grow so decadent in the latter half of the 20th Century was because America picked up the tab for the military spending they wouldn’t pay for with their own armies that should have been deterring the Soviet Union and its satellite states.