April 15th - Tea Party Day?

[path12]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Because Obama has not been able to put his attempts to raise the taxes of the over 200K crowd through Congress yet (the closing of loopholes), these folks see no way that Obama can pay for the spending without a huge tax raise.

So they're protesting a tax increase that hasn't happened?

Wow. I think the far left gets way too earnest at times but the far right just boggles my mind (just my opinion, not trying to stir anything up).

[JPhillips]

I just watched a guy rant about how Obama lied when he said he liked Lincoln because Lincoln was all about getting government out of the way and promoting freedom. So now the Civil War is the War of Northern Freedom Promotion?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just read somewhere that there were 5,000 teabaggers in Lansing. I really had no idea that this was a real thing or people were actually taking it seriously. I guess that (and still being employed) are two positives of being incredibly busy at work (and missing playoff hockey).

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I just read somewhere that there were 5,000 teabaggers in Lansing. I really had no idea that this was a real thing or people were actually taking it seriously. I guess that (and still being employed) are two positives of being incredibly busy at work (and missing playoff hockey).

I read that, too. I also read that Joe the Plumber was supposed to speak in Lansing. Take that, Ohio! Michigan dun schooled ya agin!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by molson

Even the sentence above (that you didn't link, and thus probably didn't know about it when you made your post), doesn't state that:

"the governor said that texas should think of seceding form the US"

That's a big difference. You lied, and I called you on it.

(Only using "lie" because you can't acknowledge an oversight, you're actually sticking with what you said. It's just annoying).

If I made a similar false claim about an Obama position, you'd react similarly.

Alright if you are going to fact check me, sure the exact wording was off still the Governor did bring up the secession issue. Yet, in your post you mentioned, I was saying opposite to the truth which also is not accurate. But not to get into a pissing contest. It still does not take away from the fact an elected official (does not matter if he is a Dem or Rep) said (paraphrasing) that Texas might contemplate secession. Considering the history of secession discussions in Texas in the 19th C. it was poor taste I think. I think that the tax rallies are fine albeit somewhat sensationalized by Fox for ratings.

[DanGarion]

Teabaggin! Welcome to D.C.!

[Flasch186]

did somebody say recession?

[RainMaker]

Serious question, no snark here. What was this about? I keep hearing different things. Is it about taxes? Bailouts? Did something happen that I missed on the news?

[JPhillips]

You know how a toddler throws a fit when they don't get what they want? It's kinda like that. They lost the election with a candidate a lot of them didn't like and they can't deal with it.

It's about spending, unless you're talking about a four percent increase in defense spending, which will gut the military.

It's about taxes, except income taxes are currently lower than they were under Bush2.

It's about the deficit, expect most of the protesters would like to cut tax rates to a level that would add trillions to the deficit.

It's just a tantrum.

[sterlingice]

To be more fair, I haven't been watching the lead up too closely, so someone closer to it could tell you better the intent. But, basically, it's a protest against higher taxation, bailouts, and it's mixed in with some anti-socialism and a bit of anti-Obama boogeyman-ism.

In theory, it's a grassroots movement where these sprung up all over the country over the past couple of months. However, there are a lot of accusations of "astroturfing"- basically that it was organized top down by some key conservative lobbying groups and highly promoted by Fox News.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

OK, the political machinations behind this aside, the completely unironic continued use of "teabag" and "teabagging" by the right during this has been a great source of UIC today.

Apparently Michael Steele was urging Republicans to send "virtual tea bags" to Democrats.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - GOP encourages supporters to send virtual tea bags to top Dems « - Blogs from CNN.com

It doesn't surprise me how they wouldn't understand it, but that doesn't lessen my enjoyment one iota.

[stevew]

It would be much better if they dumped lettuce into Boston harbor and today there were all kinds of references to salad tossing. But teabagging is still funny.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To be more fair, I haven't been watching the lead up too closely, so someone closer to it could tell you better the intent. But, basically, it's a protest against higher taxation, bailouts, and it's mixed in with some anti-socialism and a bit of anti-Obama boogeyman-ism.

In theory, it's a grassroots movement where these sprung up all over the country over the past couple of months. However, there are a lot of accusations of "astroturfing"- basically that it was organized top down by some key conservative lobbying groups and highly promoted by Fox News.

SI

Similar to the anti-Iraq War protests... which turned into all sorts of wierd lefty groups going on about something.

[sterlingice]

War protests aren't exactly new. What was the big deal with Iraq war protests?

SI

[RainMaker]

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it. The anti-war protests were for the most part to protest the war. The immigration rallies were to protest new stricter immigration laws. Heck, even the KKK has a purpose behind their rallies.

While this one may have started out as one against bailouts (which is an issue to protest), it turned into a right-wing circle jerk that had little to do with bailouts. It was just a place for people to gather to bitch about losing the election and having see a Communist Muslim terrorist running things. There haven't been any tax increases and the bailouts/spending is nothing new. I would argue that most of the people at these rallies had no fucking clue what they were protesting. The most telling was that CNN reporter who tried to ask why Obama was a fascist and the guy had no clue what a fascist was.

Ultimately I don't care, but I just think the whole thing is odd. I'm all for protests, rallies, circle jerks as long as it doesn't block traffic and make me have to sit in the car for longer than I want (fuck you immigation rally!).

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it. The anti-war protests were for the most part to protest the war. The immigration rallies were to protest new stricter immigration laws. Heck, even the KKK has a purpose behind their rallies.

While this one may have started out as one against bailouts (which is an issue to protest), it turned into a right-wing circle jerk that had little to do with bailouts. It was just a place for people to gather to bitch about losing the election and having see a Communist Muslim terrorist running things. There haven't been any tax increases and the bailouts/spending is nothing new. I would argue that most of the people at these rallies had no fucking clue what they were protesting. The most telling was that CNN reporter who tried to ask why Obama was a fascist and the guy had no clue what a fascist was.

Ultimately I don't care, but I just think the whole thing is odd. I'm all for protests, rallies, circle jerks as long as it doesn't block traffic and make me have to sit in the car for longer than I want (fuck you immigation rally!).

Bingo!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

If Texas were to secede that would make two countries capable of playing football. We could start lobbying the IOC to have it be part of the Olympics, possibly by 2016. That'd be kind of cool imo, and a far better to watch than dancing with ribbons.

Plus Canada too. We could compromise and have a 105 yard field, with 4 downs and keep the rogue. If only there was some sort of computer game that would enable me to have this type of maximum customization.

[RainMaker]

And the Rick Perry shit pisses me off too. I'm not going to argue semantics on what he said, but I think we all got the jist of it.

We're closing in on 200 years since Texas became a state. Lets get over this independent sovereignty crap already. You win some elections and you lose some elections. Fucking get over it. It's a cheap political stunt that makes our country and Texas look bad as a whole. If you don't like how your state is being treated in Washington, quit sending representatives who spent their time playing dressup cowboy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it.

I'd argue that there's definitely an issue behind it, it just isn't being articulated particularly well (or hell, hardly at all beyond the vaguest generalization).

It's about taxes, but more specifically & accurately IMO, about how those taxes are used. There's definitely a sentiment of "if that's the best you can do with it then you damned well ought to just let me keep it" that I don't think is being articulated but is what I think a lot of it really amounts to.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd argue that there's definitely an issue behind it, it just isn't being articulated particularly well (or hell, hardly at all beyond the vaguest generalization).

It's about taxes, but more specifically & accurately IMO, about how those taxes are used. There's definitely a sentiment of "if that's the best you can do with it then you damned well ought to just let me keep it" that I don't think is being articulated but is what I think a lot of it really amounts to.

I just think they should have stuck to one issue. Bailouts would have worked. No bailouts for AIG, Citigroup, etc. Easy, concise, and something everyone can relate to. Instead it got turned into a circus and a marketing event for the Republican Party and Fox News. Protests are best when they are formed at the grassroots and the parties/news/entertainment industry has nothing to do with it.

The timing of the whole thing is also a bit odd. None of these people cared about spending and bailouts over the past year or two but suddenly cared conveniently when Obama got elected? One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by stevew

It would be much better if they dumped lettuce into Boston harbor and today there were all kinds of references to salad tossing. But teabagging is still funny.

Or if we could get a Democratic Congressman named Sanchez to start taking bribes...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

Nice, reminds me of this one.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

Which, if you'll forgive me, sounds like a tantrum over a lost election.

Listening to the people and reading the signs, everything was the same as an October Palin rally. At some point the Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their base is a shrinking demographic. The rallies were probably 90% or so white and over thirty. Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

And playing to the audience that does is so disgusting a prospect that a lot of us would really simply rather find another game to play. Eventually we'll either change the playing field by wits, weapons, or die off naturally (or otherwise) and it'll cease to be an issue. But where's the point in going quietly into that good night?

Like I said, I didn't go yesterday because I wasn't in the mood for a pep rally. If other people were & it made them feel better somehow, good for them. Just didn't see any reason to think it'd work for me so I skipped it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The timing of the whole thing is also a bit odd. None of these people cared about spending and bailouts over the past year or two but suddenly cared conveniently when Obama got elected? One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

This point as been made multiple times in this thread, and it's definitely true that some had zero problem with Bush's spending, a ton of problems with Obama's, and their participation in yesterday's protests was strictly partisian. No doubt.

But you can't invalidate the entire opinion/movement just because of the motivations of some. Many absolutely WERE outraged by spending under Bush. Ron Paul raised a ton of money in his presidential campaign, based on this anger. It's there. Many hate what the Republican party has become, but in a country with only two choices, it's still closer to their ideal.

And even aside from that, it's a matter of degree. Obama's sepnding dwarfs Bush's. The ramifications of that, for our future, are very scary to a lot of people. The projected budget numbers for the next 8 years are very scary. We're in completely uncharted territory. One can be scared by the degree of the spending/bailouts now, but not to the same degree under Bush. That's not illogical.

Somebody, earlier in the thread, mocked the fact that people are basically protesting tax increases and appropriations of private property that hasn't happened yet. But isn't that the best time to be heard? Before the inevitable happens? To say that you were against something before it happened? People believe taxes will increase drastically in the next 8 years, and the decisions now are what will force America into a different kind of government. You may agree, you may disagree, but the opinion isn't invalid, no matter how much one mocks someone else's political expresssion.

The sheer size of the protests, yes, you're not going to get that many people out for something like that with a Republican in the White House. But that doesn't invalidate every opinion, contrary to Obama's, that anyone might have. That sentiment is just bullshit.

It's similar to all those youtube videos of liberals saying stupid things at democrat rallies ("Obama's going to pay my gas, pay for my house, etc") That video doesn't make any viewpoint that overlaps with Obama's invalid (though some Republicans will attempt to make that case).

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Listening to the people and reading the signs, everything was the same as an October Palin rally. At some point the Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their base is a shrinking demographic. The rallies were probably 90% or so white and over thirty. Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

Yes - but these opinions expressed at these protests, even though "Republican", are a different voice then you heard from the Bush Republicans (as many here have mocked). Aren't they SUPPOSED to change? Isn't the smart thing for Republicans to reinvent themselves?

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And playing to the audience that does is so disgusting a prospect that a lot of us would really simply rather find another game to play. Eventually we'll either change the playing field by wits, weapons, or die off naturally (or otherwise) and it'll cease to be an issue. But where's the point in going quietly into that good night?

Like I said, I didn't go yesterday because I wasn't in the mood for a pep rally. If other people were & it made them feel better somehow, good for them. Just didn't see any reason to think it'd work for me so I skipped it.

I think that's a Quixotic way of looking at things. I'd rather some of my priorities get done while compromising on others rather than achieving nothing. That's why I don't support a third party movement even though I'm often frustrated by the Dems. I don't see the point in feeling ideologically pure if it means the country is moving farther away from the things I think are important.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes - but these opinions expressed at these protests, even though "Republican", are a different voice then you heard from the Bush Republicans (as many here have mocked). Aren't they SUPPOSED to change? Isn't the smart thing for Republicans to reinvent themselves?

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

I'd argue that fiscal reform was just the veneer on an anti-Obama rally. What's the reform being advocated? It isn't deficit reduction as most of those attending support tax rates that would add trillions to the deficit. There isn't much appetite to reduce spending by the hundreds of billions required to balance the budget under the Bush tax code. The only fiscal reform being advocated is a fairy tale form where eliminating earmarks and pork are the answers to balancing the budget.

The one consistent argument I will give you is a disdain for any spending in this fiscal crisis. I think the idea of a spending freeze and no bailout of the financial industry is insane, but that does seem to be a view rather consistently held by teabaggers.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

We have ONE party in this country and TWO factions. Arguing any viewpoint outside of the sphere of consensus (see Paul, Kucinich) will see you mocked, harassed and ultimately made irrelevant. Fiscal conservatism ain't in the playbook and won't be until we're bankrupt.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform.

It'd all be fine and good, but isn't this what propelled the 1994 Republican revolution? Why should I believe them this time around?

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

It'd all be fine and good, but isn't this what propelled the 1994 Republican revolution? Why should I believe them this time around?

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

They should leave government/politics entirely. The modern version of the federal government is a near total waste of money & space. Work for yourself if/when possible, focus on your community where you can actually have an impact, and brace yourself for when the system fails.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

They should leave government/politics entirely. The modern version of the federal government is a near total waste of money & space. Work for yourself if/when possible, focus on your community where you can actually have an impact, and brace yourself for when the system fails.

I like your style.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

Turn over the ranks all they want, but young Republicans were mentored by old Republicans.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

I'd agree with that, but part of the reinvention of the Republicans will necessitate moving into the 21st century on a lot of their social views. There's going to be a lot of resistance to that and I'm not sure the Republicans have the balls to really take it on the chin while they sort out the infighting. The Democrats went through the same thing during desegregation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

I understand why some may have been there and I completely understand people being upset with bailouts, tax credits, and big spending. I'm against a lot of that stuff too.

My issue is the timing. If the issue is bailouts, why not protest last year when we swooped in to save Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, AIG, etc? Why not protest when the rich had to pay for the rebate checks for the poor and middle class? Where was the tea party when Bush was signing budgets not too far off from Obama's?

As for the sign he's holding, it doesn't fit either. The top 1% of this country pays 40% of total tax revenues. The top 5% pays 60%. So unless these people are making strong 6 figures, there's a good chance that someone else is paying for their use of public services.

Not to mention the irony of people bitching about socialism while standing in a public park.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My issue is the timing. If the issue is bailouts, why not protest last year when we swooped in to save Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, AIG, etc? Why not protest when the rich had to pay for the rebate checks for the poor and middle class? Where was the tea party when Bush was signing budgets not too far off from Obama's?

Fox News & Rush told them to go yesterday. So they did.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

This point as been made multiple times in this thread, and it's definitely true that some had zero problem with Bush's spending, a ton of problems with Obama's, and their participation in yesterday's protests was strictly partisian. No doubt.

But you can't invalidate the entire opinion/movement just because of the motivations of some. Many absolutely WERE outraged by spending under Bush. Ron Paul raised a ton of money in his presidential campaign, based on this anger. It's there. Many hate what the Republican party has become, but in a country with only two choices, it's still closer to their ideal.

I'm well aware of Ron Paul supporters and have no issue with them. I don't agree with everything they believe in, but they are passionate and stick to their guns. The odd thing about bringing Paul up is that the same Republicans fawning over this "bring back small government" mantra were the same people who were destroying Paul during the primaries. Paul was saying this same exact stuff over a year ago (actually he's been saying it for decades) and he was chastised by Republicans for it.

Originally Posted by molson

And even aside from that, it's a matter of degree. Obama's sepnding dwarfs Bush's. The ramifications of that, for our future, are very scary to a lot of people. The projected budget numbers for the next 8 years are very scary. We're in completely uncharted territory. One can be scared by the degree of the spending/bailouts now, but not to the same degree under Bush. That's not illogical.

Is dwarf a fair word here? Isn't it a difference in 3.5 trillion (Obama) vs 3.1 trillion (Bush)? Isn't part of that deficit from legacy programs like the new Medicare bill Bush signed into office years ago that is going to cost us trillions? Or paying for a failed was which some are estimating will end up costing this country $3 trillion dollars?

That isn't to say I'm a fan of his budget or the spending. I have my issues with it. Ultimately I'm not an economics guy and there is no way I could make an educated assumption of what this will mean for us in the next 10 years. I do know there are some highly respected economists who believe the spending is needed, and some others who say it isn't. I don't think it's some secret "socialist" agenda, but instead a guy who's doing what he think is best for the country. All I can say is I hope he and his economic guys are right.

Originally Posted by molson

Somebody, earlier in the thread, mocked the fact that people are basically protesting tax increases and appropriations of private property that hasn't happened yet. But isn't that the best time to be heard? Before the inevitable happens? To say that you were against something before it happened? People believe taxes will increase drastically in the next 8 years, and the decisions now are what will force America into a different kind of government. You may agree, you may disagree, but the opinion isn't invalid, no matter how much one mocks someone else's political expresssion.

The sheer size of the protests, yes, you're not going to get that many people out for something like that with a Republican in the White House. But that doesn't invalidate every opinion, contrary to Obama's, that anyone might have. That sentiment is just bullshit.

It's similar to all those youtube videos of liberals saying stupid things at democrat rallies ("Obama's going to pay my gas, pay for my house, etc") That video doesn't make any viewpoint that overlaps with Obama's invalid (though some Republicans will attempt to make that case).

I'm not saying their viewpoint is invalid or that they shouldn't protest. I'm saying that many of those people out the other day were protesting not because of bailouts and spending, but because Obama is the man in office.

[flere-imsaho]

I love this protest. It's so full of irony.

#1: The original Boston Tea Party was sparked by the British government's decision to temporarily reduce the East India Company's tax burden when importing tea (of which they had a surplus) into the colonies. Doing so gave an unfair advantage to the East India Company and undercut smugglers and other importers (such as the Dutch). So basically the original Boston Tea Party had more to do with trade protectionism (or, more accurately, favoritism) than the misuse of tax funds.

#2: The famous rallying cry was, of course, "no taxation without representation". Anyone familiar with the taxation plank of the Democratic platform in the 2008 campaign, and with the results of that campaign should come to the logical conclusion that the government that was fairly elected intended to raise taxes and use them in a particular fashion. While it's unfortunate that the minority who lost the election will now have government decisions, with which they do not agree, affect them, that's kind of how Democracy works. For more information, see 2000-2008.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

#2: The famous rallying cry was, of course, "no taxation without representation". Anyone familiar with the taxation plank of the Democratic platform in the 2008 campaign, and with the results of that campaign should come to the logical conclusion that the government that was fairly elected intended to raise taxes and use them in a particular fashion. While it's unfortunate that the minority who lost the election will now have government decisions, with which they do not agree, affect them, that's kind of how Democracy works. For more information, see 2000-2008.

The current losers should definitely look towards the losers of 2000-2008, to see how to handle that situation with class.

I mean are you serious? The losers should just shut up? Is that a new Obama rule? "How Democracy Works" is the loser having a voice too. Or at least you thought that was true under Bush.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by molson

The current losers should definitely look towards the losers of 2000-2008, to see how to handle that situation with class.

I mean are you serious? The losers should just shut up? Is that a new Obama rule?

They shouldn't shut up. But they should find a better slogan than "No taxation without Representation." Considering that they do, in fact, have representation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The losers should just shut up?

Did I say that?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

"No taxation without the representation I wanted"

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

They shouldn't shut up. But they should find a better slogan than "No taxation without Representation." Considering that they do, in fact, have representation.

These things aren't usually literal. Bush isn't a monkey, or a fascist, for example.

When enormous amounts of taxpayer money is handed directly to failing corporations and their executives, I can see how someone might feel lacking in representation from a government, even though the technical representative model is still in place.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Did I say that?

Not exactly, that's why I phrased it as a question, because I thought that was the inference.

[flere-imsaho]

Free speech is free speech and if the Fox Talking Heads (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and their surrogates (Coulter, Malkin, etc...) want to make themselves foolish by hysterically claiming we're now living under a tyrannical government (a tyrannical government that nonetheless is a weakling on the world stage), then please, by all means, let them continue.

My post, honestly, was mostly about mocking them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

"No taxation without the representation I wanted"

That actually ain't half bad. It really isn't far from how I feel about it and it doesn't seem likely that I'm alone on the score (I may however be more upfront about it).

[Toddzilla]

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Or if we could get a Democratic Congressman named Sanchez to start taking bribes...

That only happens here in Orange County.

[path12]

hxxp://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/15/teabagging-michelle-malkin/