Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes-as long as it was all going to Halliburton all was hunky dory

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Yes-as long as it was all going to Halliburton all was hunky dory

but, like, i'm still amazed. we're mad at Slob Joe who's getting money so he doesn't get foreclosed on, but we're fine with the banks (who wrote the irresponsible mortgage to begin with) who are actually benefiting a whole lot more from these loans than Slob Joe?

it's when some low-income person actually benefits from something -- or that people get their roads fixed, or get more money for college, or better health care -- that the conservatives wig out and talk about socialism. never mind the billions handed out to Boeing, IBM, GM, etc.

do Americans secretly hate one another?

[purpleoscar]

Whether they like it or not taxes will have to be raised to balance the budget. The spending has been through the roof for a long time. Obama is just continuing what Bush already was for.

All the Neo-Keynesians want to do now is get inflation up because inflation to them is a "recovery". Staff at the Fed also mentioned that they don't want to raise interest rates too soon to create probably another recession so they are obviously going to make the public eat more inflation than they are used to in the coming years. It's looking more and more like the '70s. I think I need some platform shoes and bell-bottoms.

I think this guy is more the influence on politicians for increased spending than anyone else I know:



A lot of the public also agree with him. Krugman feels we need MORE spending than Obama is pushing for:

Time for bottles in coal mines - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

April 14, 2009, 10:15 am
Time for bottles in coal mines
President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in “ahead of schedule and under budget.” Yay — but boo.

Ahead of schedule is good. Under budget — well, ordinarily that’s a good thing. But the point of the stimulus is to increase spending! So if we don’t spend as much as expected, that’s less stimulus.

Paging Keynes, who pointed out the problem with projects that are of some use besides their role as stimulus. Such projects

"because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict “business” principles."

He then went on to propose an alternative:

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.

Paul O'Neill was right in disagreeing with Cheney on debt and tax cuts. Taxes at lower rates don't pay for themselves and social security changes were more important. If it's true that Cheney told him that "Reagan proved that debt doesn't matter" then it shows he's misinformed. Reagan's intentions and desires and Reagan's own negative feeling about not getting the budget balanced would prove Cheney wrong right there. Plus Reagan also had a Democratic majority congress to deal with.

Getting social security right (like in Chile's successful system) would have been much better than "No child left behind" failures and massive health care entitlements. Now with Obama who is refunding social security in the form of tax credits a ticking time bomb is continuing with the aging population and some drastic change will have to happen or retirement benefits will have to be watered down.

As much as we like to blame politicians it comes down to the public. Most people applaud social spending but when it comes to paying the taxes for it they get into the "tea party" attitude. This contradiction can't continue in the public or else we will continue to have politicians who will respond with the same contradictions in policy and then using borrowed money to bridge the difference. Obama is simply doing what much of the "experts" and the public want which is to increase the nanny state. When taxes increase some of the same people will bitch about it. Reminds me of what Reagan said "there is no free lunch".

The economy isn't about a zero sum game of gambling and flipping assets to others (who in turn increasingly use more debt). The economy is about production and income. When people produce and trade their skills for other people's skills and invest some of that money for future capital expenditures we get real growth and a higher standard of living. The "higher standard of living" is having so much produced that our purchasing power is increased. PPP - Purchase power parity is more useful than GDP which may include lots of inflation.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

do Americans secretly hate one another?

No-some Americans just hate the lazy low income slobs who can't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like THEY did. Recession brings out the best in people. I wonder what it was like in the Great Depression.

I think it's just easier to get angry about taxes than it is to have to face the harsh realities regarding what's fundamentally wrong with us. On the other hand I don't think it's at all unreasonable to worry about what the govt is doing with your money-as long as that's done in a reasonably intelligent way.

[U2isthebest]

I hope these idiots enjoy the next 8+ years. Because, quite frankly, without a massive overhaul in the Republican Party, they have no way of returning to power anytime soon. The majority of Americans are moderate on most issues, and unless the GOP can figure out a way to appeal to the average middle and lower-income Americans, they're finished. Most people ares simply tired of the paranoia of fundamentalist wackjobs and ultra-wealthy neocons screaming "SOCIALISM!!!1212121!", every time the government tries to do something that will benefit the majority of American people. It's sad that it took all the utter disasters and hardships of the past 8 years for people to finally be shocked out of their stupor about what the far-right is trying to do to this country, but I'm glad it's happened.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Urkel is likely the only black person in that person's cultural lexicon.

The only way they could've made it cooler would be if they had gone with Theo's friend, Cockroach, from The Cosby Show. You remember 'Roach, don't you, kids?

[deep]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

I hope these idiots enjoy the next 8+ years. Because, quite frankly, without a massive overhaul in the Republican Party.

I wouldn't be so sure. ( It seems many Dems are as confident of their Permanent Majority as the GOP was a few years back)

all it takes is for people to be malcontent.


without Bush at 29%, the Dems would not have made the gains in 2006 and 2008.


GHW Bush, was not all that bad in 1992, and he got tossed aside.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

can someone explain?

teabagging?

<>

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by deep

I wouldn't be so sure. ( It seems many Dems are as confident of their Permanent Majority as the GOP was a few years back)

all it takes is for people to be malcontent.


without Bush at 29%, the Dems would not have made the gains in 2006 and 2008.


GHW Bush, was not all that bad in 1992, and he got tossed aside.

Oh, I agree with you there. I'm well aware of how fickle the American people can be especially if things don't go their way. Elections from year to year can turn around in a snap, and I didn't really take that into account in what I said. But, I do think the swiftness with which the Republican majority (first in Congress, than in the White House) fell is pretty telling, not simply that the American people were discontent over what's happened so far this decade (although that's a major factor, of course), but that the GOP's ideas and platform are still steeped in 20th century ideology and in some cases Cold War Era tactics. This election changed our country in more ways than the obvious. More people really started paying attention to the political system and the messages our leaders on both sides of the aisle are sending us. I think the majority of people in 2012, for example are going to be a lot more aware of the big picture in terms of moving the country forward into the 21st century as opposed to remaining mired in the status quo way of doing things. To compare it, say, to the way things were going in 92, while definitely worthwhile for pointing out the fickleness of the American electorate isn't really an indicator for where the minds of many voters are now.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

As much as we like to blame politicians it comes down to the public. Most people applaud social spending but when it comes to paying the taxes for it they get into the "tea party" attitude.

But it's not just social spending. You love military spending, but don't want to pay the taxes for it...

This is the Elephant size contradiction that keeps hitting conservatives in the ass which you just ignore. They want big-ass walls that cost 4 MILLION dollas a mile to keep the brownies out. They want roads just like everyone else. They also want their big ass American SUVs, insurance to cover them, and banks to be able to loan them money and I guarantee you that if Obama let them fail they'd be bitching then.

Like I said before, very few actually want to ride out the market healing itself, but it's easy to be a Tuesday morning armchair quarterback.

[elevated_u2_fan]

Originally Posted by diamond

teabagging?

<>

[deep]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

Oh, I agree with you there. I'm well aware of how fickle the American people can be especially if things don't go their way. .

I realize you enthusiastically voted for Obama.


But elections are won with the moderate, independent swing voters.

And a good portion of them have been voting against Bush/ Cheney.

If there is a perception that that things are going poorly in the next election cycles, and the GOP puts up something that pretends to be "fresh" they can win.


You will recall Obama threw a lot of dirt on Clinton and presented himself as being the "fresh" new choice.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by deep

I realize you enthusiastically voted for Obama.


But elections are won with the moderate, independent swing voters.

And a good portion of them have been voting against Bush/ Cheney.

If there is a perception that that things are going poorly in the next election cycles, and the GOP puts up something that pretends to be "fresh" they can win.

You will recall Obama threw a lot of dirt on Clinton and presented himself as being the "fresh" new choice.

In essence, that was the point I was trying to make, the bolded part, that is. Like both you and I said, the majority of Americans are moderates on most issues. Most Americans want a president and Congressional leadership that will do the most good for the middle-class to lower-income Americans in every way. I think the current financial crisis, the frustration over Iraq, the healthcare situation, etc. have been amplified by the massive failures of the Bush administration in nearly every area. I agree that many people were simply voting against Bush/Cheney. However, McCain spent most of his time on the campaign trail distancing himself from Bush. He was the maverick, the renegade, the guy who was going to turn the Republican party and then the country around. That's how he fancied himself, anyway. In better times, the American public might have bought it. The John McCain of yesteryear was more similar to that image than John McCain the GOP nominee. Why, then, didn't people respond to that this time around? The entire Republican party tried to distance itself from Bush. He spoke via satellite to his own party's convention for less than 10 minutes. Nearly every major speaker there tried to go on a populist rant about all that had gone wrong in the past 8 years apparently "forgetting" the fact that they supported most of it. It was a good show and in times past it may have been enough to pull off a win for the safe, "experienced" choice. It became clear on election night, though, that the Americans saw through the Republican charade beyond the Bush/Cheney debacle. They saw the Republican party was out of ideas, and out of touch with the world in which we now live. And coming back full circle to what you said, unless the Republican party itself realizes this and takes itself back from the super-rich, selfish blowhards and the morality police, fundies, the American people are no longer going to buy what they're selling.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

But it's not just social spending. You love military spending, but don't want to pay the taxes for it...

This is the Elephant size contradiction that keeps hitting conservatives in the ass which you just ignore.

I don't think I have. Paying for the military is GOOD. Military for me is just as important as roads. There is no freedom without political freedom. You would think September 11th would teach people that. Even if they don't like the Iraq mission, certainly Afghanistan was worthy and you would need a military for that. Yes taxes should have been raised to pay for it but it becomes much harder when Bush wanted to increase domestic spending along with it and lower taxes. Not all tax cuts pay for themselves. Everyone knows that Europe has all those social programs because the U.S. spends more on the military so that they can be free to do so. If they want to cut social programs on their side and do more military spending so the U.S. can spend less on military that would be fine by me. Of course that won't happen.

Plus much of the social spending that Bush did didn't result in improvements so having Democrats do what he did doesn't make it somehow more efficient spending. We are talking about government here. If government was more cost efficient we should have government everywhere. It's getting so cynical that it looks like political opposition just criticizes because they want power more than implementing meaningful changes.

Most of the western world wanted to have their cake and eat it too during the post-Soviet era, that was called the "peace dividend", and the threat to freedom didn't actually go away and now decadent westerners want to shower themselves with benefits and pretend that there are no challenges with Iran/Russia/China etc. The debt is getting so big that I may be an old man before I see any meaningful changes.

Originally Posted by BVS

They want roads just like everyone else. They also want their big ass American SUVs, insurance to cover them, and banks to be able to loan them money and I guarantee you that if Obama let them fail they'd be bitching then.

Here I agree. The public is full of the contradictions as I mentioned in my prior post. To balance the budget will need political courage that can handle political attacks from all sides. The public wants stuff but doesn't want to pay for it. I'm not a huge fan of "tea parties" precisely because of that. Many conservatives like it because they desperately want to see some public awareness on the issue but it will take a lot more effort and convincing of even Democrat supporters to see any real political results like seen during the Contract with America period.

[U2387]

Originally Posted by BVS

But it's not just social spending. You love military spending, but don't want to pay the taxes for it...

This is the Elephant size contradiction that keeps hitting conservatives in the ass which you just ignore. They want big-ass walls that cost 4 MILLION dollas a mile to keep the brownies out. They want roads just like everyone else. They also want their big ass American SUVs, insurance to cover them, and banks to be able to loan them money and I guarantee you that if Obama let them fail they'd be bitching then.

Like I said before, very few actually want to ride out the market healing itself, but it's easy to be a Tuesday morning armchair quarterback.

EXACTLY!

Most Americans, when asked about things like roads, education, renewable energy, health care research, deposit insurance, banking regulation,military, border control, elimination of drug cartels, the list goes on, want the government to step in and act.

However, we act as if all of this is free. I know the Republicans have popularized the "we can have it all, big spending AND no taxes" argument the last 8 years, but it has utterly failed.

Of course, we should not raise taxes more than necessary, nor should we raise them to the level of Sweden or Denmark or Canada. We need some modest tax increases (top 2 brackets returned to 1990s level, loopholes closed, and deductions limited for some and yes, cap and trade like McCain has supported) to bring in revenue. There is waste, farm subsidies, military programs that we dont need anymore, fraud, govt contracts, etc, but that does not mean the government does not need revenue.

Tea party people, dont even get me started on these knuckledraggers! Have they been asleep for 8 years? Protesting government spending and debt??? If I recall correctly, Bush left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit ,10 trillion in debt and a recession that is going to wind up being worse than 1982 when all is said and done. To think that Obama wanted to come in and spend 800 billion on a a stimulus and 700 billion and counting bailing out banks is ludacris; HE HAD TO. If the stimulus had not passed, if we were not creating a "bad bank" and subjecting banks to stress tests, the economy and our confidence in it would have TANKED COMPLETELY, we would have lost more revenue and the deficit would have been worse than its going to be. Obama has already said he is dead serious about the deficit and is the first President ever to identify the cause- entitlements(medicare,medicaid) and the cause of the cause, health care costs are out of control. Bush has wrongly focused on Social Security, which is by and large fine. Other hard decisions on taxes, farm subsidies, military procurement, payments to medical providers have been made in the FY 2010 budget to move toward deficit reduction. Obama does not lack for caring on the deficit as the protesters suggest. Even the deficit watchdog group the Concord Coalition(founded by a Democrat, Paul Tsongas and a Republican, Warren Rudman) has said that, given the state of the economy, the deficit was not the #1 concern immediately.

Before I get nailed to the wall here, let me just point out that I am not a blind Obama lover. He has had to earn my respect, voting for him was never even a foregone conclusion for me until around summer 2008. What gave me confidence in him is how he has been calm and delibrative through all of the economic collapse, offered substantive responses, taken on the biggest challenges to our future economic growth and most importantly, hired brilliant economic advisers who know what they are doing. These people are not socialists- these are centrists. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner are both market devotees through and through, Peter Orszag is a deficit hawk, Paul Volcker was the Chair of the Federal Reserve, firecely anti-inflation, and Austan Goolsbee is from the University of Chicago Economics department, hardly a bastion of socialism. These are not people that dont care about leaving us in debt, nor are they people who would just spend $800 billion on a stimulus unless we ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. Are we recovered yet? Of course not. But confidence is slowly returning, the market has shown signs of life, the stimulus money is hitting the economy, putting people to work, cutting their tax bills, etc. Growth will be back next quarter, unemployment will continue to rise, but it always peaks after recessions. We are coming out of this, and stronger than we would have had McCain been calling the shots, rest assured!

They are protesting earmarks? Do they even realize that new disclosure rules put in place by Democrats in Congress in 2007 have cut them nearly in half from their heyday under Hastert and DeLay, who used them to trade on votes from fellow Republicans? Obama never flip flopped on this, never said he would eliminate earmarks, only that they would have to pass a legitimacy test. Anyone who thinks the end of earmarks will solve any part of the deficit/debt problem needs a doctor.

Furthermore, what are they protesting?? Just like the original Boston Tea Party Organizers, who were acutally protesting a TAX CUT given to the British East India company, they are against their $400 or $800 tax cut they are getting from Obama?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I don't think I have. Paying for the military is GOOD. Military for me is just as important as roads. There is no freedom without political freedom. You would think September 11th would teach people that.

how would increased military spending have prevented September 11?

be specific.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I don't think I have.

I meant a collective "you", but really I meant conservatives in America. Most like the "cut taxes not defense" mentality.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Many conservatives like it because they desperately want to see some public awareness on the issue but it will take a lot more effort and convincing of even Democrat supporters to see any real political results like seen during the Contract with America period.

But this is why is was such a major epic fail, it wasn't about public awareness on the issue of balanced budgets, it was a bitch session for illegal immigration, abortion, liberals = socialists, etc etc...

If it was about the issue of balanced budgets and they actually had a plan, then I probably would have been there yesterday.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Tiger Edge

Well I definitely know that there are sensible people protesting out there who know what they are talking about, but some of this ignorance can't be ignored. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone call Obama a fascist after claiming that he wants to drive this country into socialism.

Some of us reject this.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us reject this.

what do you advocate?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BVS

If someone could provide me with, or at least a link to, a well informed reason for yesterday I would appreciate it.

GWB's approval ratings his last term.

There aren't enough anti-war protesters, Bush-haters or even partisan Democrats around to get him down to 20%. His ratings were historically low because people who once put their trust in him came to see him and the Republican congress as Democrats Lite in regards to federal spending, illegal immigration and finally the bank bailouts.

We thought the country was "moving in the wrong direction" too. The direction, unfortunately, Obama is now fasttraking.