Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BVS

When you uncover your eyes, can you go back and answer the first question I asked? Or just tell me what your ideal plan would have been.

So are all you partiers still hung over? Where's the plan?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

So are all you partiers still hung over? Where's the plan?

the plan is to continue to watch Fox News.

the ratings mean very little. prime time on cable news networks has more to do with the quality of the personalities in the line up than any sort of indication as to where the country is or is not going. 2 million viewers is paltry compared to the amount of people who watch, say, Project Runway, let alone a Big 3 nightly newscast.

people talk about what a force Rush Limbaugh is, and he is, for talk radio. it's still a limited audience, and it seems to me that cable news is mostly for those who derive a sense of entertainment and pleasure getting outraged -- and it's much easier to do that now that we have a black man liberal in the White House and the country as a whole has taken a clear turn to the left. nearly half of all Americans feel as if their tax rate is reasonable. far, far, far less than that are tuning in to watch Hannity distort reality. the Obama administration and continued Democratic control of Congress is very good business for Roger Ailes, but cable news ratings mean very little in the overall direction of the country, particularly since the Obama administration doesn't (yet) look to CNN or MSNBC to leak information and thusly spin said information in order to win the news cycle in the same way that the Bush administration did with Fox News.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

So are all you partiers still hung over? Where's the plan?

Fantastic question. It's easy to bitch but what is the solution? I've got some ideas (when do I not?)

- 1st. It's up to the public to get their personal finances in order and they need to develop self-discipline in their lives to reduce boredom, and addiction to consumerism. We can blame Keynesian economics all we want for reducing the incentive to save and pushing the incentive to spend but they are not putting a gun to our heads. People should be buying things that enhance their freedom and not reduce it. (Only with some lifestyle sacrifice can this be achieved). This way jobs are created that have something essential about them and people don't have to justify useless jobs.
- 2nd. Vote conservative Republicans in Congress and to get a conservative Republican as a presidential candidate. Everything else is a Fabian compromise. If there isn't a conservative lifestyle that people are living then what leaders will exist that will want to lose elections for a lost cause? Conservatives need to walk the walk if they want to create enough of a base. Eventually candidates will pop out of the woodwork.
- 3rd. Get the country's books in order. Even if the public improves their personal finances they are all taxpayers and take personal responsiblity for the debt that is racked up by the government.
- 4th. Stand up to all dictatorships and false democracies. They piggy back on our trade and threaten us at the same time.
- 5th. Support and network with real democracies (AKA trade). Reliance on trade with dictatorships gives them leverage so we can't complain about their human rights abuses and offers lots of wealth to stock pile weapons that they aim at us and our allies.

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"? ~ attributed to Lenin

This is only the case if we let them.

To me if step 1 isn't done first by a large number of people in the U.S. I can't see how anything else afterwards can be achieved with any lasting success. If people handle their finances badly then the government will increase in size because the population will be demanding it.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 4th. Stand up to all dictatorships and false democracies. They piggy back on our trade and threaten us at the same time.

Good luck with that one.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 2nd. Vote conservative Republicans in Congress and to get a conservative Republican as a presidential candidate. Everything else is a Fabian compromise. If there isn't a conservative lifestyle that people are living then what leaders will exist that will want to lose elections for a lost cause? Conservatives need to walk the walk if they want to create enough of a base. Eventually candidates will pop out of the woodwork.

we had a very conservative Republican president and a very conservative Republican congress that actually increased it's numbers in 2002.

and look where we are now.

i know, i know .... you'll get into the whole "but they weren't *real* conservative Republicans," but we know that's garbage in the same way that free market capitalists sound exactly the same as utopian communists who both say, "well, our system would be perfect if it was properly implemented."

bottom line: conservative Republicans in this country have proved themselves to be incompetent. they were booted out of office in 2006 and 2008, and the Republican Party is now the party of white southern christian males. that's not a base upon which to build any sort of future.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 1st. It's up to the public to get their personal finances in order and they need to develop self-discipline in their lives to reduce boredom, and addiction to consumerism. We can blame Keynesian economics all we want for reducing the incentive to save and pushing the incentive to spend but they are not putting a gun to our heads. People should be buying things that enhance their freedom and not reduce it. (Only with some lifestyle sacrifice can this be achieved). This way jobs are created that have something essential about them and people don't have to justify useless jobs.

This isn't a plan, this is a suggetion. Government can't do anything to control or regulate this.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 2nd. Vote conservative Republicans in Congress and to get a conservative Republican as a presidential candidate. Everything else is a Fabian compromise. If there isn't a conservative lifestyle that people are living then what leaders will exist that will want to lose elections for a lost cause? Conservatives need to walk the walk if they want to create enough of a base. Eventually candidates will pop out of the woodwork.

You are just downright laughable at times...

So your plan is to eliminate all other parties. I think there is a word for that...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 3rd. Get the country's books in order. Even if the public improves their personal finances they are all taxpayers and take personal responsiblity for the debt that is racked up by the government.

Ok, but how? You aren't answering this. The question is what plan would those tea partiers want in place of what is going on now? Your answer is "fix it", this is worse than the Republican budget that had no numbers.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 4th. Stand up to all dictatorships and false democracies. They piggy back on our trade and threaten us at the same time.

Give me a real life example of how you stand up and to who that would fix the situation right now...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

- 5th. Support and network with real democracies (AKA trade). Reliance on trade with dictatorships gives them leverage so we can't complain about their human rights abuses and offers lots of wealth to stock pile weapons that they aim at us and our allies.

Same as above...

None is this has anything to do with the situation at hand and what the tea parties were apparently about...

[BVS]

Given the deafening silence to my question and the failed attempt to understand what a plan is, I think it's safe to say that these tea parties were exactly what many of us expected one big Republican bitch fest joke.

I think historically they will go down as an embarassing stain on the Republican party.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by BVS

You are just downright laughable at times...

Don't be a jerk.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

Don't be a jerk.

But calling everyone else who doesn't think like him a "lost cause" isn't being a jerk?

[yolland]

I don't see where he was personalizing it; he even complimented your question and joked self-deprecatingly about never being at a loss for ideas. What you said was a personal attack.

[BVS]

You're right, I took it a step too far and I apologize.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

can't we just get back to sophomoric teabagging jokes?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

can't we just get back to sophomoric teabagging jokes?

eh? i can't hear you when your mouth is full.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

This isn't a plan, this is a suggetion. Government can't do anything to control or regulate this.

I know. I'm refering to the public on this forum reading these posts. The government can't do anything without being elected by voters. Since the public elects the government they need to walk the walk before any politicians can have any sense that there are enough numbers willing to elect plaforms that fit with this kind of culture of self-discipline. If the public doesn't have it then where is the motivation?

Originally Posted by BVS

You are just downright laughable at times...

I used to worry about what people think of me but I realized that in order to put up an opinion you have to be able to withstand ridicule. I'm sure no matter what opinion I put up someone somewhere will find issue with it.

Aesop's Fables, by Aesop; The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey Page 1

You need to learn this lesson.

Originally Posted by BVS

So your plan is to eliminate all other parties. I think there is a word for that...

A ha! Putting words in my mouth. Nice try! Is there a problem with having electoral preferences? Democrats want to defeat Republicans and vice versa. I think my post is very clear that I love democracy. If Democrats want to do the proper fiscal management (as opposed to what they are doing now) I would be for them.

Originally Posted by BVS

Ok, but how? You aren't answering this. The question is what plan would those tea partiers want in place of what is going on now? Your answer is "fix it", this is worse than the Republican budget that had no numbers.

I've talked about this many times. Spending must come under control and that means standing up to special interests to make those cuts. In order to preserve the programs we want it's important to rein them in to avoid currency sell offs and in extreme instances, bankruptcy. Instead of spending more on mediaid/medicare how about allowing insurance competition between states? That could save people health costs without increasing taxes. Do I personally have to come up with numbers? There are plenty of people in the Republican party that can do that if they get enough balls. If the public is changing their tune and support this action then the politicians will get more courageous. If the public asks for low taxes and more spending there will be no political strengh to rest on that.

Originally Posted by BVS

Give me a real life example of how you stand up and to who that would fix the situation right now...

My list is in order. Without the first two steps you can't fund a military properly. Certainly continuing to ban bad Chinese products is one step to continue. Also creating as many improved trade relations with as many democracies will create competition for China so we rely less on their products. I don't perceive this as an instantanous solution but we can slowly do this over time. Embargo pressure can happen once we are less dependent on them. Until then they can constantly pressure us with their trade surplus leverage. Canadian conservatives were harder on China in the past and just some small threats from them made Stockwell Day pant like a dog and lick the face of the bureaucrats there. Everything is about leverage when dealing with dictators.

Originally Posted by BVS

Same as above...

Free trade agreements. They do exist. Just negotiate more and more with democracies as often as you can. The reason why China is so open to us is precisely because of the leverage they can attain. It's no different in business that when a business relies too much on one supplier the supplier can raise prices beyond competitiveness because of that leverage. China also likes to force their currency downward so their products are always cheaper and then they buy U.S. treasuries. Without steps 1 and 2 we are going to go in the same direction as before with no leverage. We also need to have competitive corporate tax rates so production doesn't just fly to China and India all the time. The U.S. can't just rely on service jobs.

Originally Posted by BVS

None is this has anything to do with the situation at hand and what the tea parties were apparently about...

I feel it's all connected. If you can't have a robust productive economy then your defence goes and then your freedom goes. If you look at all past civilizations they had some advances over prior ones but there always was this problem of decadence that comes with success where institutions are taken for granted and the public supports less and less lifestyles that are conducive to preserving their freedom and then it becomes a "surprise" when they fall.

Now we live with nuclear weapons and the pentagon has fears that China is trying to nulify the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario by researching ways they could attack quick enough so the U.S. has destroyed capabilities before they can retaliate. When you couple that with Nationalist Socialist ideas of this century being the "Chinese century" it's cause for concern and with rampant social spending in the West its hard to see the military really being able to stay on top of things. The irony is that even Obama mentioned this in regards to Bush's overspending and how that affects the financial feasibility of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. With no control on social spending (health care/education) it provides plenty of distraction so people fear less any U.S. retaliation to stop them. It happened during the Carter era (Soviet Union/Central America/Afghanistan) and I don't see why challenges won't happen now. Eg. Iran/China/Russia.

It starts with individuals saving money and getting more financially secure to handle economic changes. Then next electing people that preserve that economic freedom and also try to expand it with trade negotiations with democratically elected countries. (Not with fake democracies like Russia and Venezuela). Once we have more economic freedom and less economic leverage against us we are then in a position to embargo those countries that partake in human rights abuses. If Obama wants to take these ideas for real (yeah right!) then he can by all means do so. To me only the conservatives in the Republican party will have realistic political chances to enact any of these policies.

It starts with step 1. If people don't pay their mortgages ASAP and prefer consumerism instead they will be in situations where they will demand more government spending on themselves and vote accordingly. Democracies always get the government they deserve. Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism". Why? Because he only won the election against Al Gore because of the electoral college and felt he had no real mandate to be hardcore conservative on economics so he split the difference between tax cuts and increased social spending. I would prefer him to be more brave and simply do what he thought was right but politicians like to hedge their bets. Politicians reflect public demand. Face it. The ignorance of the public in regards to how an economy works and politics is astounding. This ignorance will be reflected in our institutions. I wish more people would get some curiosity like I have. I learned more on my own studying than relying on agenda driven university courses.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i know, i know .... you'll get into the whole "but they weren't *real* conservative Republicans," but we know that's garbage in the same way that free market capitalists sound exactly the same as utopian communists who both say, "well, our system would be perfect if it was properly implemented."

That would be SOME libertarians that look to perfect systems. I don't go that far but I do feel that the public sometimes forgets that the market is where most of the production is and if we want programs we will have to be able to pay for them. It's not utopia but what works better. If I get cancer I can't be so selfish as to assume the entire GDP of the country should automatically stop what they are doing and try to cure me because I'm so important. I agree no system is all perfect.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

bottom line: conservative Republicans in this country have proved themselves to be incompetent. they were booted out of office in 2006 and 2008, and the Republican Party is now the party of white southern christian males. that's not a base upon which to build any sort of future.

The only problem with this is that I agree that Republicans (and Democrats; are we forgetting already?) were incompetent but electing Democrats everywhere to continue that incompetence is viewed by me and other conservatives as "two wrongs equal a right". The Democrat base is just basically special interest groups that want to compete for command of taxpayer dollars. As long as the public thinks that organizing into 1,000 special interest groups to compete on how they can pass the buck onto someone else we will consume faster than we produce which leads to the current problems we have.

[Cactus Annie]

Everyone has to pay tax, unless you think the police and those who keep your streets clean should do their jobs for nothing. Still, any excuse for a get-together

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

That would be SOME libertarians that look to perfect systems. I don't go that far but I do feel that the public sometimes forgets that the market is where most of the production is and if we want programs we will have to be able to pay for them. It's not utopia but what works better. If I get cancer I can't be so selfish as to assume the entire GDP of the country should automatically stop what they are doing and try to cure me because I'm so important. I agree no system is all perfect.

when it comes to actual goods and services, the market is a better judge of quality than the governments are. but it's absolutely utopian to think that the market is better at everything. look at what's just happened. when Ponzi products are traded back and forth -- subprime mortgages just to begin with -- only the government can step in and regulate before the market goes on to ruin lives and the entire economy.

The only problem with this is that I agree that Republicans (and Democrats; are we forgetting already?) were incompetent but electing Democrats everywhere to continue that incompetence is viewed by me and other conservatives as "two wrongs equal a right". The Democrat base is just basically special interest groups that want to compete for command of taxpayer dollars. As long as the public thinks that organizing into 1,000 special interest groups to compete on how they can pass the buck onto someone else we will consume faster than we produce which leads to the current problems we have.

you have such an uninformed view of the "democrat base" and it's so ridiculously biased that it's hard to know where to begin.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

A ha! Putting words in my mouth. Nice try! Is there a problem with having electoral preferences? Democrats want to defeat Republicans and vice versa. I think my post is very clear that I love democracy. If Democrats want to do the proper fiscal management (as opposed to what they are doing now) I would be for them.

Then you should have stated that people should vote in fiscally responsible canidates no matter what party, instead of saying "conservatives" or "Republicans" because it just weakens your stance. Look around conservatives aren't being that fiscally responsible at all...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Instead of spending more on mediaid/medicare how about allowing insurance competition between states? That could save people health costs without increasing taxes.

We've talked about this before I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Certain limited insurance companies can and do compete across state lines, but the problem is the standards change over state lines; what's defined as podiatry in Texas is different than what is defined as podiatry in Arizona. Plus insurance companies "compete" within state lines and it doesn't help much because honestly most of the insurance companies are in cahoots with each and set the prices collabortively. So none of this is going to work...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Do I personally have to come up with numbers?

No, but the point is theory can only go so far, and so far not one person has come up with any real alternative plan. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Rush, Republican politicians none of them have any room to bitch or throw these tea parties unless they honestly have a real alternative.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

There are plenty of people in the Republican party that can do that if they get enough balls. If the public is changing their tune and support this action then the politicians will get more courageous. If the public asks for low taxes and more spending there will be no political strengh to rest on that.

I think you just answered your own question here...

The rest of the post meanders... Some of what you say makes sense the rest is way out in left field(I guess right field in your case), but none of it is an alternative plan. It's long term goals, but the question is for all those partiers is what would they have wanted their canidate to do right now in this paticular climate?

Can someone please answer this!!!

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you have such an uninformed view of the "democrat base" and it's so ridiculously biased that it's hard to know where to begin.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

Then you should have stated that people should vote in fiscally responsible canidates no matter what party, instead of saying "conservatives" or "Republicans" because it just weakens your stance. Look around conservatives aren't being that fiscally responsible at all...

No it doesn't. Democrats don't support fiscal responsibility. Look at them now. In actions they don't. Unless I see an about face there is no evidence that Democrats are really doing anything about fiscal responsibility. They are following the Krugman template which is about spending our way out of a recession. Isn't this over spending what got us into the problem in the first place?

Originally Posted by BVS

We've talked about this before I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Certain limited insurance companies can and do compete across state lines, but the problem is the standards change over state lines; what's defined as podiatry in Texas is different than what is defined as podiatry in Arizona. Plus insurance companies "compete" within state lines and it doesn't help much because honestly most of the insurance companies are in cahoots with each and set the prices collabortively. So none of this is going to work...

Why do we have anti-trust laws then? Just because there is some complexity in standards it doesn't mean that it wouldn't improve competition. It's easier to collaborate with other insurance companies when there are more border restrictions.

Originally Posted by BVS

No, but the point is theory can only go so far, and so far not one person has come up with any real alternative plan. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Rush, Republican politicians none of them have any room to bitch or throw these tea parties unless they honestly have a real alternative.

Originally Posted by BVS

The rest of the post meanders... Some of what you say makes sense the rest is way out in left field(I guess right field in your case), but none of it is an alternative plan. It's long term goals, but the question is for all those partiers is what would they have wanted their canidate to do right now in this paticular climate?

Originally Posted by BVS

Can someone please answer this!!!

- No cap and trade. Support more nuclear power plants. (Some military are pushing for fusion over fission for a long-term plan 30 years on). Cap and trade or carbon taxes = higher energy costs for all.
- Don't increase health-care coverage. Do the U.S. have to rely on Chinese bondholders for this too?
- Lower corporate taxes. Both the U.S. and Canada are uncompetitive in this area.
- Cut wasteful spending in all departments (including non-essentials in the military). Both McCain and Obama know there is wasteful spending in all areas. Most politicians tolerate it because it's a way to buy votes. Obama basically admited that when he attempted to look at spending on government workers having a "trickle down" effect. Use line-item veto on earmarks like promised.
- Don't shake hands with Chavez (which is quickly undermining Democracy in his own country).
- I don't know what the best timing for this suggestion is but at some point critical areas of Iran's nuclear program will have to be destroyed. If there are critics of this, who cares? See link on Aesop's fables.
- Finish off the Taliban with or without the help of Pakistan (obviously with is better than without). Set a timetable to withdraw in Iraq and Afghanistan in stages (some of this is already in the works). Some Iraq vetrans can move to Afghanistan (Obama is working on this).
- Continue supporting more free trade in South America. Brazil is a bit two-faced on this but with more negotiations it could turn around. If Stephen Harper in Canada can do this so can Obama.

I'm sure there could be more suggestions but doing half of this would be an enormous achievement. Some of these suggestions can be done quickly and others cannot. Trying to improve productive capabilities in the U.S. will take YEARS. The west relies too much on services for their economy.