# Tea Party



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Just got back from the local tea party. The one here is April 14 to allow people to go to the Chicago one too. There were about 200-300 angry people there to listen to speeches and march to city hall to present the Mayor with a copy of the Constitution. Not bad considering that there was very little publicity for it. I just found out online yesterday. The local newspaper and all three local tv stations were covering it though and the state senator and U.S. Representative were there, although they weren't allowed to speak. Overall it looked pretty good.

Anybody else going to one? I noticed a number of well dressed gentlemen at this one.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Are you worried about your tea being taxed?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

The essence of America and one of our most cherished freedoms: the right speak out and to assemble about anything at just about anytime. It matter not whether one is a patriot or a wingnut. :icon_smile:


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Quay said:


> The essence of America and one of our most cherished freedoms: the right speak out and to assemble about anything at just about anytime. It matter not whether one is a patriot or a wingnut. :icon_smile:


Though I can certainly sympathize with the frustration of the tea partiers, this whole thing makes me chuckle a bit. It's a little difficult to launch a populist groundswell when your ranks are primarily made up of white, upper middle class men.

Thank God we live in a country that (for now, anyway) lets us do this!


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Though I can certainly sympathize with the frustration of the tea partiers, this whole thing makes me chuckle a bit. It's a little difficult to launch a populist groundswell when your ranks are primarily made up of white, upper middle class men.
> 
> Thank God we live in a country that (for now, anyway) lets us do this!


Where did you get the idea that the group was made up of white middle class men? Although I fit that description I would guess that about half the crowd was female and though primarily white minorities were represented. All ages seemed to be represented.

I suspect the fact that so many white middle class men are included will get the attention of politicians.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Helvetia said:


> Are you worried about your tea being taxed?


I'm worried about everything being taxed.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

norton said:


> Where did you get the idea that the group was made up of white middle class men?


Judging by local coverage, the participants seem fairly homogeneous....but I do live in Kansas City, after all.

I could easily be swayed by this group, espeically after the big checks I just wrote to the IRS and the state. Gee, I wonder if they'll send me a thank-you note.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

The Boston Tea Party was ultimately precipitated by a massive corporate tax cut.

In 1773, the only major multinational corporation at the time, the British East India Company, was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. According to that obviously liberal organization, the Boston Tea Party Historical Society, one solution was to bail out the corporation by offering it a government loan. But instead, at the urging of the East India Company's powerful lobbyists and supported by King George III, Parliament passed the Tea Act which almost entirely eliminated the duty -- the tax -- on British tea exported by the East India Company to the American colonies.

The rationale was that lower taxes meant lower prices, which meant the East India Company would sell a lot more tea. Your basic free market precursor to Reaganomics and supply-side economics in action. In other words, the British government's solution to the East India Company's financial crisis was, in effect, a tax cut. A big one. Exactly the same economic solution that's been pushed by congressional Republicans and the tea bag revolutionaries 236 years later.

The tax cut was viewed by colonial patriots as another example of British tyranny against smaller merchants whose business would be severely undercut. Consequently, political activists and, most famously, the Sons of Liberty, organized a boycott against the East India Company's tea. And later that year, when the Dartmouth, Beaver and Eleanor were docked in Boston harbor, the Sons carried out their famous protest.
So. _Whoops_.

It turns out that that the tea baggers, led in part by Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds and the Coward Rick Santelli, *are politically more in line with the tax policies of King George than the views of the Sons of Liberty and the colonial patriots.* The tax baggers emulating a protest _against_ a corporate tax cut -- but, oddly, in _support_ of tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Furthermore, King George was against a corporate bailout loan. And so are the tea baggers. And I don't think it'd be a stretch to suggest that many of the tea baggers are recipients of the president's middle class tax cut.

So in keeping with a long, embarrassing history of ill-conceived, contradictory or just plain self-defeating marketing ploys, the tea baggers seem to have adopted a concept that completely and utterly contradicts what they claim to stand for.

Another home run by the republican party. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> The Boston Tea Party was ultimately precipitated by a massive corporate tax cut.
> 
> Another home run by the republican party. :icon_smile_big:


Very cute, except this is not 1773, we are not a British Colony and there is no British East India Company (an organ of the mercantilist system of the 18th century). Today's situation is one where increased taxes are levied against people as well as businesses. In fact, when we consider that 40% of Americans don't even pay an income tax there is even more incentive for them to tilt the burden onto the other 60%. Why not use the coercive power of government to squeeze free money from the rest. For them, there is no such thing as a tax "burden".

For all those who want to pay higher taxes, just write a check to the government or donate your refund to the Treasury.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> Very cute, except this is not 1773, we are not a British Colony and there is no British East India Company (an organ of the mercantilist system of the 18th century). Today's situation is one where increased taxes are levied against people as well as businesses. In fact, when we consider that 40% of Americans don't even pay an income tax there is even more incentive for them to tilt the burden onto the other 60%. Why not use the coercive power of government to squeeze free money from the rest. For them, there is no such thing as a tax "burden".
> 
> For all those who want to pay higher taxes, just write a check to the government or donate your refund to the Treasury.


Other interesting thing is 90% of the people at these "tea bag" rallies will be getting a TAX CUT under President Obama.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Other interesting thing is 90% of the people at these "tea bag" rallies will be getting a TAX CUT under President Obama.


Does Obama's stimulus package include a program for people deluded into believing campaign promises? About tax cuts? By a Democrat?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> Does Obama's stimulus package include a program for people deluded into believing campaign promises? About tax cuts? By a Democrat?


No one is going to be getting any tax cuts when the tab for this stimulus program comes due. You can only squeeze "the rich" so much. Middle class...you're next.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Everyone I know that went to the Orlando Tea Party would not claim to be Republican. Sure there were some there, but most are fed up with both parties.

Honestly, it sounds like someone has been to a "Koolaid Party" to me! :devil:

Ah, well, I see the link ... but your text is not from there; is that your own original thought? Or did you "Biden" it from HuffPo? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-weird-contradictions_b_176476.html

It appears you accidentally left out the standard, faulty, bitter, far-left premise. Please, let me help you with that!



HuffPo said:


> Let's recap. It began with the on-air rant from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange by the Coward Rick Santelli -- "coward" because he's apparently too afraid to go on _The Daily Show_ and, instead, Jim Cramer went on and took a beating for something that Santelli basically started. Nevertheless, according to one of the official tea bag websites, Santelli is credited as the patron saint of the movement.
> And unless I'm mistaken, the basic idea of the tea bag revolution is to protest against government bailouts and in favor of tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans. Ultimately, the tea baggers (can I call them that?) appear to be against allowing the Bush's tax cuts to expire. Strangely, they also appear to be against President Obama signing into law the largest middle class tax cut in history. They're also against helping middle and working class "losers" keep their homes. (By the way, your neighbor's mortgage _is_ your problem. Just watch your property values plummet as soon as there's just one foreclosure on your block.)
> This series of Obama policies, they say, portends tyranny in America. Of course none of the policies of the Bush administration were considered tyrannical by many of the current tea bag leaders. You know the list of Bush trespasses. The illegal searches and seizures, the illegal electronic eavesdropping and torturing. The suspension of habeas corpus, the record deficits, the doubling of the national debt and so on. None of _that_ was tyrannical. But allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent to expire is absolutely the vanguard of totalitarianism.
> So the organizers of the movement have picked up on Santelli's tea party reference and are rebelling against higher taxes for the rich and corporations by purchasing thousands of tea bags and dumping them into various waterways.
> ...


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

I like Tea Partays.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And while Obama breaks all his campaign promises; the media is primarily focused on the one to rescue a dog from a shelter. 

He almost had me on that "we can be out of Iraq within six months" deal he was selling back then too.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Miket61 said:


> Does Obama's stimulus package include a program for people deluded into believing campaign promises? About tax cuts? By a Democrat?





TMMKC said:


> No one is going to be getting any tax cuts when the tab for this stimulus program comes due. You can only squeeze "the rich" so much. Middle class...you're next.


Obama is really wacking me out. In his speech today he said:



O-Bomb said:


> We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity -- a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.


Apparently, to fix the problem of borrowing and spending; we need to borrow and spend ten times what we already borrowed and spent.

And suddenly, I understood why a single Mother struggling to raise a child decides to have five more.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> Does Obama's stimulus package include a program for people deluded into believing campaign promises? About tax cuts? By a Democrat?


Yeah, you may be right. After all, he did inherit a *1.3 trillion dollar deficit *from your boy Georgie....so maybe he cant do it after all.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Apparently, to fix the problem of borrowing and spending; we need to borrow and spend ten times what we already borrowed and spent.


After the last 8 years, you want us to take borrowing and spending advice from republicans? Sure thing. :idea:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> After the last 8 years, you want us to take borrowing and spending advice from republicans? Sure thing. :idea:


Did I say that?

FYI: you are bordering on rabid with your non-responsive adhoms of late. That doesn't appear to be your intent so you might review your tactics. Just a friendly nudge.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, you may be right. After all, he did inherit a *1.3 trillion dollar deficit *from your boy Georgie....so maybe he cant do it after all.


And, of course, Obama didn't know Bush was running deficits when he was making these promises?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Did I say that?
> 
> FYI: you are bordering on rabid with your non-responsive adhoms of late. That doesn't appear to be your intent so you might review your tactics. Just a friendly nudge.


Here we go again.

You said, and I quote "to fix the problem of borrowing and spending; we need to borrow and spend ten times what we already borrowed and spent"

Now since President Obama has been in office less than 100 days.....who's "Problem of borrowing and spending" are you speaking of in the first part of your sentence?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> After the last 8 years, you want us to take borrowing and spending advice from republicans? Sure thing. :idea:


Well then it makes perfect sense to run things into the ground, after all, look at the last 8 years. That sounds like sensible logic to me. Your reply is a non sequitur.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

norton said:


> I'm worried about everything being taxed.


We'll have to pay for everything being taxed,times are really changing.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

i worry that people don't know what 'tea bagging' really means

google it


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

So the argument for more government spending/borrowing/taxing seems to be that since Bush did it its all right. Have I summarized it properly?

There still seem to be some people who think that the major political divide in this country is democrat vs. republican when I believe the divide is statist vs. libertarian.

Fiscal conservatives and conservative leaning civil libertarians didn't like Bush at all and absolutely hated McCain. You can point fingers at Bush and the republicans all you want, but most of the people I met at the tea party would agree with you. The fact that Bush increased the deficit and that congress under Bush was corrupt and spent too much money and gave too many earmarks to their campaign contributors doesn't make it all right for the current administration or congress to do the same by an order of magnitude more.

The problem is that the current budget on top of the various stimulus bills is simply unsustainable for this nation's economy. Add to that that civil libertarians don't like how the money is being spent and the increased concentration of power in Washington.

People who attempt to paint this as a major party partisan issue are missing the whole point and are quite obviously projecting.

I also don't think that there are any leaders or spokes people for this movement, yet. Bloggers like Reynolds and Malkin are supportive, but they're not organizing or coordinating or leading. Santelli didn't start this with his rant, it predated Santelli. He just spread it with that one rant, he was saying what a lot of people were already thinking.

There really are a lot of people out there who hate the direction this government is taking.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> You said, and I quote "to fix the problem of borrowing and spending; we need to borrow and spend ten times what we already borrowed and spent"
> 
> Now since President Obama has been in office less than 100 days.....who's "Problem of borrowing and spending" are you speaking of in the first part of your sentence?


Yes; here we go again.

I said, "Apparently, to fix the problem of borrowing and spending; we need to borrow and spend ten times what we already borrowed and spent. "

So, Obama is telling us that the solution to borrowing and spending that $1 Trillion is to borrow and spend $10 Trillion more. That's an accurate statement. Yes; clearly George Bush and the Republican and Democrat Congresses were the ones who had a problem with borrowing and spending. The people here who you call REPUBLICANS have all decried it.

Our Government, consisting of a Republican President and Democrat Congress, borrowed and Spent $1 Trillion, but we aren't talking about that now. We are talking about whether to let a Democrat President and the same Democrat Congress borrow and spend ANOTHER $10 TRILLION!

And you keep shouting down criticisms of this policy by repeating over and over that Bush also borrowed and spent. Yes; we get it. Thank you. I think we got it before you did, but that's a quibble.

You can't just keep parroting GB spent $1T. That is non-responsive. Well, obviously you can. And probably will. However, we are talking about current policy. The Q: To borrow and spend $10T? It can't be justified because Bush borrowed and spent $1T. Bush was wrong. You need to ask "Move On!" to Move on and tell you what to think about the next wave of spending. Obama-Pelosi is making the same mistake Bush-Pelosi made. If you hated it when the first group did it; certainly you can hate it when the next group makes it 10 times over.


----------



## babycatcher (Apr 6, 2008)

Returning to things sartorial, today's tax day attire:










Bespoke barrel, thrifted braces


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

A good description of the Tea Parties: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html

He says it much better than I could.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

young guy said:


> i worry that people don't know what 'tea bagging' really means
> 
> google it


Glad you brought it up. One of the reasons this movement makes me chuckle.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

*CNBC Asks Santelli to React to Tea Parties: 'I'm Pretty Proud of This'* 
*Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor reporter and taxpayer tea party revolt inspiration calls movement 'about as American as it gets.'*

https://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090415092104.aspx


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> You can't just keep parroting GB spent $1T. That is non-responsive. Well, obviously you can. And probably will. However, we are talking about current policy. The Q: To borrow and spend $10T? It can't be justified because Bush borrowed and spent $1T. Bush was wrong. You need to ask "Move On!" to Move on and tell you what to think about the next wave of spending. Obama-Pelosi is making the same mistake Bush-Pelosi made. If you hated it when the first group did it; certainly you can hate it when the next group makes it 10 times over.


Republicans controlled congress for 12 or the last 14 years, and both the white house and congress for 6 of those - yet you still insist on trying to say that the largest deficit in history was run up under Bush/Pelosi? Lets see, 6/8 = 75%. So 75% of the time that deficit was being blown through the roof, it was President Bush and his congress at the helm....so lets try and be fair here, Pelosi and Reed deserve about 1/4 of the blame.

As for the rest, here is a very simple analogy. When you have a hole in your roof and you ignore it, it grows over time. After 8 years of ignoring it, that hole would certainly be alot bigger than it was to start - and when the next owner shows up, it is going to cost him a lot more to fix the hole than it would have if you had adressed it when it first happened.

President Obama walked into office with a big mess on his desk left by your boy Georgie - a mess than the leaders on the right allowed to fester. For 8 years, while your party principals were being ripped apart by George Bush, your party leaders DID NOTHING. But now that the Democrats are in power, your party is quick to point out all the thing he is doing wrong.

I am not thrilled with everything President Obama has proposed to this point, and I am not giving him my support unconditionally. But I am willing to give him more than 100 days to turn around the mess he was left with.

And frankly, if I were seeking a counter argument, I wouldnt be looking to the same people that failed us for 12 of the last 14 years for that advice.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> And frankly, if I were seeking a counter argument, I wouldnt be looking to the same people that failed us for 12 of the last 14 years for that advice.


Exactly the point, Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for the mismanagement. Spending needs to be reigned in no matter who is in office and congress needs to be reformed to prevent politicians from directing federal dollars to companies in exchange for campaign donations. If you agree to those principals you need to make your voice heard by your elected representatives and vote in a manner consistent with those principles, regardless of party.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

norton said:


> A good description of the Tea Parties: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html
> 
> He says it much better than I could.


Good article. I wish I cold attend the one in ATL today.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Republicans controlled congress for 12 or the last 14 years, and both the white house and congress for 6 of those - yet you still insist on trying to say that the largest deficit in history was run up under Bush/Pelosi? Lets see, 6/8 = 75%. So 75% of the time that deficit was being blown through the roof, it was President Bush and his congress at the helm....so lets try and be fair here, Pelosi and Reed deserve about 1/4 of the blame.
> 
> As for the rest, here is a very simple analogy. When you have a hole in your roof and you ignore it, it grows over time. After 8 years of ignoring it, that hole would certainly be alot bigger than it was to start - and when the next owner shows up, it is going to cost him a lot more to fix the hole than it would have if you had adressed it when it first happened.
> 
> ...


Nice try, but you continue to be un-responsive. You aren't debating the points actually being presented to you; you are debating some imaginary points or something you were told on HuffPo that Conservatives believe.

Evidence: Georgie is not my boy. And the $1 Trillion was not accumulated evenly over the 8 years. The $1 Trillion in question was borrowed in the fall of 2008. We are clearly talking about The Bailouts and The Stimulus. That was Bush-Pelosi. Remember there were 0 & 3 Republican votes for it? Try to focus.

The counter-argument is: DON'T BORROW AND SPEND $10 TRILLION TO MAKE UP FOR A $1 TRILLION MISTAKE IN BORROWING. You are the one dodging the math and the counter-argument here; not me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> Exactly the point, Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for the mismanagement. Spending needs to be reigned in no matter who is in office and congress needs to be reformed to prevent politicians from directing federal dollars to companies in exchange for campaign donations. If you agree to those principals you need to make your voice heard by your elected representatives and vote in a manner consistent with those principles, regardless of party.


I agree with you, but I think it's impossible because no one will hear that "republicans and democrats alike are responsible" aka GOVERNMENT.

A lot of Republicans are suckers and they will "go first" an agree to that and the Dems hear "yes; see here's a fair-minded Republican that can admit it was the Republicans." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

young guy said:


> i worry that people don't know what 'tea bagging' really means
> 
> google it





TMMKC said:


> Glad you brought it up. One of the reasons this movement makes me chuckle.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The counter-argument is: DON'T BORROW AND SPEND $10 TRILLION TO MAKE UP FOR A $1 TRILLION MISTAKE IN BORROWING. You are the one dodging the math and the counter-argument here; not me.


I dont disagree with your comment in principal, but there is a pretty clear consensus across party lines that it is going to take money to get the economy back on track.

If President Obama's stimulus package gets the economy back on track, and he then rolls back the spending to reasonable levels....it will be a winning strategy. If he gets the economy moving and continues spending at these massive levels, or worse if his stimulus fails completely - then obviously he will pay the political price.

I understand why people are upset at the growing size of government. But when I heard those criticisms from republicans, who sat on their hands while GW grew his government to massive levels, I just cant take them seriously.

You have to walk the walk when you are in charge as well...not just when you lose miserably in back to back elections.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I dont disagree with your comment in principal, but there is a pretty clear consensus across party lines that it is going to take money to get the economy back on track.
> 
> If President Obama's stimulus package gets the economy back on track, and he then rolls back the spending to reasonable levels....it will be a winning strategy. If he gets the economy moving and continues spending at these massive levels, or worse if his stimulus fails completely - then obviously he will pay the political price.
> 
> ...


Well, thanks for that! 

However, being an avid amateur economist; LOL! I reject that is the consensus by thinking people. I think that's a consensus of the herd which largely can't define basic terms like Inflation or Recession. But it's not important to win that debate. The consensus I read among economists even Keynesians is that the political agenda is being put before the economic good. Even THE ECONOMIST has had several articles arguing that Obama-Pelosi are going to far and that G20/G2 are telling them so and they won't listen to reasonable advice.

Certainly the economy *will* get back on track; perhaps in spite of the debt load of the Stimulus, Bailouts, and Obama's Budget. I have previously stated that I think Presidents have less to do with the economy than many accept. It's a question of can he kill American Entreprenuership. Many of us fear he can, but want to believe even HE cannot. We will all learn the truth together; won't we?

Again; I must ask you to hold yourself to some level of accountability; Who in fact are these Republicans? And what does sitting on their hands mean "in real terms?"

I voted against W in primaries. I voted against McCain in primaries. I even gave money to their opponents. You should hear some of the phone calls I make to my representatives or the responses I give when the RNC calls my home asking me for "support." I've called the WH begging Obama to LEAD the Pelosi's and Reid's to the center; for instance to veto the earmarked bills.

I kept Romney's PAC on the phone for 20 minutes just the other day ... They dared ask me, "Mitt want's to know why you won't join him and stand for a free and strong America when you were such a committed supporter of his in the past election?"

I believe they thought that was rhetorical question. I'm really not sure what they thought, but I'm sure you've noticed I have a pet peeve for people who try to tell me what I'm doing, not doing, thinking, not thinking, believe or don't believe.

She tried to get away from the conversation and I said "No. You're spending the money I sent you in the first place to call me and ask for more money so you're going to listen to me."
Sit on their hands. The nerve of *you.ic12337:*


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> I dont disagree with your comment in principal, but there is a pretty clear consensus across party lines that it is going to take money to get the economy back on track.


First, I see no reason to trust to consensus.

Second I don't think there is such a consensus.

The recession was started by high oil prices. Remember last summer? As the economy slowed down people who were overextended had to stop making new purchases and had trouble paying their debt. This caused the economy to slow further, bursting the real estate bubble and the ended up totally freezing up the credit markets. Its much more complicated, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

Recessions happen periodically and once the imbalances in the economy are cleared the economy can start growing again. Normally, the fall in oil prices and the clearing of the credit markets would be enough to get the economy started again. That's not to say it wouldn't be painful for some, but it wouldn't be indefinitely prolonged either. Since September the government has probably been prolonging this recession by their interference in the markets and their lack of clear direction. People are afraid to make economic decisions because they don't know what Washington is going to do next.

If Washington would simply provide liquidity for the credit markets, let some companies fail and get the hell out of the way people and business would get on with producing and consuming and the economy would pick up. Government doesn't actually produce anything tangible and does not have a very successful history of interfering in the marketplace.

The long term issue is that the *massive* amount of debt the government is taking on will have to be repaid someway, either by reducing future consumption or by inflating the currency or some combination of the two. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Again; I must ask you to hold yourself to some level of accountability; Who in fact are these Republicans? And what does sitting on their hands mean "in real terms?"


The party leadership in congress obviously. The same people that are trying to sell this sense of "outrage" over President Obama's spending, but said absolutely nothing as Bush took the surplus that Clinton created and made it into a deficit. Bush never vetoed a single Republican Congressional spending bill. All of a sudden those same people who rammed through massive spending bill after massive spending bill are now outraged at big spending.

Now those same people are also 100% against the stimulus and doing everything in their power to undermined the POTUS and his policies. To me this is absolute suicide for the republican party. If the stimulus does help to turn around the economy, the republicans wont be able to take ANY of the credit for it. And if it fails to get things moving, they will be seen as the party that was banking on the country contining to fail. Either strategy is not well considered and sure to be a loser in the next election.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> The party leadership in congress obviously. The same people that are trying to sell this sense of "outrage" over President Obama's spending, but said absolutely nothing as Bush took the surplus that Clinton created and made it into a deficit. Bush never vetoed a single Republican Congressional spending bill. All of a sudden those same people who rammed through massive spending bill after massive spending bill are now outraged at big spending.
> 
> Now those same people are also 100% against the stimulus and doing everything in their power to undermined the POTUS and his policies. To me this is absolute suicide for the republican party. If the stimulus does help to turn around the economy, the republicans wont be able to take ANY of the credit for it. And if it fails to get things moving, they will be seen as the party that was banking on the country contining to fail. Either strategy is not well considered and sure to be a loser in the next election.


Excuse me, but that's factually incorrect. And again you can't name any names.

The party leadership in the House changed from Hastert; then it changed again except for the one guy who was saying something - Boehner. And the leader in the Senate during those years was Frist not McConnell.

Do you not have Cable? What's the problem for you in making a factual argument and leaving the emotional talking points at the figurative door? You have no idea who guys like Cantor and Ryan are?

Growing debt from 10% of GDP to 100% of GDP is not "change" it's "much, much more of the same."

You don't have an opinion with which I disagree; your basic facts are completely wrong. Why are you still living in a pre-2006 world? At the very least have a differing opinion on correct facts! Please! I beg you!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Excuse me, but that's factually incorrect. And again you can't name any names.
> 
> The party leadership in the House changed from Hastert; then it changed again except for the one guy who was saying something - Boehner. And the leader in the Senate during those years was Frist not McConnell.
> 
> ...


The funny thing is people still think spending and going further into debt somehow helps the economy. The problem is there is no such thing as a free lunch.

You can't make something from nothing. All that money being spent had to come from somewhere, and it won't magically get infused into the economy at 1:1 rate. I doubt the government's efficiency even hits 20%.

There has been only one President in which we have had no national debt - Andrew Jackson. This was because he didn't spend money we didn't have. You can't somehow save the economy by spending your way out of it. It has never worked, but I guess as the saying goes about not knowing history..


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I went to my local TP.

Thank you all for paying your taxes so I don't have to.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Ksinc

We always come back to this point. The point where you try and deflect the republican party from taking their fair share of the blame.

It makes no difference if the Speaker of the House or the leader in the senate is different, the vast majority of the republican leadership has been in DC for many years. You can claim they are different, but that is clearly wrong...it is just a reshuffling of the same basic deck of cards. Cantor was there. Boehner was there. So was nearly every other republican of any rank in the party.

Eric Cantor voted with the majority of his Republican colleagues 92.5% of the time during the current Congress and 93% of the time in the 110th congress. He was front and center for all of President Bush's big spending budgets...those same budgets that drove our country deep and deeper into debt.

When you say Ryan, I assume you mean Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, not Tim Ryan the democrat from Ohio. Ryan is another poster boy for the do as I say, not as I do camp. He voted repeatedly with President Bush on disastrous budgets full of bloated spending....yet recently he has come to see the light...LOL.

Republicans have ZERO credibility of the subject of balanced budgets and lowering the national debt. So it comes as no surprise to me that no one is listening to their latest smoke screen.

BTW...we dont have cable in Boston, so if you could keep me updated with the latest happenings on Fox News, it would be appreciated. :idea:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Ksinc
> 
> We always come back to this point. The point where you try and deflect the republican party from taking their fair share of the blame.


That's not true, but thanks for confirming your refusal to debate honestly. You keep trying to make this claim, but it is a fantasy of your own creation. I have no love for the Republican Party. You're dreaming again of slaying imaginary dragons Sir Lancelot. Perhaps you have me confused with someone you debate on HuffPo?

BTW, I watch CNBC, but was referring to CNN I think they know Cantor and Ryan made leadership in the last six months even if you don't.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I kept Romney's PAC on the phone for 20 minutes just the other day ... They dared ask me, "Mitt want's to know why you won't join him and stand for a free and strong America when you were such a committed supporter of his in the past election?"
> 
> I believe they thought that was rhetorical question. I'm really not sure what they thought, but I'm sure you've noticed I have a pet peeve for people who try to tell me what I'm doing, not doing, thinking, not thinking, believe or don't believe.
> 
> ...


I don't know, she's just doing her job. Was it really warranted? As they say, "Don't kill the messenger."

She's probably prepared with a few catchphrases like that for various groups of possible voters, some talking points, and that's it. If I were her, I would have just hung up after a bit since it'd be very obvious by then you won't support him. I've done phone banking before as a volunteer and, well, there's a certain time where you just have to say, "Thank you for your time and have a great day!" and let it go. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

Gentlemen,
How do you finance two wars without raising taxes? I think if we agree to have a government taxes as inevitable. You want good school, roads, defense etc etc, the major source of money to the government is tax and that you'll pay.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Xhine23 said:


> Gentlemen,
> How do you finance two wars without raising taxes? I think if we agree to have a government taxes as inevitable. You want good school, roads, defense etc etc, the major source of money to the government is tax and that you'll pay.


The issue isn't paying for two wars, schools and roads. Even if you don't approve of the wars you would probably agree that national defense is a function of government. Interstate transportation is likewise a function of the federal government. Constitutionally speaking, education is not a function of the federal government. Look at how your tax dollars are spent though:









23% for national defense and foreign affairs and veterans affairs
9% for physical, human and community development (includes roads)
2% for law enforcement and federal government

but
19% for social programs
9% interest on debt (at current levels)
38% social security, medicare and other retirement (at current levels)

Now look at the proposed deficits:









What happens over the next ten years as interest on the debt balloons and baby boomers enter retirement? Are we going to cut back on national defense and roads to pay for the increased retirement and interest or are we going to further increase taxes? We can't keep borrowing indefinitely.

Again, the money has to come from somewhere. We will have to decrease future consumption, both as individuals and as a nation, and I suspect the government will allow inflation to increase, leading to a host of other problems.

Everyone needs to quit thinking partisanly and just listening to sound bites and reading uneducated rants. Look at the issues in some depth and apply some critical thinking skills. Come to your own conclusions.

source for the first graph is from the rear of the 1040 instructions published by the IRS. Its suprisingly difficult to get more detailed information in an easily understood format from official sources.

The second graph is as labeled, the white house and the congressional budget office deficit forecasts. Note those are annual deficits, the total deficit will be the sum of each year.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> I don't know, she's just doing her job. Was it really warranted? As they say, "Don't kill the messenger."
> 
> She's probably prepared with a few catchphrases like that for various groups of possible voters, some talking points, and that's it. If I were her, I would have just hung up after a bit since it'd be very obvious by then you won't support him. I've done phone banking before as a volunteer and, well, there's a certain time where you just have to say, "Thank you for your time and have a great day!" and let it go. :icon_smile_big:


That's what you do in your home. That's fair enough to me.

Just don't call my home and make insinuations. Fair enough for you? It's my home. You voluntarily decide to bother me; I'll bother you back.

Cold-calling people begging for money is not a virtuous endeavor in my opinion. She should go get a job.

She wouldn't have to hear my opinion if she didn't call my home uninvited. It's her tuff luck.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> The second graph is as labeled, the white house and the congressional budget office deficit forecasts. Note those are annual deficits, the total deficit will be the sum of each year.


So, the WH numbers are less conservative than the CBO numbers ... but ... I thought ... Obama promised to use CBO numbers?! Perhaps he is using the _*consensus*_ numbers. :devil:


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

Conservatives don't do very well at protesting. First problem is one of the basis of this "protest" is the federal income tax rates, well, that issue isn't going to likely resonate with the 40% of Americans who pay no federal income tax. Second problem is your teachers and professors are highly unlikely to give any "extra credit" to attend this protest vs. say a support homosexual marriage or abortion or "civil rights" protest, that's going to cut into a large chunk of any protest, i.e. "young people". Finally, if you are going to get into the tens of thousands in terms of protestors, some financial renumeration is very important. The opportunity to supplement, if not BE, the only income one is going to get that day is a mighty strong stimulus to go out and protest, even if you don't know what in the heck you are protesting for! You still count!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

That about sums it up. Conservatives don't protest because we have to, you know, work. Especially when we spend at least a third of our time working so we can pay taxes to feed and clothe the liberal base. That said, I got to the local "tea party" about 45 minutes after it started, and the turnout was very impressive.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Interesting how regular people are diminished and swept aside by the liberal elites in this country.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Interesting how regular people are diminished and swept aside by the liberal elites in this country.


Really. It's amazing how they all think they are clever for coming up with the "tea bag" joke. (I spent a lot of time of stages making wise cracks, but would have rejected that one for being too obvious and stale.)


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Interesting how regular people are diminished and swept aside by the liberal elites in this country.


If you weren't anti-CNN before that, how could you not be afterward?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Another day, another far-right-wing-extremist shouting down a fair-minded journalist :devil:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Citizens complaining about other citizens protesting against government actions? Hardly new and barely interesting. The anti-war, anti-Bush protesters were derided as people who were not "real Americans," told that they were anti-government and all that same rot. Why should the criticism about today's protests be any different? 

Americans have always been patriotically proud of their federal government even when it seems to be going off the rails. Among many people here there is a visceral dislike of others that actually go out on the street and say things against the government. To speak privately of such things is fine but to make a fuss in public? 

(Viewer Discretion Advised: This post contains generalizations which are potentially just as inane as all the preceding generalizations in this thread.  )


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> ...It's a little difficult to launch a populist groundswell when your ranks are primarily made up of white, upper middle class men....


:icon_smile: It's certainly the way long-time political cartoonist Pat Oliphant sees it:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

https://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4946766.shtml

How has Obama come close to proposing a simpler tax code?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Good article. I wish I cold attend the one in ATL today.


I wish I could have attended the one in Charlotte. A good friend works for Mike Huckabee, but my schedule and the governor's have never quite coincided for me to meet him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4946766.shtml
> 
> How has Obama come close to proposing a simpler tax code?


It says he "called" for it; not that he "proposed" one. You were expecting something tangible? 



> "We need to simplify a monstrous tax code that is far too complicated for most Americans to understand, but just complicated enough for the insiders who know how to work the system," he said. "It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes. But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest. And we will make it quicker, easier and less expensive for you to file a return."


Technically, if he "puts [my] interests over any special interest" doesn't that mean he's calling for the complete elimination of the tax code?

I really preferred the guy that said something really stupid when he misspoke, and that everyone knew was stupid, to this guy - who says something really stupid when he doesn't misspeak, and that not everyone knows is stupid. And I was never really a fan of the previous misspeaker before, but in retrospect he isn't as stupid as stupid thinks he was.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The Atlanta turnout was north of 15k. The people there were thinking more along the libertarian-statist axis than the usual broken frames. The crowd was somewhat, but not totally pro-Republican (I don't think Bush was mentioned once), but no one said anything good about the Democrats.

Lots of creative dress and signs in the crowd. I don't do a lot of retail politics, but this had the feel of a groundswell. Packed streets on a weeknight till 10pm with it in the low 50s and a good 5-10 mph wind doesn't happen everyday.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I wish I could have attended the one here in Madison, but class called.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Here's a good report of the Washington Tea Party. https://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dc-tea-party-republicans-should-not-be-rejoicing-quite-yet/

Apparently there were 15,000 at the one in Atlanta.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

*pics from Atlanta Tea Party*


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Though this movement captures a lot of the fury I feel over the hell our government is foisting on us, I have yet to decide if it has legs and if it's something I'd personally join. I do find it incredibly annoying how snide and dismissive the media is in covering it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Though this movement captures a lot of the fury I feel over the hell our government is foisting on us, I have yet to decide if it has legs and if it's something I'd personally join. I do find it incredibly annoying how snide and dismissive the media is in covering it.


Yes; that is annoying. Combined with the DHS story I'm surprised they didn't call out the JBT squads to disband the protests!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

norton said:


> The issue isn't paying for two wars, schools and roads. Even if you don't approve of the wars you would probably agree that national defense is a function of government. Interstate transportation is likewise a function of the federal government. Constitutionally speaking, education is not a function of the federal government. Look at how your tax dollars are spent though:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great post. You are right, people need to move beyond partisan positions- both parties are responsible.

There is one point that I don't think anyone has mentioned so far. More and more of our debt financing is coming from money borrowed from foreign countries. China has become a major buyer of US debt in the last few years. The more dependent we become on foreign countries to finance our spending, the more limited we are in our foreign policy options. If the Chinese (and other countries) refuse to keep purchasing US debt, the whole house of cards will collapse. It's really beyond the point of debate- we need to cut spending and begin paying down the debt.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Can anyone explain or defend why we have employment and self-employment taxes? It seems horribly regressive to me; basically a penalty for giving someone a job or making money for yourself.


Self-employment taxes are basically FICA/Medicare/Social Security taxes for the self-employed as opposed to employees. The tax on employees is borne one-half by the employer and the other half by the employee via withholding. Basically, they are used to fund social security. The taxes can be seen as regressive if not viewed in light of the corresponding payouts, but viewing such taxes apart from payouts is not very sensible. The system is a type of defined benefit plan with a "welfare" twist. Basically, what one receives is an imperfect function of what one pays in based on various actuarial assuptions. The welfare component is best understood when one realizes that a person who pays 50% of the maximum in over 30 years will get 85% of what a person who pays 100% of the maximum in over 30 years. Thus lower income earners secure a better return. But the bottom line is that these taxes are simply forced contributions (savings) into a government designed and operated defined benefit plan. Calling the tax regressive is fair only if one chooses to evaluate it as unrelated to the payout that it funds. That said, it is not as progressive as the income tax. An easy way to make it that progressive would be to either need-test payouts or uncap the tax base. Either one of those changes would effectively convert the system from a defined benefit plan with a welfare component to a welfare plan with a defined benefit component. The Dems would like to do this, but fear such a conversion would result in diminished support from the middle class. I could go on, but won't.

Regarding "employment" taxes, I'm not exactly sure what you mean since that term lacks a formal definition, at least among tax lawyers. Are you talking about income tax withholding? Unemployment insurance withholding? Workers compensation? FICA/Medicare/Social Security? If you mean FICA/Medicare/Social Security, then the explanation above applies; if income tax withholding, then that is simply a withholding mechanism that enforces income tax payments that are actually very progressive; if any of the others, then those are insurance payments designed to cover the employees who pay in. Hope that helps.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> :icon_smile: It's certainly the way long-time political cartoonist Pat Oliphant sees it:


Oliphant is a funny guy, but he has no idea what he is drawing about. None. If one views the TEA Party as an initiative composed of the wealthy and powerful, then one simply is clueless, absolutely clueless.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Oliphant is a funny guy, but he has not idea what he is drawing about. None. If one views the TEA Party as an initiative composed of the wealthy and powerful, then one simply is clueless, absolutely clueless.


Seeming cluelessness can certainly can be a funny thing when it's possessed or drawn by someone else. However, I think since the cartoon starts out with a borrowed phrase from Spiro Agnew and finishes with a tiny quote from Freud I'm not sure, even for Mr. Oliphant, of what view he has in this matter. :icon_smile:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Oliphant is a funny guy, but he has not idea what he is drawing about. None. If one views the TEA Party as an initiative composed of the wealthy and powerful, then one simply is clueless, absolutely clueless.


The event was manufactured by Fox News, Dick Armey's "Freedom Works," and a few other big names in the right-wing establishment. The timeline shows the progression, including Rick Santelli's manufactured "rage" at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange - 6 months AFTER the registration of the ChicagoTeaParty.com web site.

The event was promoted heavily by Fox News, via both their news and entertainment branches.

With its top-down financing and planning, it can only be described as an astroturf movement.

If what you mean is that the thousands of people who turned out are not the wealthy and powerful, you're right. If you mean the puppet masters, you're dead wrong.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

Just to change the focus a bit.

What do you think a fair tax system would look like? Or do you favor the current system?

I'd like to see a flat tax, with the first 35,000 tax free. But after that no deductions - the rich and the middle class get far too many deductions. I am not sure what I would do about charitable deductions but I sense I would want to keep them.

What are your thoughts, as I wonder what someone from a left perspective would think is fair.

Karl


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

*two things*

Just to clarify one term in Mike Petrik's post: progressive when used to describe a taxation/benefits system simply means more of the cost is borne by the higher paid. It is not an ideological/political term in such usage.

In computer terms, that's referred to as overloading an operator (giving a character multiple functional definitions - like an '*' meaning anything in a search context, or multiplication in a numerical expression, or an indication that a variable is a pointer ... ). In this case overloading a term.

Sorry to get so pedantic, but part of being an information junkie is trying to get it right.

Which leads me to thing #2: I saw the bit where Nancy Pelosi said it was astroturf and I see that Jack is on the talking points.

I rode from S1 to N6 on a train full of people from the rally and if you think those people I saw were paid protesters you're simply delusional.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

young guy said:


> i worry that people don't know what 'tea bagging' really means
> 
> google it


It's a sexual term.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Tea parties, how productive.

Obama's working his ass off trying to get the country back on track after the 8-year derailment and the best you can come up with is tea parties? Thanks for all your swell bi-partisan help. ​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Tea parties, how productive.
> 
> Obama's working his ass off trying to get the country back on track after the 8-year derailment and the best you can come up with is tea parties? Thanks for all your swell bi-partisan help. ​


:aportnoy:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

radix023 said:


> Just to clarify one term in Mike Petrik's post: progressive when used to describe a taxation/benefits system simply means more of the cost is borne by the higher paid. It is not an ideological/political term in such usage.


Quite right. While "progressives" often favor more "progressive" taxation, the similar terminology is a linguistic coincidence. In tax parlance it refers to levies whose burden increases with ability to pay. The income tax is the easiest example. Income is used as the measure of ability to pay (of course it is imperfect no matter how measured, but that is another discussion), and graduated rates are applied with the goal of ensuring progressivity. In order to evaluate progressivity one must first agree on the appropriate base. Wealth? Consumption? Income? Each has advantages and disadvantages, but wealth and income are generally considered superior measures of ability to pay than consumption, but of course that is only one yardstick by which taxes are evaluated. Consumption also correlates to ability to pay, though the correlation is weaker, but a tax on consumption has other economic advantages. For instance a graduated consumption tax (think an income tax that allows a deduction for all additions to savings and taxes all withdrawals from savings) would actually be neutral as to a taxpayer's choice to save or consume, something the income tax is not (by taxing the income from savings it disfavors savings). The notion that there is a perfect tax is a myth.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

radix023 said:


> ...
> Sorry to get so pedantic, but part of being an information junkie is trying to get it right.


Excellent! Then you can get this one right:



> ...Which leads me to thing #2: I saw the bit where Nancy Pelosi said it was astroturf and I see that Jack is on the talking points....


"Astroturf lobbying," "astroturf movement" and other uses of "astroturf" in this context were coined in the early 80's by then Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. It is a well-known phrase for those who follow politics, especially the particularly jolly kind where an event is funded by the well-heeled with a very, very specific agenda and despite the odds with such things, regular people not only buy in but also show up.

My hat is off to the organizers for pulling off such a thing. Fake populism is getting more and more difficult since the advent of our information age.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> The event was manufactured by Fox News, Dick Armey's "Freedom Works," and a few other big names in the right-wing establishment. The timeline shows the progression, including Rick Santelli's manufactured "rage" at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange - 6 months AFTER the registration of the ChicagoTeaParty.com web site.
> 
> The event was promoted heavily by Fox News, via both their news and entertainment branches.
> 
> ...


First off, I don't watch fox news, or any network news for that matter, so I don't know how heavily it was covered. I say covered because I suspect that the coverage only seemed like promotion due to the total lack of coverage from other sources. Calling it promotion would be like saying CNN or the New York Times promoted Cindy Sheehan's protest in Crawford.

I'm curious about the financing to which you're refering? Do you have any specifics? I didn't see anything at the one I attended that looked like it cost money. Signs were mostly homemade, although some were downloaded from the internet. I didn't see two examples of any one sign. The sound system was a rather weak bullhorn.

It's curious that for events promoted by the national GOP republican politicians were not allowed to speak and the republicans were put down almost as much as the democrats.

I think you need to broaden you're information sources. Remember when questioning authority was cool? Do some thinking for yourself.



Peak and Pine said:


> Tea parties, how productive.
> 
> Obama's working his ass off trying to get the country back on track after the 8-year derailment and the best you can come up with is tea parties? Thanks for all your swell bi-partisan help. ​


In any case, regardless of the source of the tea parties, are you saying that you think its a good idea to increase the deficit to 80% of GNP? Do you really think that the politicians in Washington are so much smarter and more benevolent than the other 300 million odd people in the U.S.? Your confident that they'll take care of us? That President Obama knows exactly what he's doing and is working so hard and he'll fix this if only those mean republicans cooperate with him?

Are you people even sentient?


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Quay said:


> Excellent! Then you can get this one right:
> 
> "Astroturf lobbying," "astroturf movement" and other uses of "astroturf" in this context were coined in the early 80's by then Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. It is a well-known phrase for those who follow politics, especially the particularly jolly kind where an event is funded by the well-heeled with a very, very specific agenda and despite the odds with such things, regular people not only buy in but also show up.
> 
> My hat is off to the organizers for pulling off such a thing. Fake populism is getting more and more difficult since the advent of our information age.


I'm not sure the term has such specific meaning in current parlance, the connotation I was using was 'fake grassroots'. The examples I've come across have included paid protestors/activists (ala ACORN) almost as a rule and that was why I said what I did.

Even if I accept your definition, it still doesn't fit because it wasn't a "very, very specific agenda". Mainly people were mad about unfettered, heedless, wasteful and even partisan government spending and expansion of government, debt, and corruption as a consequence. It's about control much more than the money. However, there were local politicians, the fairtax people were well represented, there were even pot legalization people. The characterization of it as primarily anti-tax is not consonant with my interactions and observations on site.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

radix023 said:


> ...Even if I accept your definition, it still doesn't fit because it wasn't a "very, very specific agenda". ....


A very, very specific agenda can have many, many items on it. :icon_smile:

I found it interesting that in San Francisco (a city in a culturally diverse metropolitan area where over a hundred languages other than English are the primary ones in many a household) the tea party people that showed up were almost exclusively suburban white men and women. For San Francisco, that is really an unusual happening.

I also found it splendidly silly that people with "Obama is a Socialist" signs complete with hammer and sickle were standing next to people with swastika-ed signs that read "Stop the Fascist Government." :biggrin2:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Quay said:


> I also found it splendidly silly that people with "Obama is a Socialist" signs complete with hammer and sickle were standing next to people with swastika-ed signs that read "Stop the Fascist Government." :biggrin2:


LOL, yeah, there's no way a socialist could be fascist. No way, no how.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Quite right. While "progressives" often favor more "progressive" taxation, the similar terminology is a linguistic coincidence. In tax parlance it refers to levies whose burden increases with ability to pay. The income tax is the easiest example. Income is used as the measure of ability to pay (of course it is imperfect no matter how measured, but that is another discussion), and graduated rates are applied with the goal of ensuring progressivity. In order to evaluate progressivity one must first agree on the appropriate base. Wealth? Consumption? Income? Each has advantages and disadvantages, but wealth and income are generally considered superior measures of ability to pay than consumption, but of course that is only one yardstick by which taxes are evaluated. Consumption also correlates to ability to pay, though the correlation is weaker, but a tax on consumption has other economic advantages. For instance a graduated consumption tax (think an income tax that allows a deduction for all additions to savings and taxes all withdrawals from savings) would actually be neutral as to a taxpayer's choice to save or consume, something the income tax is not (by taxing the income from savings it disfavors savings). The notion that there is a perfect tax is a myth.


Taxing somebodies wealth would require them to sell some of their wealth to pay the tax, and next time they would be less wealthy and have to sell less to pay less taxes until there is nothing left. Income only taxes profit. Both these kinds of taxes and some others are anti-American, because, government has no right to be involved in our personal private lives as it is now.

Another way to tax is by sales tax. This is a better way to tax. Gov. is not investigating my personl life, which it has no right to be doing, if I'm not doing crime. Another reason is criminals don't pay tax on lots of money into the billions. That is a lot of unpaid tax. This unpaid tax is unfair to the rest of us. And, if doesn't work for business write offs, then those that make the most won't have a way out of paying tax.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Astroturf, what a way for the Democrats to try and nip something in the bud, to put an end to it. The weak are minipulated by words like that and other Democrat slogans.

The first two years of Clinton the Democrats had much opportunity to be responsible with the tax payers money. The last six years of Clintons reign, with the Republicans running both houses, the Republicans balanced the budget, or paid up. The Republicans ruined their name with Bush, and the Democrats are still the same- ruined, when it comes to taxes. So Clinton doesn't get the credit for what Newt Gingrich did.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

WA said:


> Taxing somebodies wealth would require them to sell some of their wealth to pay the tax, and next time they would be less wealthy and have to sell less to pay less taxes until there is nothing left. Income only taxes profit. Both these kinds of taxes and some others are anti-American, because, government has no right to be involved in our personal private lives as it is now.
> 
> Another way to tax is by sales tax. This is a better way to tax. Gov. is not investigating my personl life, which it has no right to be doing, if I'm not doing crime. Another reason is criminals don't pay tax on lots of money into the billions. That is a lot of unpaid tax. This unpaid tax is unfair to the rest of us. And, if doesn't work for business write offs, then those that make the most won't have a way out of paying tax.


I agree on the sales tax idea. I like the Fairtax, as it captures the gray market (when the coke dealer buys a new Mercedes he pays the tax) and it gets the government out of your paycheck (the first dollar of your paycheck actually goes to you).

However, if you go back to Tocqueville, the inheritance tax is lauded because it broke up large landholdings and gave entrepreneurs the opportunity to acquire land. I think the precept of taxing wealth (that's also your itemized tax writeoffs: property tax on your home and automobiles) has been around since the beginning of the country.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

The problem with a sales tax is that it can be manipulated the way the GAT has in Europe. First, you include it in the price of an item so consumers don't know how much they're paying and then you slowly increase it. Taxpayers tend not to notice small increases over time. You end up paying more than you ever would have agreed to initially. 

Another problem is that while many of us think of taxes as a way to raise revenue, that is no longer the primary way it is thought of in Washington. Taxes are about modifying behavior, or control, or a way to do favors in return for campaign contributions or redistribution. That is why our tax code has become so byzantine. (disclaimer: I'm a CPA specializing in tax planning and investment management) Congress will fight a simple tax code tooth and nail because it reduces their power.

Why is so much tax money collected by the federal government only to be returned to state or local government? Because the individual spending programs are such a small part of the federal budget that they're not even noticed. If those very same taxes were voted on at the state or local level they would never pass. By having the federal government do it they are able to effectively bypass the voters.

Before the current administration I felt there was no need for a balanced budget amendment and that the way to control government spending was to control government revenue, keep fighting for lower taxes. Now I'm not so sure.

My proposal would be that we pass a constitutional amendment that only one kind of tax is allowed and that the rate cannot exceed a fixed amount. Remember, until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 the income tax was consistently found to be unconstitutional. 

My preference would be that the tax be the personal income tax and that the rate cannot exceed 10% of gross income. We would in effect tithe to the federal government. Congress could put all the deductions or loopholes they want into the tax code, but no person could be forced to pay more than 10% of their income. If George Soros wanted to donate money to the Treasury he would still be allowed to do that.

This would also affect social security tax, medicare tax and self employment tax, which currently is at 15.3% of income up to $106,800, so you can see the federal government would have some serious adjustments to make.

Much of the federal tax burden would shift to the states, and thats o.k. We can vote at the state level for the services for which we are willing to pay. If we disagree with the state tax burden we could move. States would be forced to compete for business and talent more explicitly than currently.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> LOL, yeah, there's no way a socialist could be fascist. No way, no how.


I assume you're being sarcastic?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm pretty sure he is. I would not think the socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive.

(See, Turkey, we CAN agree on things.)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Federal Budget is too large; this is the primary root cause. 

Debating how the tax revenues are collected is a secondary problem, working on the margins, and having the 'distribution and fairness' discussion the socialists want to have instead of a standard budget discussion they don't want to have. 

Don't argue the payment processor and the banks instead of the business plan and the goals of the organization. 

This is such a sucker's game based on the lack of education in basic organizational design and finance in our highschools. Everyone is going to lead something someday - whether it be a household or a Fortune 100 organization. 

Who would really want them to try and do that with no skills and no tools? The ones that "really care" about people; right? 

This is how we end up hearing statements like "everyone needs and deserves a college education." and we all scratch our heads because we know everyone doesn't. But they do need a college education if that's the ONLY place where we teach basic competencies required to be functioning citizen. We need highschool graduates to be capable of being competent adults without having to learn it in our Military or in our Colleges. Our public schools have a ridiculously light workload and we expect and accept little from them. You want kids to stop doing drugs and joining gangs? Try making highschool more the like the world they are going to face when they get out in it by themselves while you can still monitor and supervise and maybe control and teach them something! Start demanding accountability and results from them NOW instead of having these stoneheads stare at their first boss and say, "Dude, You want me to do all that by myself?"

Who here would start a business and turn to Huckabee or Boortz to write their financial plan? 

Republican & Conservative "Leaders" are really so functionally incompetent sometimes it's really embarrassing. 

Even our people that know better get sucked into the wrong debate. Mike and Norton are correctly answering the wrong question. They know it. I am guilty of this too. It's maddening when you catch yourself being suckered. It's our so-called Leadership that is letting us all down. Flat-tax, Fair-tax, Square-tax ... Marketing! 

Does anyone really think these "Leaders" understand the relationship of Consumption:Saving as well as they themselves do?

I'm sorry, but WTF?!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Quay said:


> "Astroturf lobbying," "astroturf movement" and other uses of "astroturf" in this context were coined in the early 80's by then Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. It is a well-known phrase for those who follow politics, especially the particularly jolly kind where an event is funded by the well-heeled with a very, very specific agenda and despite the odds with such things, regular people not only buy in but also show up.
> 
> My hat is off to the organizers for pulling off such a thing. Fake populism is getting more and more difficult since the advent of our information age.


It's everywhere! It's enough to make you cynical.

By the way, the conservatives had a term for the astroturfing that was orchestrated by the Obama campaign -- "axelturfing," in honor of David Axelrod, campaign manager for Him Who Shall Save Us All With The Power Of His Endless Wisdom and Mighty Righteousness.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Even our people that know better get sucked into the wrong debate. Mike and Norton are correctly answering the wrong question. They know it. I am guilty of this too. It's maddening when you catch yourself being suckered. It's our so-called Leadership that is letting us all down. Flat-tax, Fair-tax, Square-tax ... Marketing!


Some things can't be taught in this format. My goal is to simply get a few people thinking for themselves.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> Some things can't be taught in this format. My goal is to simply get a few people thinking for themselves.


I'm sorry, but I read that and I question it.

#1 It seems harder to get people to think for themselves than to teach basic macro-economics in an online format. I've taught online courses, but making someone think for themselves is not easy in any format once they have been raised in a system that doesn't require that from them.

#2 I think you don't have to teach it; you just have to say it: The size of the government's budget as a percentage of GDP is more important than the method of taxation used to confiscate that portion of GDP. We don't event have to tell them who Milton Friedman is. Just tell them the facts and if they can think for themselves they will.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Jack,
> 
> Just to change the focus a bit.
> 
> ...


It's always a multifarious question, because tax policy serves many goals. Consequently, we will always have conflicting or seemingly contradictory measures.

One snarky way to answer it is that I'd probably be happy with Reagan's tax rates.

Beyond that, I'd like to see:
more progressivity;
no work penalty--i.e. capital gains taxed as regular income;
higher estate taxes, probably including carryover basis;
reduce our reliance at the state and local level on sales and residential property taxes;
eliminate the religious tax exemption, and possibly for other nonprofits;
higher gas taxes;
eliminate the Social Security tax cap.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Astroturf*

Here's a clip. Go ahead and ignore what Keith Olberman says, and look at the clips from Fox.






Or here: https://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/02


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/04/16/garofalo_tea_parties_about_white_power.html

Here's a fun clip, as long as we're sharing jack. Apparently all Republicans, conservatives, etc have a "larger limbic lobe" than "more rational people." And that the tea parties were "racist."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Beyond that, I'd like to see:
> more progressivity;


how much more progressive?












> no work penalty--i.e. capital gains taxed as regular income;


interesting how you automatically call for increasing the capital gains tax instead of lowering the income tax. Wouldn't that also quality as equity?



> higher estate taxes, probably including carryover basis;


Why not just tax all of it? Let those little bastards make their own money!



> reduce our reliance at the state and local level on sales and residential property taxes;


So much for Federalism!



> eliminate the religious tax exemption, and possibly for other nonprofits;


Does that mean you would be ok with prayer in school? Considering how you're advocating the tearing down of "the wall between church and state".



> higher gas taxes;
> eliminate the Social Security tax cap.


eliminate.....social security. Now there's an idea.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> eliminate.....social security. Now there's an idea.


But... but.... but... that's such a sink of unfunded liabilities! We must save it! It is mere trillions in the red....


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

How do the projected budget deficits compare to those seen under President Bush, when the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Single malt Mark said:


> How do the projected budget deficits compare to those seen under President Bush, when the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included?


Don't bother asking. Most posting here will think the money blown in Irag and Aganistan was actually well spent. And you'll get more of those long-winded posts from gas bags like Ksinc and Norton above. But good luck with this.

(I'm guessing from your question that we might be on the same side.)​


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Single malt Mark said:


> How do the projected budget deficits compare to those seen under President Bush, when the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included?


I'll try to keep this short for those with limited attention spans. Here's a link to the congressional budget office's deficit forecast. Remember, these are annual deficits, the total deficit will be cumulative.

https://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> (I'm guessing from your question that we might be on the same side.)​


Please don't insult new members!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Single malt Mark said:


> How do the projected budget deficits compare to those seen under President Bush, when the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included?


In some cases they are the same; in some they are worse; and in some they are much worse. Meaning Deficit % relative to GDP growth/decline.

That's the problem IMHO: most voters whether Republican or Democrat really disliked the last two or four years in particular; so even where things are generally the same as Congress under Bush that is not a good thing. I think if some people would open their ears and hear/understand that Republicans lost largely because of the lack of support from the base because of that and quit saying "Well you liked Bush and the Republican Congress." No; most of us we really didn't like all that new spending.

Congress under Bush really started to color outside the lines; it started with 'Compassionate Conservatism" which most Conservatives decried. We got Medicare Part-D and then it got worse with Republican pork-barrelling because he needed them so bad after Iraq started, and then it got particularly bad the last two years when Bush couldn't really stand up to Pelosi/Reid.

FWIW It seems like Obama can't stand up to them either. I think if Obama would just veto the first earmark bill he would have been set up to do something really fantastic. THIS path is doomed to fail. The math just doesn't work; even with the aggressive numbers of the WH, much less so with the more conservative CBO numbers. Although Obama promised to go by the CBO numbers until that math proved just too hideous.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Now that you undermined McCain, are you REALLY happier with Obama??


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Tea parties, how productive.
> 
> Obama's working his ass off trying to get the country back on track after the 8-year derailment and the best you can come up with is tea parties? Thanks for all your swell bi-partisan help. ​


The Obama administration is leading us down a path to ruin. Republicans do have a viable plan, yet don't have enough votes in Congress to get this ship turned around.

Here's Obama's plan in a nutshell: Promote theories about global warming/climate shift and cripple the energy industry and with it all other U.S. manufacturing. Bow to the King of Saudin Arabia and give a "soul-brother" handshake to Hugu Chavez; thereby, ensuring our dependence on foreign oil. Saddle taxpayers with a humongous debt and create class warfare. Allow the Bush taxcuts to expire, which will also remove the first 10% bracket (under Bush everyone's first $10K of earnings are not taxed). This way everyone pays into the system, yet costs go up and we wind up in hell in this very untidy handbasket.

Dear Obama apologists and supporters wake up to the ruse you have helped create.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Beau said:


> The Obama administration is leading us down a path to ruin. Republicans do have a viable plan, yet don't have enough votes in Congress to get this ship turned around.


Hey, you're talking to yourself. So go ahead, applaud yourself.​


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

norton said:


> I'll try to keep this short for those with limited attention spans. Here's a link to the congressional budget office's deficit forecast. Remember, these are annual deficits, the total deficit will be cumulative.
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014


I'm not certain that the graph includes war costs for the years under President Bush.

Not sure who you're referring to with "limited attention spans". Unfortunately these types of discussions tend to become toxic.

As you probably know, the "total deficit" would be the national debt


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Single malt Mark said:


> Not sure who you're referring to with "limited attention spans". Unfortunately these types of discussions tend to become toxic.


He's referring to me because earlier here I labeled his posts as long-winded, which of course they are.
​


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> He's referring to me because earlier here I labeled his posts as long-winded, which of course they are.
> ​


Not that there's anything wrong with that. The alternative would be to just present my opinion or unsupported factoids.

Here's a link to the underlying historical data for that graph.

It appears to show all revenue and receipts although the totals for debt held by public do not total from year to year. Outlays for major spending categories in table F-5 show 2008 defense spending at 1,132.8 billion. Per this article ( https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm ) the cost of the Iraq war has been $500 billion, or about $100 billion per year. To put that in perspective, the CBO projects the 2009 deficit under Obama's budget to be $1,845 billion and the 2010 deficit to be $1,379. Net interest on the federal debt was just under $250 billion for 2008.

So, regardless of how emotional you feel about the Iraq war, the real cost has been in lives, not dollars. Complaining of an increase of 10% in the defense budget doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

To be clear, total defense spending has risen by more than 10% since Bush took office. It went from 3% of GDP to 4.3%.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hey, you're talking to yourself. So go ahead, applaud yourself.​


Spoken like a true Liberal. Don't debate, just denounce the opposition. Your words mean nothing. Perhaps you might try blatant lying just like Obama.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Beau said:


> The Obama administration is leading us down a path to ruin. Republicans do have a viable plan, *yet don't have enough votes in Congress* to get this ship turned around.


And why don't you have enough votes in Congress? Would it be because the electorate (bless 'em) decided they'd had enough?

Yeah, I believe that's it. We (as a country) aren't interested in your washed up Conservative clap-trap. You brought it upon yourself you know: eight years of embarassing America in the eyes of the world with a President who was so stupid he thinks you and I are currently communicating via the internets.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> And why don't you have enough votes in Congress? Would it be because the electorate (bless 'em) decided they'd had enough?
> 
> Yeah, I believe that's it. We (as a country) aren't interested in your washed up Conservative clap-trap. You brought it upon yourself you know: eight years of embarassing America in the eyes of the world with a President who was so stupid he thinks you and I are currently communicating via the internets.
> ​


Yeah; a President who thinks there are 57 States is clearly much smarter than that guy! :aportnoy:

The constant retorts and labels used by those sharing your uninformed views is merely fulfilling previous predictions. You are marginalizing yourself; not your opponents.

Your chosen defense is that you have surrendered your individual thoughts and are running with the lowest common denominator. Congratulations! You have become that which you pretend to oppose.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Snzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Wake me up please when Olbermann comes on.​


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

ksinc said:


> The constant retorts and labels used by those sharing your uninformed views is merely fulfilling previous predictions. You are marginalizing yourself; not your opponents.
> 
> Your chosen defense is that you have surrendered your individual thoughts and are running with the lowest common denominator. Congratulations! You have become that which you pretend to oppose.


To be fair, constant retorts and labels are used as much by those on the right as on the left. See freerepublic.com, for example.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Single malt Mark said:


> To be fair, constant retorts and labels are used as much by those on the right as on the left. See freerepublic.com, for example.


Ah! The classic 'two wrongs make a right' argument. And an appeal to "fairness" aka 'the search for cosmic justice!' Excellent! :aportnoy:

What would be an issue with my reply to your question; post #103?


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Ah! The classic 'two wrongs make a right' argument. And an appeal to "fairness" aka 'the search for cosmic justice!' Excellent! :aportnoy:
> 
> What would be an issue with my reply to your question; post #103?


Your reply (#103) was excellent and on point, indeed.

Please show me, however, where I stated that two wrongs make a right? I'm simply pointing out that both sides engage in the type of behavior you object to. You do acknowledge that, don't you?

EDIT: To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you were engaging in that type of behavior; I can see how my post could be interpreted that way; I should have been more clear.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Single malt Mark said:


> Your reply (#103) was excellent and on point, indeed.
> 
> Please show me, however, where I stated that two wrongs make a right? I'm simply pointing out that both sides engage in the type of behavior you object to. You do acknowledge that, don't you?
> 
> EDIT: To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you were engaging in that type of behavior; I can see how my post could be interpreted that way; I should have been more clear.


So what's the problem? Just ignore individuals that engage in that type of behavior. Don't read firedog lake or the liberal equivalent, whatever that is. Stick with the issue.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Snzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> 
> Wake me up please when Olbermann comes on.​


While you denounce O'Reilly? I mean aren't they the same with opposite political view points?

I watched about 10 minutes of him the other day, and I must say, he is neither funny nor witty.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Single malt Mark said:


> Your reply (#103) was excellent and on point, indeed.
> 
> Please show me, however, where I stated that two wrongs make a right? I'm simply pointing out that both sides engage in the type of behavior you object to. You do acknowledge that, don't you?
> 
> EDIT: To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you were engaging in that type of behavior; I can see how my post could be interpreted that way; I should have been more clear.


Well, when someone responds to claim #1 by pointing out party #2 displayed the same boorish behavior; I believe that is making the two-wrongs argument by implication. I accept that you are correct those two parties display the same behavior, but I'm struggling with the relevance of that to the discussion unless it is the two-wrongs argument. I.E. So what?

I operate freely from the perspective that there are more than two sides. And I admit I find the concept of "fairness" somewhat dubious.

Thanks for clarifying your statement! :icon_smile:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

This is somewhat academic, but its the best explanation I've seen as to the underlying problems that are sparking the tea party movement.


----------

