Monday May 28, 2012

Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark U.S. tax day

NEW YORK —

Critics of U.S. President Barack Obama marked national tax day Wednesday with “tea party” protests that Republicans are calling the birth of a grassroots opposition, but Democrats dismiss as a fraud.

Initially small crowds gathered under blustery skies in Washington, New York and Boston to protest taxes, government bailouts, and Obama’s big-spending budget proposals.

Organizer Eric Odom said protests would take place across almost 800 cities in a “new day for the freedom movement.”

The demonstrations, styled on the famed 1773 Boston Tea Party revolt against British colonial taxes, came as Americans rushed to meet the annual deadline for filing income tax returns.

Protests featured teabags, iced tea and other tea-related props, complete with a planned re-enactment of the original dumping of tea into Boston harbor.

But despite the catchy theme, there were questions about whether the scattered, mostly Republican forces would be able to make an impact, let alone achieve the six-figure turnout predicted by Odom.

For now, Obama’s far-reaching economic policies, including a $787 billion anti-recession stimulus package, have broad support.

A USA Today/Gallup published Wednesday found a majority of Americans favor Obama’s expansion of the government’s role in the economy, at least for now.

In Washington, up to 1,000 people gathered mid-morning near the White House with placards including “Stop Big Government” and “Taxation is Piracy.”

“My money is disappearing,” said one protester, Marilyn Henretty 70, a retiree. “We are tired of being taxed without representation.”

On New York’s Staten Island, about 100 people waved flags and placards. “Read my lipstick: no new taxes,” one read.

Several dozen people in Boston rallied, footage from CNN television showed.

Protests were also scheduled across Democrat-dominated California, including on Los Angeles’ famous Santa Monica Pier.

“What is happening now is unfair,” said Alice Broich, who was organizing a protest in Palm Springs. “When you see mom and pop businesses going under and people losing their homes while these big businesses and CEOs are getting bailed out, it’s wrong.”

Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group, described the tea parties as “the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending.”

But Democrats scathingly attacked the tea parties as an imitation grass roots movement manufactured by fringe elements of the right.

The tea parties “have been largely a creation of the same gang that already ran conservatism off the rails,” wrote David Waldman on the liberal Daily Kos politics blog.

Obama sought to recover the initiative by defending his policies at a meeting with working families at the White House. “I know that April 15 isn’t exactly everyone’s favorite date on the calendar,” he quipped.

The man credited with sparking the protests is CNBC television commentator Rick Santelli, who called in February for a “tea party” to oppose government bailouts for mortgage defaulters.

The clip of Santelli’s angry outburst has been viewed on YouTube more than a million times.

The protests stand out for the use of web-savvy marketing, something barely seen in John McCain’s unsuccessful battle for the White House against Democrat Obama.

According to Odom, the tea parties represent the birth of a new grassroots Republican movement able to match Obama’s formidable support network.

“New leaders will come into play, new coalitions will form, new tax groups will be born, and a new energy will surround us all across the country,” Odom wrote.

“A completely new face will be put on a movement that has suffered at the hands of attempted top down control and old school political hacks over the years.”

But Democrats were working overtime, well in advance of the protests, to dismiss them as irrelevant.

Criticism ranges from allegations that the protests are a political con staged by corporations, to poking fun at Republicans’ seemingly innocent vow to go “teabagging”—a word that in slang signifies a sex act.

Wire reports

  • 0

    adaydream

    “Read my lipstick: no new taxes,” one read.

    That phase was already used and abused by the first Pres. Bush.

    It's amazing how when Barack Obama becomes president that these protesters finally got some cajones. Where were they when george bush was raking the average American across the coals.

    I have no problem with protest. Everybody has the right to protest and to have their voice heard. That's kewl. I support their voice. I'm just curious where it was when george bush gave away $4Trillion to the richest 1% of the population. When he got regulations passed that made it a crime to import cheaper American made drugs back into the US from Canada.

    Where were they when he lied his butt off to attack Iraq.

    Please be my guest; scream, wave signs, throw tea into the pond, lake, cup or tea pot. I'm proud of out right to speak out.

    Too bad they didn't have voices the last 8 years.

    Oh yeah, I saw one protester that had a picture of Barack Obama designed like Adolph Hitler. The republicans would have shreiked and bitched and called that action disrespectful if george bush's picture was defaced in that manner. But republicans are so above that. < :-)

  • 0

    DXXJP

    Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group, described the tea parties as “the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending.”

    HAHAHAHA this guy just zoom in from the moon?? Where has he been for the last 8 years???.

    I would also like to point out that THESE ARE NOT OBAMAS TAXES. Really WTF these are still dubyas tax rates, No wonder the US is going to sh!t its full of morons.

  • 0

    Badsey

    -wait till next year when the tax rates finally go up and Pelosi can finally get her Boeing 757 mini-jumbo.

    People are pulling their purse strings tighter and it's time for the Gov to do the same. It would also help if Democrat politicians would pay their taxes also.

  • 0

    Taka313

    “My money is disappearing,” said one protester, Marilyn Henretty 70, a retiree. “We are tired of being taxed without representation.”

    Lady, if you live in the United States (not counting DC), at the least, you have a group of county commissioners, a Congressional Representative, a Senator and a President.

    Not liking who is representing you is not the same as not being represented.

    dick armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group, described the tea parties as “the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending.”

    Thank goodness dick was involved because it's well known, to throw a big tea-bagging party, you have to have an armey of dicks.

    Taka

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Stay classy, libs.

  • 0

    cleo

    What happened to all the 'it's unpatriotic to criticize the president' right-wing folk?

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    Pretty pathetic stuff, but also a waste of time. Soon the re-education camps will be up and running, and once the decrackerfication process is complete, all Americans will be able to live harmoniously under liberal tyranny. Nobody will care about taxes then, they will happily hand over their money to their fearless leader.

  • 0

    adaydream

    cleo, they are wearing pictures of Obama as designed as Hitler.

    Patriotism is only for the republicans when they want to make freedom fries and pouring cheap wine down the sewer or calling out democrats.

    But I'm glad they finally are growing some cajones. Too bad they weren't 8 years ago.

    But please don't misunderstand me. I support their right to protest and complain. Same as I did when george bush was lieing his ass off. But I was un-American then. < :-)

  • 0

    teleprompter

    US already has the most progressive tax system in the world.

    Proportion of federal income tax paid by the top 10 percent of wage earners is 70 percent.

    Bottom 50 percent pay 3 percent of taxes.

    Those are 2 reasons why these people are out protesting.

    Video from the libertarian Drew Carey Project:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=317423

  • 0

    DXXJP

    Taka got the link.

    tea bagging in a nutshell from the msnbc

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30199155

  • 0

    cow76

    Seriously, these people should stop whining. They (I'm assuming they are all rich) had it great under Bush and now it's payback time. Anyway, taxing the rich and giving to the poor is morally right as the number of people who benefit is much greater than the number of people who lose out.

    And didn't Jesus say something about a camel, a needle and getting into heaven?

  • 0

    Taka313

    To my boy, teleprompter,

    Because I don't want you to think I would plagiarize, I want to make sure to point out, I cannot take credit for the "armey of dicks" thing. It's a bastardization of the following:

    "Yes, I am dick armey. And if there is a dick army, Barney Frank would want to join up."

    The true person your praise should go to is dick armey, a teabagging party speaker and promoter.

    So...allow me to join you in saying, "Stay classy, dick; and good luck with that spending your own money, to pollute some water by throwing tea away illegally, on a work day, because you think you don't have enough money because the govt. is taking it all protest thing."

    Also about your progressive tax system thing:

    It doesn't really factor in the differing rates of increase in the average salary between the rich and the poor in our tax structure.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/03/b397907.html

    Taka

  • 0

    teleprompter

    The numerous, uh, jokes about 'teabagging' are like, just, so funny, man.

    Hey - will Jon Stewart pile on? Then it will be like, even legit for your twelve-year old to repeat the crudities.

    In a way I guess it's not too suprising that the lib media, with it's slobbering love for Obama, is going with this particular angle.

    I mean seriously, Chris Matthews speaks of the thrill that runs up his leg when Obama speaks and yet these same people, bewildered and outraged when it's ordinary working folks protesting taxation w/o representation, are attempting cheap, adolescent double entendres about oral sex?

  • 0

    Taka313

    Maybe instead of protesting taxation without "representation" by littering on a work day, the protesters could have, oh....I don't know....written their elected representatives?

    Shot in the dark!

    And such anger about verbage from a proud spewer of "the democrat party."

    Again with the irony. It's why you're so special to me.

    Taka

  • 0

    SuperLib

    These guys are too small to get press coverage....

  • 0

    Taka313

    In all seriousness however....

    Aside from the fact that it's moronic to think that losing an election equates to "taxation without representation" (Hello sense of entitlement!), I fully support the democratically given, and somewhat liberal (when you think about it) right to protest against one's government.

    Taka

  • 0

    Suzu1

    Tax day always brings out interesting revelations. One today is that Joe Biden is a lot more generous with other people's money than with his own. Between 1998 and 2006, Joe Biden contributed between $120 and $380 a year to charity, according to his tax returns, on AGIs of $210,000 to $321,100.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/04/obama-and-biden-release-tax-returns.html

  • 0

    skipthesong

    taka313:

    I'm really surprises at your posts today. I believe you once said you were a gov employee, if that is true, you need to come out to the real world and open a business in the US and then open a branch here in Japan.

    While I support the idea of protesting taxes, I am dismayed that the repubs jumped on it. I would have preferred it to have been an independent party or several other parties where its is not party backed.

    I have every right recently to not be happy at what is happening, and if you start making more than 80k over here in Japan, you really need to sit down with a tax advisor because there is a lot more info that you are not going to get on news sites.

    Addionally, while moot. I'd like to say to anyone supporting the new admin100%. How dare any of them complain that people are protesting, especially when we have a VP who says "its unpatriotic to not pay taxes" when half the people in the new admin have had tax problems of their own.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    These protests aren't about what concerned, productive members of American society are going to do.

    They are just a way of informing this administration and their allies in the mainstream media what the Treasury already discovered:

    Tax receipts have plummeted.

    More Americans are "going Galt."

    http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0309.txt

    Mission Accomplished.

    The Pelosi-Reid-Obama economy is a disaster.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Has anyone noticed the the new admin has yet to stop re-modeling their offices, given out bonuses to their staff members, increased perks for themselves and given themselves a raise.

    For overseas residents, the new tax laws, depending on which state, man I now really regret becoming a NY resident, is disgusting.

    I wish there were a tea party in Tokyo so we can all get together. Why the hell should we pay if we are not living there. The US is the only country in the main world that does this.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    direct taxation is unconstitutional. There is no law stating that you are required to pay taxes, report your income or that IRS has any authority.

    US income tax code is clear violation of 5th and 13th amendments of the constitution

  • 0

    30061015

    Democrats dismiss as a fraud...dismiss them as irrelevant.

    An attitude that typifies government for, by and of elite politicians and the banksters. Anyone out there who doest think they pay enough taxes already...go ahead & pay more, if you consider it you "patriotic duty" to do so. Go ahead mock the tea parties as you are robbed in broad day light by an out of control govt that has lost all responsibility, accountability and credibility.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Anyway, taxing the rich and giving to the poor is morally right as the number of people who benefit is much greater than the number of people who lose out.

    can you explain how is it morally right to take something that belongs to one person who worked hard to get it and give it to other peson who didn't do crap? I think Lenin had the same idea.

    I think it is common sense to see it as theft.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Turnout in some cities as big as 10,000.

    Looks like the Democrat Party and their allies in the lamestream media will have to find another talk show host to demonize.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Looks like the Democrat Party and their allies in the lamestream media will have to find another talk show host to demonize.

    Nah...Dick Armey is going to be the "repub" villian for this week.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Priceless.

    Obama's servants in the media have had enough. Anyone who protests tax increases and tripling the deficit is not just a traitorous right-wing extremist, they are anti - CNN !

    CNN: "Alright, we'll move on... [to audience] I think you get the general tenor of this, uh, it's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the rightwing conservative network Fox and... since I can't really hear much more, I think this... is not really family viewing, toss it back to you, Kera."

  • 0

    adaydream

    I'm impressed how the GOP rallied this event through their speaking heads on FOXnews. That being said, I am glad that they got out and protested against the what is being done in Washington. I'm glad that they are speaking their minds. It's great.

    That being said, I listening to Sean Hannity talking to Newt Ginrich and complaining about the $4Trillion that Barack Obama is spending.

    Did you just read what I just wrote? The republicans are complaining about the spending of $4Trillion. Why didn't they complain when george bush gave away $4Trillion to the 1% of the population?

    Again I'm glad the republicans are speaking against the government. Kinda makes them two faced though. I was un-American to speak out against george bush's policies and lies. Does that make these protesters ..... un-American?

    I know I've been rightfully sarcastic, but I'm glad there is the freedom of speach along with our other freedoms. We live in a great country. < :-)

  • 0

    sailwind

    Did you just read what I just wrote? The republicans are complaining about the spending of $4Trillion. Why didn't they complain when george bush gave away $4Trillion to the 1% of the population?

    George Bush is still President? I Musta missed the memo.

  • 0

    Altria

    Down with taxes! Barack Obama is only widening George W. Bush's defecit!

    Where is Ron Paul when you need him?

  • 0

    Altria

    Organizer Eric Odom said

    Eric Odom and the Odomites would be a great name for a band

  • 0

    Madverts

    Dick Armey and the Odomites?

  • 0

    Madverts

    At the risk of not being up on my jargon, what the hell is "teabagging" anyway - or is it too rude to print?

    You know, I can't believe how bitter and pathetci some of the GOP elemens have become since their thumping at the polls. After all that ranting and raving about free elections for Iraq and democracy and blah.....yet here we have the same, if not re-named individuals, constantly and more often than not, baselessly slagging off president Obama (something they said was "un-patriotic" during the Bush regime) and constantly bleating he's a "disaster" after a mere 90 odd days in office.

    It's kinda like they'd just like a GOP dictatorship. After the true disaster of their Dear Leader Bush and the mockery they made of the highest office in the US - methinks it's time to disolve the damned party and start again. They just keep sinking.

  • 0

    Madverts

    OK - I Wiki'd teabagging.

    Forget all the "WMD" quotes and all the recent GOP gay sex scandals. Heh, their most ecent gaffe just made my day...

  • 0

    dennis0bauer

    Nisegajin how about the rich robbed the poor with their sub prime loans, credit card scams and so on. It is like the middle ages again. the rich are like the land owners then.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    The demonstrations, styled on the famed 1773 Boston Tea Party revolt against British colonial taxes...

    Well, just for the record, the colonials were protesting taxation without representation, not taxation itself. Whoever wrote, “Taxation is Piracy” at the protest sort of missed that point... They also seem to have forgotten who authorized the first big chunk of money...the one with no strings attached...no real regulation about how it was to spent, etc. No tea parties at that time...I wonder why not?

    This recession/depression is only going to get worse, and I doubt if anyone, Republican or Democrat, can stop it. Certainly having a tea party won't stop it, though I suppose it might be fun.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Criticism ranges from allegations that the protests are a political con staged by corporations, to poking fun at Republicans’ seemingly innocent vow to go “teabagging“—a word that in slang signifies a sex act.

    I'm so glad the MSM saw fit to put this little tidbit of such relevant information out. I never heard of it either and had to google it. I wonder how many other 13 and 14 year olds, heck even 8 year olds, as they are pretty internet savy and googled for the slang definition. Going to be some pretty nice dinner conversations around the U.S when they ask Mom and Dad "What is Teabagging Mean?"....... Thanks Media for pointing it out.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    this should have just been a tax protest. This should not have been a republican led thing. It was hijacked by the repubs.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    skip -

    “The protest revealed a mood among Americans that spells trouble for both parties.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dc-tea-party-republicans-should-not-be-rejoicing-quite-yet/2/

  • 0

    skipthesong

    “The protest revealed a mood among Americans that spells trouble for both parties.”" Well, that's good to me.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Farmboy at 05:03 PM JST - 16th April- Well, just for the record, the colonials were protesting taxation without representation, not taxation itself.

    As the only one in this thread to see a problem in the portrayal of the Boston Tea Party, I salute you. However, the Boston Tea Party would seem to be mostly about a reduction in the tax and the price of tea.

    Why would anyone protest having a tax REDUCED and the total price DROPPED? Why that is because when the price of a legit item drops, black marketeers can no longer profit by selling it under the table. Yes, it seems a great many of the "heroes" of the Boston Tea Party were black marketeers, and all they were doing was protecting their profits by ensuring that the only tea available in Boston was theirs. There is also the argument that it was also ( in the minds of some of those who participated) a form of protest against Britian, no matter how bizarre, justified just by throwing sand in the face of King George. That is how I imagine many were duped into destroying the tea by the black marketeers.

    Just another fine example of how American History textbooks are a big pack of lies, with a few falsehoods, misdirections, and errors for good measure.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    I don't really know what happened in other cities but I heard the one that occured where I live was primarily about revising the tax code to make it more understandable and not to abolish taxation itself. In my honest opinion, any attempt to trim down that monster would be admirable in itself if not heroic to all of us in the tax business.

    To be honest I would prefer to see a flat tax (something like 20 or 25% of income) carried out and then have a few hundred pages of ways you can get tax credits. It would certainly make things easier. Just think, nobody would have any real reason (although I'm sure people in both camps will find a way) to claim they've been unfairly taxed. Of course there's still the matter of corporate double taxation and that disgusting practice of welfare but thats neither here nor now.

  • 0

    adaydream

    I'm all for a flat tax. I pay 12% taxes on everything. Also, 12% taxes for the rich.

    No consumption tax. That's crap. If you put half of your income into savings you pay no taxes on that money. If you have to spend your whole paycheck to live, then you're taxed on all of it.

    Flat tax, no deductions. < :-)

  • 0

    ThonTaddeo

    Dick Armey and the Odomites?

    Dump the "and the" in favor of a possessive and it's perfect.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    dennis0bauer at 04:00 PM JST - 16th April Nisegajin how about the rich robbed the poor with their sub prime loans, credit card scams and so on. It is like the middle ages again. the rich are like the land owners then.

    I am not sure what you are talking about. Rich didn't rob anyone. Those who did are in jail now or going to be there soon. Rich people didn't cause this mess. The government did it, and its taking our money to make it worse. I understand your anger, but it is directed at wrong group of people. Majority of rich are hard working individuals who provide jobs to others. Government steals that opportunity from them by taxing them to oblivion. At the end its the poor folk who gets burned cuz they gonna be loosing their jobs.

  • 0

    VOR

    Its actually nice finally seeing real Americans from all across the country who actually contribute to society demonstrating their disapproval toward out of control government.

    If Obama, Pelosi and Reid think they have a mandate, they are sadly mistaken.

  • 0

    likeitis

    nisegaijin: Majority of rich are hard working individuals who provide jobs to others.

    What evidence do you have to support the claim that the majority are hard working? Anything at all?

    I cannot say much about the majority, but I can tell you a great many do nothing but make money because they have the money or the property to do so. And if you do not have the money or the property, you are pretty well scroobed.

    Consider a landlord. All he really does is own the property. You throw money at him just to live there. How many people are trapped in a cycle of renting?

    In fact, I am of the opinion that most rich people got their money the old fashioned way; they inherited it. Then those inheriters get more just because of what they inherited. Hard work my butt.

    Rich didn't rob anyone.

    I guess that depends on what you consider to be "robbing". How is a typical wage determined? Is it done by considering how much profit was generated by your labor? So if the profit generated by your hard work generates 30 dollars profit, hows come you only see 20 dollars for it? Or here, a guy reaches in your pocket and takes out thirty bucks. He then hands you back twenty and says "Thanks for your hard work!" Is he now less of a robber? Sure, he only took ten bucks from you. But it was ten bucks YOU made, not him. And he takes ten bucks from everybody in town! Why can the rich do this? Because they own the factory. And SOMEHOW, that makes them entitled to quite a large amount of YOUR HARD WORK and everybody elses too, just owning the factory. And let me assure you, the MAJORITY DID NOT start out as a floor worker at that or some other factory, m'kay?

    Personally, I think the amounts some of these rich people are pulling are ridiculous. The only means we have puncturing that tub of money that has pooled at the top is through government. I think we need progressive taxes pretty much across the board as Obama suggests, particularly now that we have MASSIVE debt to pay off that has been generated by, wait for it, RICH PEOPLE siphoning off our tax money through war profiteering and begging for bailouts they did not need (uh, robbery).

    But what I would like to see in the long run is wages more directly tied to profits so that people can see extra money for extra work, instead of all the extra rewards just going to someone for nothing more than owning something. The days of the rich just paying the lowest wage they can get away with need to end. Individuals have little power to change that situation by themselves.

  • 0

    Squally

    This is funny to me. Rather then getting out their and protesting the government's bogus policies they use it as another oppurtunity to bash the guy they don't care for. Way to make you're arguement look like a joke TEA party members!

  • 0

    Good_Jorb

    Rich people didn't cause this mess. The government did it, and its taking our money to make it worse.

    So the government forced people buy houses, forced people to run credit card debt and caused Corporations to invest in speculative derivatives that turned toxic assets and creating business models that clearly didn't work and had little to no want to create proper risk management systems. I guess though it is easier to blame the government for everything and put my head in sand. Besides we all know CEO's and such always pay thier fair share, just look at what happened when the US sued UBS, techinally that is robbing the people. If government regulation was to great companies should have left, but then again they mostly like enjoy the logistics systems created by tax dollars, the security paid for with tax dollars, the court system that enforces contract law paid for with tax dollars and so on.

    Tea partiers are another special interest group trying to impose what the believe is correct on the majority of Americans. The most ironic thing is, the taxes filled this year, were under a tax code that Bush and congress passed. Special interest groups, the new American way, don't like how the democratic system works, whine and complain about it.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Good Jorb

    The most ironic thing is, the taxes filled this year, were under a tax code that Bush and congress passed.

    That's is ironic. They are bitching alot about what they liked last year. Yeah I know Obama is a target, also.

    I was impressed by the Obama picture altered to look like Hitler. If the democrats did that we'd be un-American, un-patriotic.

    I'm waiting to listen to the talking head today. < :-)

  • 0

    Taka313

    Likeitis,

    Just another fine example of how American History textbooks are a big pack of lies, with a few falsehoods, misdirections, and errors for good measure.

    Not that there aren't other examples, but I was taught growing up that many of the founding fathers were black marketeers and that probably the biggest and most wanted was John Hancock, hence the big sig on the Declaration of Independence.

    On topically,

    The most ironic thing is, the taxes filled this year, were under a tax code that bush and congress passed.

    Indeed.

    That, along with the protesters claims that they are being taxed without representation and that they are so hurting for cash that they have to spend a workday buying something with their own money to throw away, really brings to light how non-sensical this protest is and how childish the opposition is going to act as long as Pres. Obama is in office.

    Taka

  • 0

    Taka313

    Been chewing on this whole teabagger party thing for a while and it just dawned on me, most of these teabaggers are conservatives. You know, the "personal responsibility and no govt. 'gimmes'" crowd.

    But what exactly are they doing? They are demanding the government give them a tax break because they believe they don't have as much money as they feel entitled (there's that word again) to.

    Why can't they just work harder or take on a second job so that they can pay their taxes at the current rate AND have the money they feel entitled to?

    Isn't that the exact argument they use when it comes to raising the minimum wage? If your current salary isn't enough, work harder to earn more. Maybe they can follow the advise of their last presidential candidate and sell stuff on Ebay to pay their taxes and enough money left over.

    Slackers. ;-)

    Taka

  • 0

    adaydream

    You know Taka313 I have to agree with a portion of your post...

    Why can't they just work harder or take on a second job so that they can pay their taxes

    I retired after 37 years and I've taken on another job. Helps me pay my taxes, stay productive and I don't have the time or the money to waste to take a day off to protest.

    I applaud their voicing their opinion. I just think they should have found a better agenda item to rally behind. I don't think they were taken serious. < :-)

  • 0

    Madverts

    " I don't think they were taken serious."

    What? The Teabaggers?

  • 0

    ANOTSUSAGAMI

    One must not forget the most important fact of the Boston Tea Party: The participants dressed up like Native Americans, pigmenting their skin even, to throw suspicion onto the Natives should the king decide to retaliate. They were cowards who would frame others in fear of the kings wrath.

  • 0

    buddha4brains

    Its actually nice finally seeing real Americans from all across the country who actually contribute to society demonstrating their disapproval toward out of control government.

    And those who support Obama (i.e. the majority) are non-contributors to society? Wow, there are so few of you to maintain the world's largest economy and military. Keep up the good work!

  • 0

    Good_Jorb

    And those who support Obama (i.e. the majority) are non-contributors to society?

    Apparently they don't have democratic rights either:

    If Obama, Pelosi and Reid think they have a mandate, they are sadly mistaken.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Flat tax, no deductions.

    Nah, people need to feel like they're sticking it to the IRS. Plus, if you make taxes too simple it would put a lot of people out of the job (I could name a couple obscure ones like saylers but the big one that comes to mind is H&R Block). The tax code just needs a trim...maybe a shave to, a few hundred pages off the top should do for now.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    likeitis,

    Majority of rich cannot inherit their their wealth because there are limited amount of rich predecessors. So you are wrong. majority rich people EARNED their way up.

    Wages should be determined by the market. For example: there are two rich guys manufacturing shirts in a town. Both pay 5 bux per hour. One decides to raise wages to 7 bux per hour to attract better employees. he succeeds and also morale at second manufacturer declines and so does the quality. He tries to raise wages to 10 bux per hour but forced to raise prices, so nobody buys his stuff anymore so he forced to reduce to 7, just like the other guy. And so price war goes on and on they keep trying to do various good things to keep their employees motivated. That's how wages and working conditions are fixed. By setting their standards governments inflicted extra burden on the employers. Moreover, there are actually less employers than there could have been if market was actually free. By taxing the rich guys they ultimately took money and opportunity away from blue collar folk.

    America is not a place for wealth distribution, my friend. I think constitution is very clear on that. Yet nobody looks at that anymore and that makes me disappointed. What was once a land of opportunity turned into a land of debt and wealthfare. I am sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't be proud of what this nation has become.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    The drive-by media's misinformation, gratuitous snark and attempts to dowplay these protests backfired.

    Drudge and others are reporting that the dreaded Fox News Network saw its ratings surge yesterday.

    Mission Accomplished!

  • 0

    adaydream

    I would hope that the Fox News Network would show some increase in ratings aftyer this was a Fox/GOP thing. I'd have been really disappointed. < :-)

  • 0

    Madverts

    "The drive-by media's misinformation, gratuitous snark and attempts to dowplay these protests backfired."

    Indeed telepromopter. Keep up the teabagging bro - a clenched fist at drive-by media!!

  • 0

    likeitis

    nisegaijin: Majority of rich cannot inherit their their wealth because there are limited amount of rich predecessors. So you are wrong. majority rich people EARNED their way up.

    This your proof???

    Look, I did not say the rich got every single dime they had through inheritence. But when we are talking about rich people, we are talking about people with so much money that dividing it into halves and thirds still amounts to a fortune. And that fortune can used to buy investiments (which is not work) and the means of production (still not work.)

    Further, inheritance is not money only, but also the investments and the means of production themselves, and those things generate even more wealth, just in the owning of them. Neither inheritence nor ownership is EARNING jack diddly squat.

    And your wage example is bogus. You are talking about things which raise and lower a wage in small parts. I am talking about how the base wage is determined, and no, its nothing to do with the sale of product. If it were, CEO wages would be equivalent to floor wages.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Look, I did not say the rich got every single dime they had through inheritence. But when we are talking about rich people, we are talking about people with so much money that dividing it into halves and thirds still amounts to a fortune. And that fortune can used to buy investiments (which is not work) and the means of production (still not work.)

    Investing is still earning and the risks involved are enormous especially right now and purchasing means of production (and paying for the wages associated) is maintainance of investment which is still earning. What is your definition of 'work' anyway? Personally I see work as any exertion of ones self to promote their own agenda and to this end investing, and the financial hazards associated with it, is indeed work.

    In rat race terms the CEO that weasled his way to the top is simply a more ambitious specimine than the logistics specialist that he used to work with. The greater the risk the greater the potential profit. Solution to your perception that the 'rich' get off to easy. Flat tax.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    "likeitis, i think i know more about Marx than you do. I certainly do know more about economics micro and macro than you do. What I do not know is exact numbers of people who inherited wealth vs earned wealth.

    But I think it should be none of your business how people came across their wealth. It only appears to me that you are just jealous. Having said that, I am quite sure that if most of wealth was inherited and not re-circulated into economy via purchases or investments productivity would stop and the only place blooming would be Las Vegas.

    I think you are in no position to call my example bogus because nothing is more bogus than your understanding of investment and means of production. Your statement is simply false as both of these generate more jobs. Investments do so directly and means of production indirectly. If you fail to understand that, you should just stop posting about economics cuz you just waste everybody's time.

    And I applaud your idea that blue collar workers can run entire factories. I am sure they know about logistics, accounting, information technology, HR, legal to successfully operate everything.

  • 0

    likeitis

    nisegaijin: "likeitis, i think i know more about Marx than you do.

    And, AGAIN, you provide no proof! Amazing how you just keep doing that.

    What I do not know is exact numbers of people who inherited wealth vs earned wealth.

    At last, a belated admission.

    But I think it should be none of your business how people came across their wealth.

    Tell that to the IRS. I am sure those planning our economic policy would also be interested in that idea.

    It only appears to me that you are just jealous.

    Boy, you just cannot say ANYTHING against the rich without that one coming up unless you are talking about the Middle Ages or early 20th century strike breakers. No, I am not jealous. I am pretty happy with my life. I also do not think that posting here is going to land me a million.

    Further to that, I am aware of a lot of the scams that people pull to make money. If I were so jealous, I would just copy them. Yet, I don't.

    Having said that, I am quite sure that if most of wealth was inherited and not re-circulated into economy via purchases or investments productivity would stop and the only place blooming would be Las Vegas.

    Earlier you claimed to know more than me about economics. What a joke that you would claim to know more than anyone and come up with this! Please, be honest, if not with us, then with yourself. What is this fronting crap?

    The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

    The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

    Those are from here: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

    And THAT, is something known as proof. Yes, most of the wealth is NOT recirculated, but pooled at the top, just like I said. So apparently, only Las Vegas is blooming.

    you should just stop posting about economics cuz you just waste everybody's time.

    Hahahahaha! You are one to talk!

    And I applaud your idea that blue collar workers can run entire factories.

    You need to re-read my post. Or perhaps get a real education to replace all the bluster and claims of knowing more than others.

    Moderator: Niseigaijin, likeitis, please stop sniping at each other. Focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

  • 0

    Good_Jorb

    Vegas is blooming because of low taxes and minimum regulations.

    The state of Nevada has one of the highest unemployment rate of all the states at 10.1%, not exactly what I would call booming.

    I live in a place that primary economic driver is Oil, when the price oil went the economy boomed but the off thing was everyone here claimed it was because of the low taxes and less regulation that gave it an economic advantage over other places. Fastforward a bit, gas prices dropped and the economy dropped the fastest in region(which had higher taxes but a more diverse economic mix). Conclusion that can be drawn, the price/demand for oil drove industry growth not the tax environment. Look at a map of unemployment of the USA and you see that whether a state is democratic or republican makes no difference to the unemployment rates but the type of industries/commerce that a state has does.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    “What is happening now is unfair,” said Alice Broich, who was organizing a protest in Palm Springs. “When you see mom and pop businesses going under and people losing their homes while these big businesses and CEOs are getting bailed out, it’s wrong.”

    I do wonder where these people were the last 8 years? It is funny that they were not marching against big oil, big spending, big waste, or big theft when Bush was President. But now that a new President has assumed office and is trying to help our nation these folks march. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the new President is not a Republican.

    Now that got me wondering where this so-called grass roots movement began? Who are the organizers of the so called HUGE HUGE rallies? Btw 100,000 at one site is a large rally. do not think that calling 100 or 1000 people gathering together a huge or even large rally. You could offer free key chains and get 2000 people to show up.

    Here they are I am going to break down these so called GRASS ROOTS groups. BTW let me give you the meaning of GRASS ROOTS.

    The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.

    Now that we all understand the meaning of GRASSROOTS let's see who the Republican grassroots leaders are.

    1. freedomworks Board of directors are Senator Dick Army and Republican Steve Forbes. Hm they do not seem to fit the mold of non-traditional power.

    Their money comes from the Koch, Scaife, Bradley, Olin and other reliable funders of right wing infrastructure including Exxon Mobil.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

    1. Americans for Prosperity David H. Koch, Chairman, Koch Industries. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DavidH.Koch Just putting his name up there kills any thought that this group is anything than a far right wing tool and not a GRASSROOT group.

    To be honest I was going to keep going but this is so sad for the far right. They try to claim that the TEA PARTY was a grass roots movement. But in fact it was a well planned out attempt by the far right and their Corporate allies to pull one over on the public.

    This is a bait and switch con job by the far right and I suspect it will blow up in their face. I can not believe that folks here actually believe this drivel. Sad how desperate the far right is that they continue to use lies.

    This is a sham and that is the best you can call it. Big Oil, Big Business and far right rolled up into one happy family. I wonder how much they paid some on those folks to be there. LOL What a joke!!!LOL

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    GJDailleult at 09:03 AM JST - 16th April Pretty pathetic stuff, but also a waste of time. Soon the re-education camps will be up and running, and once the decrackerfication process is complete, all Americans will be able to live harmoniously under liberal tyranny.

    ROTGLMAO! I love this, the far right is coming out of the wood works!LOL That post shows where most of their mentality is when it comes to the future. Stop getting your news from the far right media. Look for yourself read and be amazed what you discover.

    The number one far right re-education camp will soon be closed down, Gitmo.

    GJDailleult at 09:03 AM JST - 16th AprilNobody will care about taxes then, they will happily hand over their money to their fearless leader.

    For the last 8 years our taxes have been used to fund Haliburton and the rest of the far right war industry. Why now are you guys standing up and complaining? Where have you been these last 8 years?

    How can you even believe any of the crap that the far right super rich organizers of this sham have to say? Wake up and see that the far right has sold out completely to big business and sold out our nation.

    Follow the money and guess where it will lead you, China and Saudi Arabia.

  • 0

    ANOTSUSAGAMI

    Why should the rich pay the least amount of taxes proportionately? Shouldn't those who benefit the most from America's economic structure pay the most? The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. They own the lion's share of America, why shouldn't they pay the lion's share of taxes? JoeBigs- right on. I have followed the money, and it leads straight to China, who owns a huge amount of American bonds- to pay for the wars Bush wanted while he cut taxes. Hey, the money had to come from somewhere- and Saudi Arabia, who Bush asked for the funds that ended up being used for the first bailout that he spearheaded. I love these people who want to say stuff like they can't pass on the debt to the children, and they were all smiles when Bush cut thier taxes and waged 2 expensive billion dollar/month wars. WHO did they think would pay!? Obama's just asking the rich to do their fair share of paying, and people are angry. I don't get it.

  • 0

    Taka313

    ANOTSUSAGAMI,

    It all boils down to an intense and irrational sense of entitlement.

    Think bush league leona helmsleys.

    Taka

  • 0

    zurcronium

    Saw these losers in a midwest city, what a ragtag group of misfits. Some were protesting immigration, some were yelling drill baby drill, some looked like they were heavily medicated.

    If you step back from this you can see really this was about the thumping the wacky loons of the far right took in the last election. They cant get over the Rove statement that the republicans would be in power forever. They lost, and now they do fake protests to strike back.

    In three days it will all be forgotten for the miserable fox news republican lie factory PR event that it was.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    "likeitis, Do you really believe the bullcrap your are saying? Do you really think that the rich are just sitting on this money? For every money scam, there are 1000s of good corporations with hard working honest people running them, and yes they are rich.

    You need facts? Here: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/ This little article just blows you out of the water. The very first claim you made is wrong. I don't know where you coming from but your communist ideals are truly disturbing.

    And vegas is not blooming because super rich dump all money there. Vegas is blooming because of low taxes and minimum regulations.

    So stop blaming the rich. Blame the poor for asking more than they are worth. Want more? Work more! and taxes? Unconstitutional. Read 5th and 13th amendments. Then read the second one."

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    ANOTSUSAGAMI, What makes you think that just because the rich worked hard through their lives, the government can come in and confiscate part of their wealth to re-distribute it among people who choose not to work, militarize themselves, and then pocket the rest of it? Constitution prevented this, yet government still has an illegal IRS gang which has an unconstitutional tax code which they can manipulate to look any American look guilty.

    Look man, there is absolutely no law that requires you to directly taxed. If you think otherwise, please find me that law. And keep in mind 16th amendment does not enforce individual to pay taxes and its was not properly ratified. It also conflicts with other amendments.

    I swear, frigging liberals are like a damn religious cult. Just trying to have government fix everything; punish the successful and reward failures.

  • 0

    likeitis

    nisegaijin: Do you really think that the rich are just sitting on this money?

    For clarity, let us use the term wealth instead of money. And yes, the rich sit on the wealth. The money they spend. It comes back around anyway.

    For every money scam

    This brings up what the definition of "scam" is. Renting residential property is not viewed as a scam by most people, even if they pay for the property twice over through renting. Getting paid a fixed wage for labor while the owners of the company make out like bandits in excess profit is also not generally viewed as a scam. But when you get into it and examine the details, they most certainly look like scams. The only difference is, this scam is sanctioned by society.

    Some other scams, not sanctioned, seem to be even less detrimental. The question just seems to be: "Does it threaten the status quo?".

    This little article just blows you out of the water.

    No it doesn't. It does not ask the right questions. Throughout my posts I have been clarifying my comments, yet you still do not understand. Its not that the majority of the wealth is inherited, in the strict sense of the term, its the particular inheritence that counts. Yes, stricly defined inheritence might be only ten percent of your wealth, but if that inheritence generated the remainer of the 90 percent of your wealth, just because you own it now, then I am going to say that wealth was basically inherited. Maybe you are happy to say they earned it, but I say say "bullcrap". Merely owning something is not earning.

    I don't know where you coming from but your communist ideals are truly disturbing.

    And here we go with the commie parry again. Its getting old. Maybe you some rich guy racked with guilt from your hoarding and seek anything to deflect? I send one rich guy packing from this board when I made him see his own selfishness and irresponsibility.

    Look, I know that plenty of those we call rich bring more to the table than the hard work they so often don't. Expertise, creativity, general solutions, an eye for markets and profitability, etc. Those things have value and I value them. But there are sneaky things about the system and they need to be worked out. Some of the things I mention are being grossly overvalued, and your excuses for overvaluing them ring hollow.

    And vegas is not blooming because super rich dump all money there.

    Never said or suggested it was. My understanding is that people just get ripped off there by the OWNERS (big surprise), who set the unfair rules, and those people getting jipped usually are not even locals, so lots of outside case coming in.

    Blame the poor for asking more than they are worth.

    Uh, yeah, I do blame the poor too for some things. If we are going to keep doing this, would it be too much to ask you to read my posts?

    Want more? Work more!

    Bullcrap. If you want more you have to live and work with that goal in mind. You might say "work and live smarter". Especially if you want to become rich from nothing. It has to consume your every thought and action. Its possible, but I do not find it to be worth it. Which is why I am not jealous. But the situation still needs fixing, and you do not have to be jealous to see it. Those who have more, make more, and not because they actually worked. Those with less can barely save no matter how hard they work. That is because working harder and being more productive will NOT make them significantly more money because they have ZERO claim on the output of their own labor or the profits generated. They will get the same fixed wage.

    Did I just say they should have 100 percent claim on output? NO I DID NOT. So please spare me the tired commie claim, m'kay?

    and taxes? Unconstitutional.

    Some taxes I am for and some not. The government has to survive somehow.

    There was a time when only the wealthy paid taxes. The reasoning was obvious: it was because they could afford to pay! Far and away, they could and still can, afford to pay.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Yes, stricly defined inheritence might be only ten percent of your wealth

    Further to that, a lot of inheritence occurs BEFORE the big cheese dies. If your father pays for your Harvard education, it may not be inheritence according to the IRS tax code, but obviously you benefited by circumstances of birth.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Nisegaijin,

    You desperately need to reevaluate the meaning of words like "fact" and "unconstitutional."

    For one, a blog detailing an opinion formed from data of which two out of three were provided by "research groups" that openly specialize in "affluence" and "global private wealth" does not constitutes "fact." It falls more into the realm of "biased opinion," not unlike Phillip Morris releasing a report that smoking is harmless, based upon in-house research. Even if Gallup were to have conducted a poll, it still doesn't quite constitute "fact" without a whole lot more data to support the assertion. Not saying that the assertion is wrong. It may very well be true. But your use of a Blog as "fact" suggests your definitions are out of whack. Which might explain the rest of your posts on the subject.

    Two, you would have to be incredibly naïve or simply daft to expect anyone, including the US Supreme Court, a body of legal minds infinitely better equipped to deal with Constitutional Law than you or I, to interpret the 5th or 13th Amendments as definitive proof of the Constitutional illegality of taxes. Seriously, you made me spit coffee with that little gem. I haven’t had a giggle that good since last time the “Poor Downtrodden Wealthy” Posse pulled into town with their horse and pony show. Which was yesterday.

    You want to stop paying taxes? Fine. Then get the hell off my roads, stop relying on my police force to protect your wealth, stop using my legal system to create the economic stability that enables you to make wealth in the first place, and turn in your passport at the exit on your way out to Lollipop Land where all things like education, infrastructure, and national defense are magically paid for by the Sugar Plum Fairy.

    “Want more? Work more!”

    Be careful. You might get in trouble with Conservative copyright lawyers for failing to tack on the requisite “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” pap that is part and parcel of the Conservative fantasy that hard work is all that is needed to attain wealth in America.

    No, equal education opportunities, having a minimum level of wealth to start with in, gender, and “race” have nothing at all to do with. Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Even Bill Gates had parents with a garage and spare cash to buy him gadgets to tinker with.

  • 0

    ANOTSUSAGAMI

    nisegaijin- Because most of them benefit from the sweat and labor of their subordinates who get paid a fixed wage even if the businesses that they are at the front lines of - customers rarely meet owners - are doing fantastic. They are the first to go once business goes sour, while CEOs routinely get multi-million dollar severance. This is all legal. The system overwhelmingly favors the rich. Why shouldn't they pay into the system more? Instead, it seems you would like the people who don't benefit from the system, who in fact often get screwed by it- to pay the rich people's share too. Work harder you say? My mom worked 3 jobs 7 days a week for years even when she was sick in order to buy a home and pay for my brother's college. BTW she never got rich. Her companies' CEOs however, were rich and showed up to work once a week at the most. How much more should she have worked? I know of many more hardworking families who never made over 40k a year, unable to expand because the system screwed them. I know you probably don't want to hear it, but discrimination plays a role in this too. You can't get rich if the system says you can't. Equal education, equal jobs and equal pay are but a few elements needed for the "land of opportunity" to cease being a misnomer. All I'm saying is the rich should pay their share. After all, they owe it to their country whose system has benefitted them so.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    You can see why the Left and the lamestream media are bewildered by these protests, which numbered in the hundreds and were attended by half a million people across the country. When you look at the crowd pics you don't see anyone sporting t-shirts featuring the dead marxist sociopath Hollywood still lionizes.No foreign flags being waved either, just Old Glory.That only added to the media's outrage.

  • 0

    ANOTSUSAGAMI

    teleprompter- You DO realize that this month people are still paying Bush's taxes? They're a little early. And since when is a grassroots protest funded by Exxon execs? I'm glad people are voicing their opinion. I just wish they would have done that BEFORE or at least during the time Bush gave away that surplus with his "fuzzy math" (remember that one?). I wonder if the posters who believe it's unconstitutional to pay taxes were the same ones screaming that Obama's first treasury pick didn't pay his.

  • 0

    WilliB

    For a classic demonstration of how the Obama-swooning media misreports this, look here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo

    And this is supposed to be "journalism"??

  • 0

    zurcronium

    the wingnuts never get over complaining about the media, but the fact is that 95% of the US media is hardcore conservative. Always has been and always will be.

    The wingers love playing the victims, because, they are victims. Victims of the rove/bush lie factory. They wave flags while they advocate destroying the constitution, they claim to love the troops while sending them to die for no reason at all as in Vietnam and Iraq, they attempt to fuse religion with the state which is 100% opposite of the founders intention, they deny science for watered down bible thumping, and on and on.

    But the key thing is that they are always wrong on the truth. Iraq is the perfect example. So let the angry losers of the republican party pretend to be hippies for a day. Its all a sad joke on them. Their teabagging joke is already forgotten for being the phony non-event that it was.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    The Left can shake their lil fists and make all the adolescent sexual jokes they want. The 'tea parties' are not about instigating action so much as they are about notifying the Obama administration of what the Treasury already knows: tax receipts are down precipitously. More and more small business owners - the people who create real wealth in America - are 'going Galt.'

    And that means the already staggering budget that the Pelosi-Reid Congress forced upon Americans will grow even more bloated and wasteful.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    More and more small business owners - the people who create real wealth in America - are 'going Galt.'

    Oh, please. Don't come waddling up to this table with some nonsense about championing the rights of small business owners, when you know perfectly well that it's been big business and conglomerates, all benefiting from unquestioning Republican support, that have been clobbering small businesses for years - big business and conglomerates which, incidentally, are largely behind this mess.

    Your little distraction has little to do with the economic recovery plan that Republicans - ahem! - voted for, too. Nice try though. Well, no, not really. Transparent to the core.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Tax the rich!! Spread the wealth, get everybody dependent on the Government. Let everybody go Galt.

    It's happening right now.

    U.S. venture capital investments sank 61 percent in the first quarter, dropping to the lowest level in 12 years as financiers became even warier about sinking funds into startups during a deepening recession.

    In yet-another indicator that a pullback that began last summer is not abating, venture capital investments totaled $3 billion during the first three months of 2009, according to a report released Saturday by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the National Venture Capital Association and Thomson Reuters. In the year-ago quarter, investments totaled $7.74 billion.

    This is the lowest quarterly level of venture investments since the first quarter of 1997, when they totaled $2.96 billion.

    The report said 549 companies received investments in the first quarter, down from 997 in the same period last year. This is the smallest number of companies to receive investments since the first quarter of 1995.

    Almost every industry saw a decline in venture investments. The software industry received the most funding, with $614 million spread out among 138 companies, down almost 56 percent by dollars and 45 percent by deals compared with last year.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izo6eC32I-nJW8jXsTaGQ2FAIN8wD97L7JI00

    This just really 'sucks'.......For our future. Tax the rich even more, soon you'll have zero investments in real jobs just Uncle Sugar and another bloody bailout borrowed on the national credit card.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Video for those who insist da big corporations were like, behind the whole thing.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/18/video-gop-rep-who-voted-for-tarp-booed-mercilessly-at-tea-party/

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Small businesses create about 75 percent of new jobs in America.

    Real Americans know this.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Lots of interesting replies. I don't have the time or energy to contribute much to this tread anymore.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    "Tea party," nisegaijin. "Tea Party."

    As in the 1773 Boston one.

    "Tea bagging" speaks to entirely different proclivities.

    Again, if really want to stop paying taxes, then get off my roads, stop relying on my police force to protect your wealth, stop using my legal system to create the economic stability that enables you to make wealth in the first place, and turn in your passport at the exit on your way out to Lollipop Land where all things like education, infrastructure, and national defense are magically paid for by the Sugar Plum Fairy.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    LFRAgain,

    Do you know how much from your income taxes goes to all wonderful services that you mentioned? zero, zip, nill! watch the video.

  • 0

    Noliving

    ANOTSUSAGAMI, ya but most americans don't like the idea of the bottom 50% paying less then 2% of all tax revenue. The top 10% already pay over 30% of all tax revenue. If you increase the amount or ratio that the richest pay in terms of grand total tax revenue you only increase their power or voice over the US government and weaken the voice of the middleclass and the poorest.

  • 0

    Noliving

    JoeBigs, the reason why you didn't see anything for the past 8 years was because the economy was growing. Except for the recession that hit after 2001 and then right before he left office, under Bush the economy reached its highest levels along with some of the lowest unemployment rates in decades. So with the economy going well, except for that federal budget problem, what reason would they have to complain?

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    It does amaze me how folks try to stir the pot with b.s. they do not even believe. But with most b.s. the smell just will not go away until you bury it. So with that........

    Let us take your comments to task and see how it all smells...

    Noliving at 08:25 PM JST - 19th April under Bush the economy reached its highest levels

    The only thing that reach the highest levels was the national debt our children will have to pay. He allowed his friends to stick their hands in our cookie jar and they grabbed all they could grab.

    Noliving at 08:25 PM JST - 19th April lowest unemployment rates in decades

    When Bush took office unemployment was at 4.2% but when Bush left office unemployment hit a nice 6.2%. That little ole statement of your does not pass the smell test.

    Oh btw during Bushes 1st term unemployment went from 4.2% to 5.2%.

    Now let us take a look at job creation, let us see how ole W did there. Ouchie ole W did horrible he was at G.W. Bush -0.7. Only Hoover did worse than W, Hoover got -9.0.

    Noliving at 08:25 PM JST - 19th April So with the economy going well, except for that federal budget problem, what reason would they have to complain?

    Now why would the far right wingers complain about their man? Of course they would not, the far right will (and did) mindlessly follow W to the bitter end.

    Bush has gone down in history as possible one of the worst leaders of this great nation. He and his gang took our nation down a road that has led us to where we are now.

    There is no way to excuse what he did. He and his administration allowed the largest give away of public funds in resent memory. He led us to war with the wrong country all in the name of corporate profits.

    When W took office he claimed that he was going to run the nation like a business. Well he should have changed the name of our nation to ENRON. Because after 8 years under his leadership we look as good as that company did at the end.

    Noliving at 08:25 PM JST - 19th April because the economy was growing.

    The GDP avg for Bush is about 2.0% in his 8 years. Now that is not bad, but it is not bad if you compare his record to Hoover or Bush I. You lay it out against Clinton which averaged 3.75% in his 8 years. Now in my math 2.0% growth is not as good as 3.75%. But again I am not a far right winger.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    If you increase the amount or ratio that the richest pay in terms of grand total tax revenue you only increase their power or voice over the US government and weaken the voice of the middleclass and the poorest.

    Now that's an interesting premise: Basing the strength and validity of a person's civic voice on how much money he or she pays up front. I don't think that's quite what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

  • 0

    Betzee

    I can't resist posting this, it's so funny:

    Well, let's see, tea-baggers, I guess none of you drove to your April 15 protests on roads, none of you had protest permits provided by city services, none of you was protected by police, none of you needed medical attention during your protests requiring ambulance or emergency room services, none of you mapped your way to the site on the Internet (first developed by Defense Department taxes), none of you "... well, let me ask, who should pay for all these things you just used? I don't think they have taxes in North Korea. Why don't you map your way there and see how well your protest goes?

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Betzee, Betzee, Betzee... Haven't you been paying attention?

    According to nisegaijin and his "video," none of those things are paid for by taxes. Apparently, our taxes all go straight into the pockets of some shadowy banker's cabal. ;-)

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Again, if really want to stop paying taxes, then get off my roads, stop relying on my police force to protect your wealth, stop using my legal system to create the economic stability that enables you to make wealth in the first place, and turn in your passport at the exit on your way out to Lollipop Land where all things like education, infrastructure, and national defense are magically paid for by the Sugar Plum Fairy.

    Nice little diatribe.

    Do "liberals" ever admonish the bottom thirty percent of wage-earners in America (who pay no taxes and overwhelmingly support the Dems, no surprise why) with such "logic" ?

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    go to youtube and watch America: From Freedom to Fascism. It has everything to do with income tax and this protest.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    China is dumping its US currency reserves.

    I look forward to Obama's starry-eyed devotees explaining just where their confidence went.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Yeah, "America: From Freedom to Fascism," an expose on the legality of the IRS, and project that sprung from the mind of one Aaron Russo, filmaker and 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist who also just happened to have nail by the IRS for $2 million in tax liens levied for unpaid taxes on properties from California to New York. Among some of Russo's more interesting theories, he also postulates that Neo-Cons (uh, you guys) planned 9/11. Funny that you would cling to his views on taxes so fervently, as if he couldn't possibly be mistaken. Logic would suggest . . .

  • 0

    sailwind

    First off. The "Tea Party" protests are not and were not about paying your taxes. It was about how your taxes are now being spent.

    It is stated plainly in the article. This discussion has gone way of track.

    Here is what the protests were about.

    Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group, described the tea parties as “the shot across the bow as taxpayers defend themselves against out of control government spending.”

    Here is what inspired them.

    The man credited with sparking the protests is CNBC television commentator Rick Santelli, who called in February for a “tea party” to oppose government bailouts for mortgage defaulters.

    I agree with the postion of the protesters and if I was back in the States I would have attended. Uncle Sugar really needs to get back under fiscal control and fiscal sanity again. That was what this is all about.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Neo-Cons (uh, you guys)

    Who? I am a libertarian. and 9/11 Has nothing to do with it. Get your facts straight before posting.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    What's a neo-con? I've never encountered a Democrat who could even explain the term.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    The tea party was about paying taxes. They have been held for decades now. Many of the protesters are from the camp that believes the constitutional amendment was never truly ratified.

    Dick Armey is a tool. He and Rick Santelli are just grandstanders. Of course the grandstanders here would buy into their hype. You know the type; always waving the flag, wearing their military service on their sleeve and other hero activities.

    Just let them go on an pretend that their heroes started the tea parties and determined it was "about how the money is being spent." They need something to get patriotic about in these glum times; they are still bitter from the election. I'll bet there were guys just like that around the time of the Boston Tea Party. They tried to tell everyone it was their idea - they were talking before, during and after the men were dumping the tea.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Just let them go on an pretend that their heroes started the tea parties and determined it was "about how the money is being spent."

    Treasury reports show that tax receipts are down. Way down. Conservatives, Libertarians and quite a few independents have already taken action. Many hardworking Americans are 'going Galt.'

    Sales of Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, Liberty and Tyranny (Amazon no. 1 at the moment) and Liberal Fascism have soared these last few months.

    The Pelosi-Reid-Obama budget will be revised.

    Tripling and even quadrupling the deficit in ten years, from the party that constantly tries to tell the American public what they do is 'for the children'. Whatta laugh.

    It's the same with your silly dreams of socialized medicine. Yes, you can force it on taxpayers, but you won't be able to force good doctors to continue practicing in such a system.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    nisegaijin - Well, you threw Aaron Russo out there to - ahem - support your silly "No more taxes" nonsense, and Aaron Russo also believed that neo-Conservatives were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That's a fact. He even made a film about it. So perhaps it's you who needs to do a little fact-checking.

    The reason I bring up Russo's biography speaks to his credibility in your argument. Russo was a tax-dodging loon and doesn't really lend a lot of credence to your position. Unless, of course, you're using the "it was in a movie, therefore it must be true" defense.

    Meanwhile, sailwind, where were the good protesting citizens of the United States when the Bush administration was waging a trillion-dollar "War on Terror," with money borrowed from other nations, China, among them? Where was the outrage then when Bush piled up a national debt that's going to take two generations to whittle down?

    Ahh, "fiscal conservatism" - I see now. Spending gobs of taxpayer money is prudent when the person in the White House is on your team. Got it.

  • 0

    Betzee

    The problem is tea baggers want it both ways. They tout economic growth under GWB while ignoring the fact it was facilitated not by productivity gains but ever greater balances on plastic. In other words, an explosion of personal debt kept the cash registers humming. Now the bubble has burst, in the form of mortgage defaults, they want to throw those irresponsible consumers under the bus. And they blame Obama's tax policy for declining commercial tax revenues when the latter is due to poor sales. Doing nothing won't change the situation and it won't enable the government to take in more than it needs in order to pay down the accumulated debt. (Witness Japan's "Lost Decade.")

    In short, the government has to pick up the slack by stimulating the economy since the private sector is contracting because credit has dried up. There's a rationale for running deficits under Obama whereas under GWB there wasn't one. So the tea baggers didn't talk about it nor did they acknowledge it was their grandchildren, whose future they suddenly care so much about, who were going to get stuck with the five trillion dollar bill for our "good times."

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    teleprompter, Neo-con (neo-conservative) is a new wing of republican party that ditches the old GOP ideals in favors of interventionism, religion, and welfare. As a libertarian and Ron Paul supporter I absolutely despise them.

    LFRAgain, Can you please explain to me, why on earth every time somebody mentions facts that prove liberals ideals violate human rights, liberals throw personal insults like loon or extremist and dismiss the entire argument?

    Once again, just because Aaron Russo did a flick on 9/11 doesn't mean that he cannot bring about a valid point about taxes. There is absolutely no logic behind this. If you care to watch this video it is absolutely obvious that he proved his theory that taxes on wages and labor are illegal.

    Stop calling people loons and such just because you disagree with them. Be smart. If you think he is wrong, find the law that states you are required to file a 1040 and that taxes on wages and labor are constitutional. Prove him wrong!

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    teleprompter at 05:28 PM JST - 20th April What's a neo-con? I've never encountered a Democrat who could even explain the term.

    Wiki-Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It supports using U.S. power, including military force, to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

    In other words might is right Conservative......Hope that helps you out

    If you really want to get the scoop them google Neo-Con, neocon, Neo Conservative....so on and so on and so on.....As an Independent I always like to help the confused far right wingers in understanding what and who GW was.......

    If you want any more help just yell.........

    Now back to the show.....

    Oh by the way no one in the far right camp can tell me why this so called movement was even called a grass roots movement. When it was backed by powerful lobbyist and their corporate backers...

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties/

    http://www.newsamericanow.com/2009/04/10/corporate-lobbyist-push-tea-party-protests/

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/04/spontaneous-uprising-corporate.html

    Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative Freedom Works group...You know sailwind I could swear that we have a well established Republican Senator by the same name.

    Dick Armey must be a very popular name since this grassroot organizer and the share the same name. It would be awful if the organizers of this so called grassroots movement trying were pulling the wool over the people. But that would never happen......Opps did I forget to give the definition of "grassroot". Let me do that.....

    A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the constituents of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures. Often, grassroots movements are at the local level, as many volunteers in the community give their time to support the local party, which can lead to helping the national party. For instance, a grassroots movement can lead to significant voter registration for a political party, which in turn helps the state and national parties.

    I do hope that the far right media and the suppoters of this so called grassroots movement are not lying......

    http://www.tressugar.com/3031056

    http://taxdayteaparty.com/

    http://reteaparty.com/

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/04132009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/tea_parties__real_grassroots_164143.htm

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/73-fox-tea-promos/

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200904080025

    http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22090725/grassroots-movement.htm

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/08/tea-party-protests-create-online-sales-boom/

    All these fine sites are all touting the same call, the teabag....er the tea party is a grass roots movement. It is inspired by the people. No large organizations (think tanks, neo-con groups, lobbyist firms, large corporations) are bank rolling this grass roots movement.

    I am glad to see the far right is really trying some thing new and not trying to pull a fast one..

    If the far right was trying to pull a fast one this maybe the last nail in their coffin.....You that guy, Dick Armey, not the Senator but the average joe must be one heck of a guy!

    Glad to see that the far right has fresh faces and fresh ideas...LOL Would hate to find out that they were.......LYING, again!LOL

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompter: Do "liberals" ever admonish the bottom thirty percent of wage-earners in America

    Not sure why anyone would admonish a wage earner for being on the bottom thirty percent? I think all of us tend to admonish the unemployed or the fiscally irresponsible. But wage earners??? Should we admosh people for accepting a low or substandard wage now? It just seems natural to me to admonish the person who is intentionally shelling out the low or substandard wage. So, is that what we should admonish the wage earner for? Not admonishing the boss??? What if the boss doesn't react? Would you support a strike then?

    Well, no matter what you say, there are only two ways the wage goes up: either the boss does it or the government makes him do it. We can go blue in the face asking, but that won't make the wage rise.

  • 0

    likeitis

    Nutz! Now I follow you teleprompter. Sorry about that.

    But I think they do pay taxes. They just get a refund. Hardly changes the fact that the government had their money for a year. Also, they pay sales tax, and other taxes even if income tax is returned (a year later).

    Plus they are following the rules we established. And if we decided to give the poor a break, then thems the rules.

  • 0

    likeitis

    nisegaijin: If you think he is wrong, find the law that states you are required to file a 1040 and that taxes on wages and labor are constitutional. Prove him wrong!

    Anything that is NOT unconstitutional is constitutional. So actually, its up to you to prove it is unconstitutional. If you can't, then it is. Savvy?

    But, yes, I would like to read the law requiring income taxes.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Dick Armey is a tool. He and Rick Santelli are just grandstanders. Of course the grandstanders here would buy into their hype. You know the type; always waving the flag, wearing their military service on their sleeve and other hero activities.

    Pretentious and insulting, your posts are getting sad and it tiresome that you feel fit to try to destroy anyone who does not agree with you.

    LFR

    Meanwhile, sailwind, where were the good protesting citizens of the United States when the Bush administration was waging a trillion-dollar "War on Terror," with money borrowed from other nations, China, among them?

    I could care less about Bush right now. His policy was to pay for it all by money borrowed from other nations....... I thought it was then I think it is wrong now. Obama borrowing is making Bush look like a bloody miser, but you approve now........Go figure.

  • 0

    sailwind

    I thought it was then I think it is wrong now.

    Sorry Typo..... I thought it was wrong then and I think it is wrong now was what I trying to convey.

  • 0

    USARonin

    Ahh, the American right to peacefully assemble and protest. Who could possibly be against such an ideal?

    What a great nation.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    But I think they do pay taxes. They just get a refund. Hardly changes the fact that the government had their money for a year. Also, they pay sales tax, and other taxes even if income tax is returned (a year later).

    Interesting how a guy who claims to be American knows so little about our tax system...

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompter: Interesting how a guy who claims to be American knows so little about our tax system...

    I have been outside of America most of my tax paying life. I am a long term expat, but my passport is still valid. Feel free to tell me where I slipped up. Was it on withholding tax? Remember, it was the bottom 30 percent we were talking, so you can't just change it to the bottom ten or something and declare me wrong. Also, were the roads paid for by something other than sales tax, or was that state roads only?

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Remember, it was the bottom 30 percent we were talking,

    No, actually, it was the bottom thirty percent that I was talking about.

    You were unaware of the stat.

    Again - nice try.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Anything that is NOT unconstitutional is constitutional. So actually, its up to you to prove it is unconstitutional. If you can't, then it is. Savvy? But, yes, I would like to read the law requiring income taxes.

    Easy: 5th amendment says that no private property will be seized for public use 13th amendment says that there will be no slavery. Direct taxation on wages takes away what is rightfully yours (private property for public use) and paying 30% of your taxes means that you work 1/3 of your entire employment for free (slavery). Going further: 16th amendment (even though its ratification was a fraud, let's assume it is not) grants government the right for direct taxation of income. What is income? Supreme court declared that wages and labor are not classified as income and therefore cannot be taxed.
    IRS disregards this to this date.

    The reason why this hasn't been blown out of the water is that supreme court does not want to take any income tax cases and local courts always rule in favor of IRS because they rely not on constitution but on IRS tax code.

    Mods, please stop deleting my posts!!! Just because you are disagreeing with them doesn't mean they are off-topic. We are trying to have a discussion here and you are censoring the crap out of me. I am ask you to stop. Come on guys, First amendment. I am not saying anything offensive, so please let me speak. I would appreciate if you restore my last deleted post.

  • 0

    Good_Jorb

    I am sure when the constition was drafted, they intended to collect some taxes, if not the "We they people" preamble would be complete useless. The government if not for taxes could not "provide for the common defense" nor could it "establish justice". In fact if they did not expect anyone to pay taxes, who did they expect to enforce the constitution?

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompterNo, actually, it was the bottom thirty percent that I was talking about. You were unaware of the stat.

    I remain unaware. Do you have a link to a stat to back up the statement:

    the bottom thirty percent of wage-earners in America (who pay no taxes

    ? Seems pretty out there.

  • 0

    Betzee

    When GWB introduced his tax cuts, he didn't use the equity argument advanced above. Rather he claimed cutting the tax rates of those at the top would enable them to invest and create jobs, in the process stimulating the economy. In this era of globalization, however, those jobs may well be overseas, an issue left unacknowledged.

    Nonetheless, Republicans persist in the view that small business owners will be taxed to pay for services utilized by the less enterprising. Enter Exhibit A, JTP, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher as a stand-in for the average Joe, whose entrepreneurial dreams will be dashed under Obama’s tax plan. As an archetype, Joe doesn’t hold up so well. He isn’t a licensed plumber, isn’t about to buy the company he works for — or anyone else’s – and owes more than a grand in back taxes. (No wonder he doesn’t like them.) Under Obama’s plan, of course, he would actually receive a tax cut since he doesn’t make anywhere near $250,000, the income level that would see a modest rollback to Clinton-era tax rates.

    When tea baggers talk about reducing government spending, they are vague on specifics. Cut the defense budget? Cut entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security for the elderly? These are the big budget items which would have to be cut to reduce government spending in any discernible fashion. So which is it guys?

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Good_Jorb, No, your are incorrect. I suggest you read about declaration of declaration of independence and constitution. The reason why they bothered with them was that they didn't want to be part of British tyranny of central bank and taxes. They formed a republic (not a democracy) for the sole purpose of limiting government authority over people. Thomas Jefferson was openly writing against any kind of taxation.

    So which is it guys?

    Everything. Stop the war on drugs, stop the war on poverty, stop sending money overseas, close foreign bases, pull out of middle east, disband IRS, FBI, FDA, Federal reserve, FAA, DEA, NSA, department of education, privative roads, public transport, health care, and stop regulating! That's the way to prosperity.. and you won't need to tax individuals.

  • 0

    Good_Jorb

    Good_Jorb, No, your are incorrect.

    Perhaps I am, but I still see no point for the half the preamble if that is the case and how/why they planned on creating the legislative branch; a particular example Article 1 Section 6 [Compensation and Privileges of Members], "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States." What money whould the treasury have and why would a treasury even exist if there were no plans to collect money?

    In the end I am more inclined to believe supreme court rulings, then you, as they are some of the most learned people when it comes to constitutional matters, vested interests or not.

  • 0

    Betzee

    In the end I am more inclined to believe supreme court rulings, then you, as they are some of the most learned people when it comes to constitutional matters, vested interests or not.

    A wise approach. Nisegaijin accused the moderators of violating his first amendment rights to free speech by deleting his posts. But the first amendment only applies to government efforts to censor individuals. This is a privately owned site and the mods can set whatever policies they want with regards to content.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    When tea baggers talk about reducing government spending, they are vague on specifics.

    Anyone serious about the issue wouldn't be calling the protesters by the juvenile name you use.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    sailwind said of my post:

    Pretentious and insulting, your posts are getting sad and it tiresome that you feel fit to try to destroy anyone who does not agree with you.

    Your sole intent of using the word "insulting" was to get my posts removed. I don't try to destroy anyone. That would be your perception.

    Rick Santelli is an extreme grandstander. I am not alone in saying that you wear your patriotism on your sleeve. We have seen conservatives abuse patriotism for years. It completely collapsed on them when they overused the mantra accusing their opponents of not being patriotic.

    If people want to protest taxes that is fine. It is good for people to exercise their free speech. But Rick Santelli, Dick Armey and yourself want to commandeer an existing movement and claim it as your own. Not only that you falsely claim it is against spending because your heroes said so.

    THE TEA PARTY PROTESTS WERE ABOUT TAXES!!!; not spending. Call my posts Pretentious and insulting; say my "posts are getting sad and it tiresome." What ever that means in English. But I am honest and I do not use others causes to claim them as my own. We so often hear from sailwind that everyone is wrong and that he knows the truth. All mass media is bias. The tea party protests are not about what the protesters say it is about. But a close examination determines it was exactly about taxes and not something else because someone wants it to be something else.

  • 0

    Betzee

    Anyone serious about the issue wouldn't be calling the protesters by the juvenile name you use.

    Had they been explicit about what they wanted cut from the budget, I wouldn't have needed to make the post. All I heard was a lot of generalized whining about the government from people with whom reasonable debate appears highly problematic to say the least:

    Man calls Obama FASCIST at GOP Teabagging Rally

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCA-3q6t57Q

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    You know if you look at the videos from the tea party you come away laughing at how unorganized these folks were. Not only did they have the anti-tax crowd but they also got the far wingnuts in there also.

    I could not stop laughing at some of the videos....But then you have the creepy water tower sort of folks in these videos....

    This one is filled with the real wackos....One guy calls President Obama a fascist. The guy is really not that bright when it comes to politics. President Obama is a Democrat meaning he is to the left of Fascism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMxKMr2wnhk

    In the video you will also see every far right wingnut anti anything running around.

    Maybe before this thing got started all the far right wingers could have at least kept their people on the same page. Or in the same book......

    Next is Michael Savage is the next one......What can I say this man and his listeners are really weird....But darn it they are funny!!!LOL

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZ2vevmZQU&feature=related

    In this vid M.Savage is going overboard claiming that the government will provoke the protesters...He is claiming that the government will try a Reichstag fire against the protesters!!!LOL Man I was rolling!!!LOL

    How can you far right wingers be taken seriously when you have wing nuts running around spouting insane things?LOL

    I love Jackie and Dunlap they are so bloody funny....LOL

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWm1Mjd71M&feature=fvsr

    You guys have to see this video.....LOL

    Now for the best one of all, please welcome that so called average joe, give it up for joe the plumber!!!!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c570na2mhU&feature=related

    Wonder where Palin was, you know the other media hog....LOL

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    What money whould the treasury have and why would a treasury even exist if there were no plans to collect money?

    Nobody said anything about not collecting. We are only talking about wage tax, property tax and maybe, must maybe the rest of the income tax. If you get rid of those, you can still finance government spending in equal to what it was in 1995.

    Bush deceived the honest republicans by running on low spending, no intervention platform, but ended up ramping up spending to +3 or 4 trillion in 8 years. Obama spent the same in 4 months. I think Americans are sick of this. They demand to know why are they being robbed like this. Government needs to provide some answers.

    Lowering taxes is the best economic stimulus there can be. If they want to run deficit, that's how you do it. It will help small businesses so damn much!

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    nisegaijin at 10:12 AM JST - 21st April Lowering taxes is the best economic stimulus there can be. If they want to run deficit, that's how you do it. It will help small businesses so damn much!

    Yeah we have seen how well we did under the Bush less tax plans. Our nation was in a war and he and his gang of thieves decided to help the rich and large corporations by lowering their taxes.

    How many small business closed because of the Bush plan?

    The far right were given 8 years to prove their plan....You failed and nearly destroyed our nation....Time for the left to fix your mess.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    JoeBigs,

    As I said in my post, I absolutely despise Bush. I think he crapped all over the country. However, his mess has been seen immediately while future generations will be paying for Obama's destruction. That is always the case with liberals. Obama will just spend the country to oblivion, and yet one question that not a single leftist can answer: who the hell is gonna pay for all this? Current generation is still paying for the new deal!

    Last chance was Ron Paul when he tried to run for president, but he got no air time, despite winning every single GOP debate that he participated in. Shame.

  • 0

    sailwind

    THE TEA PARTY PROTESTS WERE ABOUT TAXES!!!; not spending.

    You should tell that also to CNN they got it wrong also in your view.

    Armed with signs reading "no taxation without deliberation" and "stop bankrupting America," tens of thousands of people spent national tax day at organized "tea party" demonstrations across the country,** protesting what some view as excessive government spending and bailouts.**

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/tea.parties/index.html?iref=topnews

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Sailwind,

    I believe goodDonkey is referring to the original 1773 Boston Tea Party, which was about taxes, rather than spending, or more specifically (and this is the part that gets lost in the argument of the anti-tax camp) taxation without representation. The problem wasn't with taxes per se, but with having no political voice in a system that utilized their taxes for the benefit of other British subjects who had a voice in government.

    The issue many are taking with the current "Tea Party" protests, myself included, is that its organizers are trying to cash in on the legitimacy of the watershed 1773 historical event by pretending that that protest and the 2009 version have anything in common. They don’t.

    The current protests are in opposition to recent government spending, spending, mind you, which was allocated in accordance to the rules of our legal system. That should be the end of it. But not, apparently, for these protesters, who seem to think the rules don’t apply to them or that they are entitled to some sort of do-over or take-back because their elected representatives didn’t kowtow to the lowest common denominator of barstool populism – like the “federal taxes are illegal” nonsense that nisegaijin continues to peddle (nise - I'll get back to you in detail on that, BTW).

    These spending bills were passed because the country needs them. The government knows it. Business leaders know it. Republicans know it. And you know it. In the absence of any comprehensive financial assistance from the government, the impact on our economy, our very way of life, would be catastrophic to say the least.

    The only difference between any of those four groups is that Republicans, in typical inimitable style, are pursuing all-too-common two-faced politics by supporting the spending bills in Congress, but crying foul in public because they know it will garner supporters for a base they all but obliterated over 8 years of divisive, scattershot, flavor-of-the-month politics.

    The question is are the people who showed up for these protests really the kind of base that the GOP wants to be associated with from here on out? They’ve already had a devil of a time trying to shed themselves of the stench of ultra-religious right wing "activists" preaching "abortion is murder" out of one side of their mouths, while murdering abortion doctors and anyone associated with them with sniper rifles and bombs. Is the GOP really so desperate to reestablish some form of relevancy in the current political climate that they would get in bed with extremists yet again?

  • 0

    teleprompter

    To put it another way - as some conservatives have - the participants in these rallies and the right in general want another American Revolution.

    The Left in America wants another French Revolution.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    The Left in America wants another French Revolution

    Or Russian Revolution

    like the “federal taxes are illegal” nonsense that nisegaijin continues to peddle (nise - I'll get back to you in detail on that, BTW).

    Not all federal taxes are illegal. only taxes on wages and labor compensation as that is not classified as income.

  • 0

    sailwind

    LFR,

    Let me address the points your making in the first two paragraphs.

    I believe goodDonkey is referring to the original 1773 Boston Tea Party, which was about taxes, rather than spending, or more specifically (and this is the part that gets lost in the argument of the anti-tax camp) taxation without representation. The problem wasn't with taxes per se, but with having no political voice in a system that utilized their taxes for the benefit of other British subjects who had a voice in government.

    The issue many are taking with the current "Tea Party" protests, myself included, is that its organizers are trying to cash in on the legitimacy of the watershed 1773 historical event by pretending that that protest and the 2009 version have anything in common. They don’t.

    The tea party protesters are not talking about taxation without representation, they are protesting, "no taxation without deliberation".

    The Democratic majority jammed the stimulus bill thru without any real meaningful bi-partisan effort. They ignored darn near 50% of the population of the United States that do consider themselves as fiscal conservatives and were totally shut out of the process. You know this. Taxation without meaningful and real deliberation may not be 100% taxation without representation but it is pretty darn close as you can get. As a matter of fact that is why the many of the posters held in the rallys said 'Taxation without Deliberation'......They're smart enough to already know the point your trying to make in the first place.

    Second point,

    The current protests are in opposition to recent government spending, spending, mind you, which was allocated in accordance to the rules of our legal system. That should be the end of it.

    Not when you effectly manipulate the legal system to totally shut out about 50% of the population out of the debate. That should never 'be the end of it' but the catalyst to start a protest...oh-wait that is what happened after all.

    Third Point

    But not, apparently, for these protesters, who seem to think the rules don’t apply to them or that they are entitled to some sort of do-over or take-back because their elected representatives didn’t kowtow to the lowest common denominator of barstool populism

    I have now idea were you got that stereotype in your post about the protesters. Almost all that I have read about them is they were a pretty mainstream cross-section of Americans that are fed up with out of control Government spending and are piping up about it now that they have actually had a chance to digest what Obama and the Dems have actually passed and what it means to the future of the country.

    Fourth Point

    These spending bills were passed because the country needs them. The government knows it. Business leaders know it. Republicans know it. And you know it. In the absence of any comprehensive financial assistance from the government, the impact on our economy, our very way of life, would be catastrophic to say the least.

    That is debatable, what would have been nice is for the Democrats to have actually allowed one on it, instead of killing every admendment the Republicans offered on the spending bills don't you think?

    Fifth Point

    The only difference between any of those four groups is that Republicans, in typical inimitable style, are pursuing all-too-common two-faced politics by supporting the spending bills in Congress, but crying foul in public because they know it will garner supporters for a base they all but obliterated over 8 years of divisive, scattershot, flavor-of-the-month politics.

    The question is are the people who showed up for these protests really the kind of base that the GOP wants to be associated with from here on out? They’ve already had a devil of a time trying to shed themselves of the stench of ultra-religious right wing "activists" preaching "abortion is murder" out of one side of their mouths, while murdering abortion doctors and anyone associated with them with sniper rifles and bombs. Is the GOP really so desperate to reestablish some form of relevancy in the current political climate that they would get in bed with extremists yet again?

    I have no idea how abortion, or radical right wing extremists would even factor in this discussion, unless it's just another attempt to demonize decent hard working Americans who have the temerity to actually disagree with the direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the country ( a hard left turn on the domestic front a very hard left turn indeed).

    It really would be nice to see a real end to this tactic that just seems to be more and common on both sides of the political fence. Rational discussion on important issues just get lost in all the noise. I hold the far right and the far left equally quilty on that by the way.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    sailwind said he wished he could have attended the events. If he wants to go teabagging let him enjoy it. He could have gone teabagging on April 15 in Japan. I guess there is a difference between the tea party protests that have happened repeatedly in the U.S. and the Republican version of teabagging. Sailwind supports teabagging Republicans and that is his right; I hope he gets his chance to go teabagging with them.

    In 1973, on the 200th anniversary of the Tea Party, a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall called for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon and protested oil companies in the ongoing oil crisis. Afterwards, protesters boarded a replica ship in Boston Harbor, hanged Nixon in effigy, and dumped several empty oil drums into the harbor. In 1998, two conservative US Congressmen put the federal tax code into a chest marked "tea" and dumped it into the harbor.

    I was simply stating that scattered protests have occurred over the past few decades. I have heard about many on the news and they were just too insignificant to warrant any further coverage and it is impossible to find the smaller gatherings on the internet.

    I have no problem admitting that the majority of the protesters were organized to protest the spending; that is because as the article stated they were Republicans. I maintain that they used the opportunity to grandstand. I maintain that for years there have been tea parties reported on the news designed to protest taxes. I have heard of them frequently. Even this article states that not all the protesters were protesting the spending side. This article as well as many others have clearly shown that many protesters had placards about taxes not spending. To argue the ratio of protesters was never my contention. I maintained all along that there have been plenty of tea parties in the past and most were directed at taxation. I now find myself in the position of not being able to find many examples. So it is a question of whether you believe me when I say I have seen several news articles/broadcasts mentioning sporadic tea parties protesting taxation. I do not fear putting my credibility on the line.

    Contrary to the near 50% that conservatives on this thread have said are against the Obama plan of expansion, the above article clearly differs.

    For now, Obama’s far-reaching economic policies, including a $787 billion anti-recession stimulus package, have broad support.

    /

    A USA Today/Gallup published Wednesday found a majority of Americans favor Obama’s expansion of the government’s role in the economy, at least for now.

    In fact only 40% of Americans say the current expansion is too big. Many more say the spending is too much. I don't expect most Americans to understand economics. There is no economic formula to determine how much spending will be needed to get our economy out of this mess. It is clear in economics that too little is a far greater error than too much. The loss of revenue if we don't get our economy in good shape again pales in comparison to the spending. The results of the survey can be found at:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-14-biggovernment_N.htm

    By 3-to-1, those surveyed say government's expansion should be cut back when the economic crisis is over.

    I have said that all along. It will be done. The economy was in bad shape and it needed fixing. Spending will inject badly needed dollars into our economy. So Obama took action and decided to rebuild schools, rebuild roads, build new roads, hire teachers, hire police officers, rebuild water delivery systems, rebuild sewage facilities and treatment plants, rebuild bridges, rebuild portions of the power grid, build further high speed internet access into rural areas, research and development of greener technology, research and development of alternative energy sources and upgrading facilities using more energy efficient means; just to name a few. The conservatives say that is wasting money - I say it is not.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Sailwind,

    In response to your points:

    The tea party protesters are not talking about taxation without representation, they are protesting, "no taxation without deliberation". The Democratic majority jammed the stimulus bill thru without any real meaningful bi-partisan effort.

    No, you mean they rammed it through without allowing Republicans to have more of their way. I suspected you would make this sort of argument, but guess what? This is what happens when one party controls both the House and Senate – much like what happened when Republicans controlled Congress from 2003 to 2007. That’s the system we have in place. You can’t choose to support it when its decisions work for you, but suddenly oppose it when it legally does something not to your liking. To put things into better perspective with regard to legislation believed crucial enough to require haste at the expense of dissenting opinion, think “PATRIOT Act.”

    They ignored darn near 50% of the population of the United States that do consider themselves as fiscal conservatives and were totally shut out of the process.

    You just went right back to the “taxation without representation” argument.

    Taxation without meaningful and real deliberation may not be 100% taxation without representation but it is pretty darn close as you can get.

    There was no meaningful and real deliberation? Says you. What precisely would constitute meaningful and real deliberation to the Americans who protested? I would venture to guess anything that resulted in the national debt not going up. Fair enough, but unrealistic.

    Still, I’m not yet entirely convinced of this sudden and startling economic savvy and sincerity you profess the protesters displayed when the same “fiscally responsible” Americans uttered nary a peep when Bush was waging war WHILE lowering taxes, leaving behind $10 Trillion in Federal debt. How the hell do you wage a war and cut taxes? And just where were these conscientious “fiscal conservatives” then, lending their patriotic voices to unborn generations of Americans? I don't by their sudden fiscal epiphanies for a second.
    You would have to be incredibly naïve to not see the political machinations behind these “protests.” Do I believe everyone who attended these protests was towing some sort of party line? Of course not. Many Americans were there for exactly the reason you mentioned: They were fed up with what they perceived to be out-of-control federal spending. But the sad reality is that many of these protestors simply allowed themselves to be manipulated for political gain, pure and simple.

    As I said, it’s not lost on anyone what organizations got the ball rolling on these protests. FreedomWorks, New American Tea Party, the Comal County Republican Party, Americans for Prosperity, Arizona-based Republican Professionals, just to name a few – all of these groups are conservative to the core. A “tea party” slated for July 4th is currently being sponsored by none other than the American Family Association – as conservative a Christian group as one can find in the US. To quote you: ” I have no idea how abortion, or radical right wing extremists would even factor in this discussion,” but here we have the AFA throwing their hat into the ring.

    Second point . . .Not when you effectly manipulate the legal system to totally shut out about 50% of the population out of the debate.

    Again, you’re back to the “disenfranchisement” argument. No manipulations occurred. No one was shut out. The Senate passed the bill 61-37, 2 votes shy of full Senate membership.

    I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but you seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a representative democracy. Not a 1-by-1 democracy. Not a “let’s put every piece of proposed Federal budgetary legislation up to popular vote” democracy. We have a House of Representatives with 435 elected officials and a Senate with 100 senators, each of them entrusted with the Constitutional duty to act and vote on behalf of a vast and varied constituency. They have broad latitude in how they vote and are, hopefully, making their legislative decisions based not on who paid the most into their campaigns, but rather on how legislation can best help the greatest number of Americans. Not just Democrats. Not just Republicans – a message that seems to have all but disappeared from American politics: The People before the Party.

    Considering there are 56 Democrats in the Senate, 41 Republicans, and two Independents, your “50%” number doesn’t hold up, never mind your not-so-subtle suggestion that HALF of the nation shares your opposition to the stimulus package. According to recent polls, some 64% of Americans seem to think Obama and the government are heading in the right direction right now.

    As a side note, your suggested solution of “let’s all talk things out” was in starkly short supply during the Bush administration, when all three governmental branches were under Republican control and a number of conservative agendas were enacted into law.

    “There's a very clear pattern of aggressively asserting executive power, and the Congress has essentially been complicit in letting him do it. The key is that Bush has a Republican Congress; of course if it was a Clinton presidency we'd be holding hearings.” – Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)

    Third Point . . . I have now idea were you got that stereotype in your post about the protesters. Almost all that I have read about them is they were a pretty mainstream cross-section of Americans

    Pick a fight: It’s either 50% of the American populace being disenfranchised, i.e., Republicans being shut out by a Democrat-controlled Congress, or it’s a “broad cross section of Americans.” Can’t be both for the purposes of the argument you’re trying to make.

    As for the stereotypes, I’m not offering any stereotypes. I’m saying that among the protesters were also a significant number of fringe groups latching onto the event as a means of advancing their own positions, and I’m saying that the Republican groups that had a hand in organizing these events are playing with fire – again.

    Fourth Point . . . That [these spending bills were passed because the country needs them] . . . is debatable.

    Yes, it is debatable. And likely will be for many years to come. But our duly elected two-party Congress reached the conclusion that the country needs the proposed stimulus packages now.

    what would have been nice is for the Democrats to have actually allowed one on it, instead of killing every admendment the Republicans offered on the spending bills don't you think?

    Gross exaggeration serves no one. The original spending package was set at $1 trillion, which was cut back to $838 billion, which was then cut back to $790 billion. These changes were the result of compromise and negotiation with Republicans and involved such provisions as “$70 billion to shelter wealthier taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax.” So, no, every amendment wasn’t killed.

    Fifth Point . . . I have no idea how abortion, or radical right wing extremists would even factor in this discussion, unless it's just another attempt to demonize decent hard working Americans who have the temerity to actually disagree with the direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the country (a hard left turn on the domestic front a very hard left turn indeed).

    No. I made it very clear that only some of the protesters represented these fringe groups. Unless your decision to ignore that is an attempt to demonize anyone who would have the temerity to disagree with these protests?

    Like I said, it appears that Republicans, who I see as the predominant organizers and participants in these protests are crying foul about a system and political process that they defer to only when it suits them. It's politics of convenience and more than a little childish.

    It really would be nice to see a real end to this tactic that just seems to be more and common on both sides of the political fence. Rational discussion on important issues just get lost in all the noise. I hold the far right and the far left equally quilty on that by the way.

    You and me both. I’ve had about enough of this “Us or Them” style of politics that have brought this country to a virtual standstill in terms of political and intellectual growth. I’d really like to see more honesty and empathy out there, as well as more understanding that this entire idea of “Country” and “Nation” is a group endeavor, not just a special project for a select few that the rest are graciously “allowed” to participate in.

  • 0

    likeitis

    teleprompter, you gonna link us up to something proving that the bottom 30 percent don't pay taxes statement or what?

  • 0

    likeitis

    LFRAgain: How the hell do you wage a war and cut taxes?

    1) Make sure you are a rich government pulling in a LOT of money regardless. -- U.S Gov. Check 2) Wage war against a small country. It keeps the costs down-- Iraq is small. Check 3) Leave the infrastructure intact. Or, if you bomb it all out, don't pay to rebuild. -- Fail. And the American people were not paying attention as it all got bombed and, mysteriously, Halliburton got the lion's share of rebuilding contracts. 4) Secure oil wells and use them to pay for the war.-- Fail. Instead, the Bush Admin capped those wells so they and pals could sell oil to the military and soak up our tax money. Never mind what Wolfawitz said. He was somewhat correct in the statement, but they did not do that. 5) Pay a reasonable price for things, such as paper plates. -- Fail. We were charged too much for everything. Halliburton sold the military paper plates for $10 U.S. a piece. I don't even want to think what their rebuilding contracts cost us.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    Americans interested in this subject know that the IRS is of course the only source you can really trust.

    The most recent available figures (2006) are displayed and broken down at [http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html]

    As far as I can tell (from category "Group's share of income taxes") the top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 40 percent of all income taxes.

    The top 5 percent paid 60 percent of all income taxes. As I posted before, Libertarian Drew Carey/Reason TV have top the 10 percent paying 70 percent of taxes. Same figures here.

    Looks like the bottom 50 percent paid virtually no income taxes - about 3 percent of all income taxes paid.

    Among the world's industrialized nations it would appear America already has the most 'progressive' tax system.

  • 0

    Betzee

    Among the world's industrialized nations it would appear America already has the most 'progressive' tax system.

    Whether or not America has the most progressive tax system, the purpose of taxation is to meet the government's operating expenses. They weren't met in 2006. Or any other year of the GWB administration. Borrowing does in entail "taxation without representation" since it's the unborn who get stuck not only repaying the principal but with hefty interest payments as well. Don't recall any protests though.

    Second, the wealthy disproportionately enjoy the benefits of public spending. I'm a graduate of UCLA, one of California's public university flagship campuses. We loved to dismiss our cross town rivals, USC, as "University for Spoiled Children." So it came as a bitter pill to swallow when we learned the median family income for students at public UCLA was in fact higher than private USC.

    Is it genes? Partly. But the wealthy are able to invest much more in their children and that makes a difference in a hyper-competitive situation. I tutored my nephew, now at Berkeley, in preparation for standardized tests. When he did well parents of his friends, most of whom were top income earners, wanted to hire me to tutor their kids. With what they were willing to pay, I could have quit my day job and had the same salary working far fewer hours. But, if your parents aren't in a position to underwrite such preparation, you're at a distinct disadvantage in getting into a flagship campus, where the state spends much more per student, than a lower-tier teaching college.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Betzee,

    The single greatest truth I've ever heard about wealth in general: It takes money to make money. It you haven't got it to start with, things are infinitely harder for all concerned.

    BTW, I appreciate your posts on this thread. I envy your ability to temper your posts with level headed replies to some of the inane crap that's floating around here. Me? Not so much. I can't help but get thoroughly pissed at this myopic nonsense. Good stuff and thanks.

  • 0

    sailwind

    LFR,

    There seems a need for me to clarify something here. I said on this thread that roughly (roughly it's important that you remember that, I did not say exactly)that 50 percent of the population consider themselves fiscal conservatives. I will use your own qoutte as to how I know this to be true.

    Considering there are 56 Democrats in the Senate, 41 Republicans, and two Independents, your “50%” number doesn’t hold up, never mind your not-so-subtle suggestion that HALF of the nation shares your opposition to the stimulus package. According to recent polls, some 64% of Americans seem to think Obama and the government are heading in the right direction right now.

    The Senate as you know is seats are not apportioned by population as your know. They are not a 'representative cross section of the population' you cannot use the members or party affiliations as a true representation of the nation as a whole. Now the House is a true representation of the country as a whole and it is apportioned by the total population, as you pointed out there are currently 435 members based on population of the country. There are currently 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Still nowhere near a fifty percent split you say? Well 47 of those Democrats belong to the "Blue Dog Coalition" I'm sure your familiar with them. They're website states right up front 'Fiscal Conservative Democratics'. If you add those 47 to the 178 Republicans you have 225 total. 435- 225 is 210, or 'roughly 50 percent'.

    I stand by my assertation on that one. As far as the 64 percent poll figure. It goes way down if the question is not about Obama but how Congress is handling the economy. Obama's is still in his honeymoon period and you are one of the smartest posters here, and know that polls are fleeting and really always should be taken with a good grain of salt. Bush the elder once had a 91 percent approval rating after Desert Storm for all the good that did him, he was a one term President.

    I'll address some of your other points latter, but I wanted to clarify how I came to my '50' percent figure. I believe it's pretty sound.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    If someone wants us to believe that 50% of Americans are fiscal conservatives then please do not believe for a minute that those he labeled fiscal conservatives are united in support of his opinion. By no means are 50% of Americans against spending that will get us out of this deep, contracted recession. Let me be more clear, if 50% of Americans are fiscal conservative then Clinton was the last fiscal conservative president since Eisenhower.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Sailwind,

    I see what you're saying, but again, you're making the assumption that those Blue Dog Coalition members voted against the measure, when the congressional voting record shows that not one Democrat voted against the measure. Not one.

  • 0

    teleprompter

    You can cite and put faith in all the polls you want.

    I'll go with official Treasury Dept figures.

    Tax receipts are down.

    "Liberals" don't tend to notice such figures. Historical examination of their role in the economy demolishes certain much-parroted myths about the 'failure' of Reaganomics and the old saw about 'Tax cuts for the Rich!'

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all