Tax Day Tea Party?

[fossten]

Does he know how Lincoln went for really high tariffs (read taxes) for the south, to protect manufacturing in the north, and that the federal government's unfair tax policies in the south were one of the defining issues in the Civil War? Did he know that federal employees, such as the president, didn't pay Lincoln's newly instated income taxes because they were 'exempt.' I bet the guy on the video would be surprised to hear those facts. Lincoln was pretty 'pro-tax'.

Why are you asking me what he knows? Do you know that Obama is violating the spirit of Lincoln, whom he allegedly takes after, by violating the rights of ownership, self-determination and the free market system?

You are quite ignorant to assume that these tea parties are only about taxes. People are outraged over excessive spending, borrowing from China to pay for it, and pork waste and fraud.

If I must speculate, I am sure he knows that Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he saw Obama pushing this runaway spending that will result in higher taxes for our children's children. I suppose you're okay with mortgaging our children's future for the sake of some pork?

 

[fossten]

Borrowed from a commenter:

I don’t think many people in the media expected three hundred thousand people to show up for those Tea Parties. They already had their stories written - remember some of the MSM commentators were filing stories at nine or ten in the morning. These were supposed to be pitiful little gatherings of easily-dismissed malcontents. The media action line for this weekend was supposed to be how the fizzled Tea Party movement proves how irresistibly popular Obama is. Liberals of my acquaintance were swaggering around Wednesday morning, making jokes about how silly the Tea Parties were… then they saw the crowds on TV, and it left them stunned. They had no idea how to process it.

Naturally, the only ideologically acceptable way to rewrite the action line is to assert the Tea Party crowd is still a bunch of knuckle-dragging racist loons, but now the size of their demonstration is cause for alarm, instead of derision. They weren’t wrong about how big the movement is… they were wrong about how bad it is. The now-infamous party apparchik from CNN was making this adjustment in real time.

Beneath the usual layer of biases and class resentment that animates most of the liberal media, the Tea Party story makes them very, very nervous. It’s almost palpable when you watch any of the usual suspects talking about it. There are six words that absolutely terrify liberal reports and news anchors: The Failed Presidency Of Barack Obama. They had a fire sale on their credibility to get him elected, and they realize that even though they retain a tremendous amount of influence over the political culture, the one thing they have completely lost control of is The Memory Hole. The greatest achievement of the blogging revolution, the one that truly changed the political landscape, was permanently removing the Left’s ability to airbrush inconvenient people out of photographs, and burn embarrassing commentary out of the public record. The Memory Hole has been blocked with a million megabytes of blog posts.

If the man they worked so hard to put in the White House - the man they mortgaged so much of their souls to support - turns into an epic Carter-scale disaster, it will not only set their ideology back a generation, as Carter did. It will be a death blow to a media economy that is already reeling from a cataclysmic loss of customers and prestige.

When you’re watching the flagship liberal papers flirt with bankruptcy, and “Faux News” is cleaning your clock in the ratings, and your much-hyped liberal radio network is already an asterisk in the pages of broadcast history, it is very frightening to see three hundred thousand people turn out - on a work day - to denounce the political and spiritual leader you pulled out all the stops to get elected, only a few months ago. And all of those reporters and liberal commentators know, deep down, that this is as good as it gets for Barack Obama. When the 2010 Tea Parties roll around, those people are really going to have something to be angry about. What they did in 2008 will not be forgiven, and what makes them feel sick to their stomachs is the knowledge that it can no longer be conveniently forgotten.

Doctor Zero on April 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM

 

[fossten]

Borrowed from a commenter:

I don’t think many people in the media expected three hundred thousand people to show up for those Tea Parties. They already had their stories written - remember some of the MSM commentators were filing stories at nine or ten in the morning. These were supposed to be pitiful little gatherings of easily-dismissed malcontents. The media action line for this weekend was supposed to be how the fizzled Tea Party movement proves how irresistibly popular Obama is. Liberals of my acquaintance were swaggering around Wednesday morning, making jokes about how silly the Tea Parties were… then they saw the crowds on TV, and it left them stunned. They had no idea how to process it.

Naturally, the only ideologically acceptable way to rewrite the action line is to assert the Tea Party crowd is still a bunch of knuckle-dragging racist loons, but now the size of their demonstration is cause for alarm, instead of derision. They weren’t wrong about how big the movement is… they were wrong about how bad it is. The now-infamous party apparchik from CNN was making this adjustment in real time.

Beneath the usual layer of biases and class resentment that animates most of the liberal media, the Tea Party story makes them very, very nervous. It’s almost palpable when you watch any of the usual suspects talking about it. There are six words that absolutely terrify liberal reports and news anchors: The Failed Presidency Of Barack Obama. They had a fire sale on their credibility to get him elected, and they realize that even though they retain a tremendous amount of influence over the political culture, the one thing they have completely lost control of is The Memory Hole. The greatest achievement of the blogging revolution, the one that truly changed the political landscape, was permanently removing the Left’s ability to airbrush inconvenient people out of photographs, and burn embarrassing commentary out of the public record. The Memory Hole has been blocked with a million megabytes of blog posts.

If the man they worked so hard to put in the White House - the man they mortgaged so much of their souls to support - turns into an epic Carter-scale disaster, it will not only set their ideology back a generation, as Carter did. It will be a death blow to a media economy that is already reeling from a cataclysmic loss of customers and prestige.

When you’re watching the flagship liberal papers flirt with bankruptcy, and “Faux News” is cleaning your clock in the ratings, and your much-hyped liberal radio network is already an asterisk in the pages of broadcast history, it is very frightening to see three hundred thousand people turn out - on a work day - to denounce the political and spiritual leader you pulled out all the stops to get elected, only a few months ago. And all of those reporters and liberal commentators know, deep down, that this is as good as it gets for Barack Obama. When the 2010 Tea Parties roll around, those people are really going to have something to be angry about. What they did in 2008 will not be forgiven, and what makes them feel sick to their stomachs is the knowledge that it can no longer be conveniently forgotten.

Doctor Zero on April 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I would just love to have been there just to say "If you dont like america, then you can just get out". Hah.

For reals though, does anyone know if there was a "protest" in minnesota?

 

[Calabrio]

I would just love to have been there just to say "If you dont like america, then you can just get out". Hah.

That would have been moronic, because they weren't protesting America. They were supporting the country and the principles it was founded on and opposing radical change.

For reals though, does anyone know if there was a "protest" in minnesota?

Here were some of the Minnesota rallies.

City: Duluth
When: April 15, 12:15pm
Where:March and Rally - Harbor Drive (Behind the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center)
————-

City: Fairmont, MN
When: April 15, 5 p.m. to ?
Where: 201 Lake Ave, Martin County Courthouse front steps


————-
City:Grand Marais
When: April 15, Noon
Where: Court House steps


————-
City:Mille County (Milaca & Princeton)
When: April 15, 11:00 am - 1:00 pm
Where: 145 Central Ave. S (City Museum and surrounding block)


————-
City: Rochester
When: April 15, 5:30pm - 7:30pm
Where: East Side of Silver Lake, 840 7 St NE


————-
City: St. Cloud
When: April 15, Noon
Where: St. Cloud Public Library


————-
City: St. Paul ~ Twin Cities
When: April 15, 5:00pm - 8:00pm
Where: Minnesota State Capitol
Other Info: www.teapartymn.com

————-
City: Willmar
When: April 15, 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Where: 1101 First St South

 

[fossten]

Wiggly gets owned again...

 

[Black87LSC]

That was awesome

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Wiggly gets owned again...

Another quality post.

But good stuff calabrio. I can understand people are opposing change, but some of them should at least remember, 60% voted for a change.

 

[fossten]

Another quality post.

But good stuff calabrio. I can understand people are opposing change, but some of them should at least remember, 60% voted for a change.

Yet another stupid post. I guarantee you that 80% of those who voted for Obama didn't vote for $TRILLIONS in borrowing and spending, nationalization of healthcare and big corporations, and massive tax increases from tobacco to alcohol to corporate income. We know this because NONE of what Obama is doing was ever mentioned in the campaign. In fact, Obama PROMISED that his admin would be the most transparent, accountable admin in history, and he promised to go through the budget line by line to make sure there was no waste or pork.

LIAR.

 

[Calabrio]

Another quality post.

But good stuff calabrio. I can understand people are opposing change, but some of them should at least remember, 60% voted for a change.

100% voted for a "change."
Some had a much better idea what they were voting for than others.
And the full 60% certainly didn't anticipate the kind of change we're getting.
Honest politicians, transparency in government, accountability, responsibility, the promise that we'll strengthen the country for the next generation....
So far we've seen none of that, wrapped up in what will be addition tens of trillions of dollars in additional debt.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Yet another stupid post. I guarantee you that 80% of those who voted for Obama didn't vote for $TRILLIONS in borrowing and spending, nationalization of healthcare and big corporations, and massive tax increases from tobacco to alcohol to corporate income. We know this because NONE of what Obama is doing was ever mentioned in the campaign. In fact, Obama PROMISED that his admin would be the most transparent, accountable admin in history, and he promised to go through the budget line by line to make sure there was no waste or pork.

LIAR.

How is my post stupid? Troll?

 

[fossten]

How is my post stupid? Troll?

Keep noncontributing to the thread, it's what you're best at.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

It's a serious question, how was my post stupid?

 

[fossten]

Calabrio already explained why, and so did I.

 

[shagdrum]

Just curious - Rick Santelli sort of called for it - and it seems to be gaining momentum with old white guys... checking out 'turn-out' with how it compares to where the Republican party might be heading - since Newt seems to be interested in holding the reins again.

Here is a timeline for the teaparties (here is a brief synopsis):

• Feb. 15: Keli Carender, who blogs as “Liberty Belle” spread the word about a grass-roots protest she was organizing in Seattle to raise her voice against the passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus/porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009. It’s the first time she had ever jumped into political organizing of any kind. She is not affiliated with any “corporate lobbyist” or think tank or national taxpayers’ organization. She’s a young conservative mom who blogs. Amazingly, she turned around the event in a few days all on her own by reaching out on the Internet, to her local talk station, and to anyone who would listen.
• Feb. 16: An energetic crowd of about 100 people came downtown to lambaste the Chicken Little process and the lard-up of the stimulus bill
• Word of the Seattle protest spread across the blogosphere. Readers suggested there should be a Denver protest on Feb. 17 to greet President Obama for the porkulus signing. Separately, the local chapter of Americans for Prosperity was already working to put something together on the fly.
• Feb. 18: 500 fed-up taxpayers showed up in Mesa, AZ to oppose President Obama’s campaign for massive expansions of the government mortgage entitlement and to mock what SC Gov. Mark Sanford rightly called savior-based economics.
• Feb. 19: reader Amanda Grosserode e-mailed that she was organizing a tax revolt protest in Overland Park, KS the following weekend. More than 400 people showed up in freezing weather to protest Rep. Dennis Moore’s vote for the bill
• Feb. 19: CNBC’s Rick Santelli issued his now-famous “Tea Party” call — prompted, many people forget, by Obama’s mortgage entitlement expansion plans
• Feb. 21: the grass-roots Internet group, Top Conservatives on Twitter, founded by Michael Patrick Leahy and powered by Rob Neppell, announced “simultaneous local tea parties around the country, beginning in Chicago, and including Washington DC, Fayetteville NC, San Diego CA, Omaha Nebraska, and dozens of other locations”
• Feb. 27: Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor was one of the rare national MSM reporters who attended one of the tea parties (Atlanta) and provided a fair and balanced look at protesters mad at both parties

I could go on, but you get the point. It was not started by Mr. Santelli; he was simply reflected a rising grassroots effort and voicing his support for it.

 

[shagdrum]

If the country is going to remain, these protests, and better organized and conceptualized ones in the future, need to appeal to constitutionally minded and fiscally responsible loyal Americans with common sense across party lines. It has nothing to do with the Republican party.

I think adding the whole, "It has nothing to do with the Republican party" thing was kinda redundant, considering what you had spelled out in the last sentence (constitutionally minded and fiscally responsible loyal Americans with common sense...).

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Calabrio already explained why, and so did I.

Well, thank you for clearing that up. I respect you and your opinions more now.

 

[foxpaws]

If the tea parties were about this Foss...

You are quite ignorant to assume that these tea parties are only about taxes. People are outraged over excessive spending, borrowing from China to pay for it, and pork waste and fraud.

Why weren't these people protesting about this last year? Or 25 years ago?

If I must speculate, I am sure he knows that Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he saw Obama pushing this runaway spending that will result in higher taxes for our children's children. I suppose you're okay with mortgaging our children's future for the sake of some pork?

Ah, Foss - Lincoln's record on the national debt - he increased it by 15 times... His children ended up paying for it.

I have been paying for Reagan's runaway spending. My children will be paying for Bush's runaway spending - my grandchildren will be paying for Obama's spending.

Borrowing against our future is something we have been doing for a long, long time.

Why people are protesting it now?

And Cal, you didn't answer - did you go to your local tea party?

 

[Calabrio]

Why weren't these people protesting about this last year? Or 25 years ago?

Because the situation has changed. Call it a "tipping point."
They were not "Anti-Obama rallies. If you stood infront of the crowd and said "Democrats suck no more than the Republicans SUCK" you'd have gotten the crowd to cheer.

YouTube - Glenn Beck - The Democrats suck no more than the Republicans Suck

Ah, Foss - Lincoln's record on the national debt - he increased it by 15 times... His children ended up paying for it.

During a CIVIL WAR, let's not forget that critical distinction. I think the debt went from $65million to about $2.8 billion during the civil war.

Are you equating the situations?

I have been paying for Reagan's runaway spending. My children will be paying for Bush's runaway spending - my grandchildren will be paying for Obama's spending.

Elaborate on this point, because it really fails on several levels.

First- what "runaway spending" was Reagan responsible for? Tax revenues were cut, but federal revenue increased, so it can't be that. He did increase military spending, but that wasn't what busted the budget.

It was the negligent social spending that came from the Democrat controlled congress. Reagan did not embrace or support deficit spending as a policy. He sought policies that would expand the economy and sough to LIMIT federal spending. He clearly was not entirely successful at limiting the Congress.

In contrast to Obama and the Congress who are engaged in reckless deficit spending as a matter of policy. The government has committed tens of trillions of dollars that we don't have within the past few months. The fed is printing TRILLIONS of dollars.

This is a mad economic policy that will likely have profoundly negative consequences. And if McCain had won the election and continued such policies, then I can assure you, these "tea parties" would have been taking place as well.

But another point is that you said you're stuck with the "Reagan deficit" and you're grandchildren will be stuck with the Obama one... as though they are equal. Fact is, you will NOT have paid off the debt run up during the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s, before your grandchildren start paying the trillions of dollars in interest on the Obama debt. So they aren't equal.

Not even getting into the difference in size of the two deficits, your grandchildren will also be paying off the socialist ponzi schemes like social security and medicare in addition to the tens of trillions of dollars of Obama debt, plus the 11 trillion the preceded it.

That is, of course, provided the dollar doesn't crash- then we're left to discuss an entirely different nightmare. Inflation is inevitable, hopefully it never resembles the Weimar Republic.

Borrowing against our future is something we have been doing for a long, long time.

First, that doesn't mean it's right to do in every situation.
And in this case, we're running up debt and expanding government at a rate that isn't just reckless, it's dangerous.

Why people are protesting it now?

They've had enough and they realize that common sense seems to have no voice in Washington. Republicans are alienated because the people we elected failed to do as they promised. And Democrats and independents who voted for "Change" have begun to realize that they are getting more of the same, but at a super accelerated rate.

Regular people are seeing that we're on an unsustainable path, and it's leading us away from what makes America great in the first place.

And Cal, you didn't answer - did you go to your local tea party?

Yes I did.

 

[foxpaws]

Because the situation has changed. Call it a "tipping point."
They were not "Anti-Obama rallies. If you stood infront of the crowd and said "Democrats suck no more than the Republicans SUCK" you'd have gotten the crowd to cheer.

Cal, I have never, ever said that the protests were a Party thing.. gak - Let's quit doing this - OK...

During a CIVIL WAR, let's not forget that critical distinction. I think the debt went from $65million to about $2.8 billion during the civil war.

Are you equating the situations?

No - there are many reasons the debt increases. Wars, economic strife, expansion, there have been lots of reasons. History usually shows whether the spending had positive or negative effects. The spending that didn't happen in the South after the Civil war had a very negative effect. Lincoln/Johnson/Grant would have been better served to build the south at the same rate they built the north after the war. Dollars spent in the south would have help turn the economy much faster in the decades following the war. Money should have been spent by the government - it wasn't, and it came back in the form of a poor south for decades, that was a drain on the national government. If the government had invested in industry in the south, they could have become financially independent faster, and would have had a positive impact on the national economy.

Reagan's runaway spending - we increased the deficit a huge amount during Reagan's years. To get his military spending through, he turned a blind eye to the other spending. It was give and take. And he had a chance to fix SS - he didn't, instead he just saved it the way it was and then taxed it.

What about Bush - I noticed you left him out entirely- my children will be paying for Bush's spending.

So, as we go forward - rather than arguing the spending in the past - which, if you do look at it, both sides have been spending like crazy.

So, what is the plan of this movement? Since you went to a tea party - what should be the result of the tea parties. Remove the politicians that tax and spend? Do you back a party to do this - or do you target specific races? You are better off backing a party, if you want to do this on a national level.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, I have never, ever said that the protests were a Party thing.. gak - Let's quit doing this - OK...

Then be careful to not phrase your statements and questions in a manner that implies that the events are inherently partisan.

The media and leftist mouthpieces have invested a lot of energy in doing this. It's important that the truth is expressed to correct and clarify this charge at every opportunity.

No - there are many reasons the debt increases.

Then why did you make the comparison? It certainly seems as though you were trying to dismiss and justify the reckless Obama spending by using the deceptive figures associated with the Lincoln debt.

A Civil War is both incredibly expensive and destructive to an economy.

The spending that didn't happen in the South after the Civil war had a very negative effect.

You're continuing to try to draw some parallel with current events to the reconstruction of this South. That's simply absurd.

There is an interesting association to be made here though. Because of the failed government/social/progressive policies of the government in the North this century, industry, liberty, and economic activity is fleeing from the region and heading to the South. The flight from the region is staggering. Perhaps you're implying that Obama needs to engage in a reconstruction of the North in order to rebuild the region following the economic and social devastation association with Progressivism?

Reagan's runaway spending - we increased the deficit a huge amount during Reagan's years. To get his military spending through, he turned a blind eye to the other spending. It was give and take. And he had a chance to fix SS - he didn't, instead he just saved it the way it was and then taxed it.

So you are saying that in order to defend the country and strengthen our national security, Reagan was forced to accept the wasteful reckless spending forced upon him by the Democrat controlled Congress.

You're blaming Reagan for that? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame the Congress?

As for social security, Reagan never had a "chance to fix social security but didn't.." No such opportunity ever existed.

What about Bush - I noticed you left him out entirely- my children will be paying for Bush's spending.

I also didn't mention Carter, Bush, or Clinton- but I did mention the $11 trillion dollars the preceded Obama.

So, as we go forward - rather than arguing the spending in the past - which, if you do look at it, both sides have been spending like crazy.

Not equally, but both sides like crazy.
Hence the non-partisan tea parties.

So, what is the plan of this movement? Since you went to a tea party - what should be the result of the tea parties. Remove the politicians that tax and spend? Do you back a party to do this - or do you target specific races? You are better off backing a party, if you want to do this on a national level.

You ask 'what is the plan of the movement?'
You keep failing to understand this- THEY ARE NOT CENTRALLY PLANNED. There is no organized movement. They may very well evolve into something more formal and more structured, but right now, they only serve to give voice to a significant segment of the population that has been ignored, dismissed, and maligned by the media and D.C. for far too long.

It was also to send a message to the politicians in power that people are frustrated and sick of what's going on in government and that they will be held accountable. That unless there's some real "change" there will be a shift and consequence.

It's fairly simple, pretty generic stuff.
Again, you seem to have trouble with anything not centrally planned. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with it had ACORN hired some charter buses and brought people to the event from outside counties.

 

[fossten]

That is a very well thought out and strong post, Cal.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, thank you for clearing that up. I respect you and your opinions more now.

You don't seem to even consider (let alone respect) anyone's opinion unless is falls into the "moderate leftist" or "extreme leftist" category. Anything else seems to warrant derision from you.

 

[foxpaws]

There is an interesting association to be made here though. Because of the failed government/social/progressive policies of the government in the North this century, industry, liberty, and economic activity is fleeing from the region and heading to the South. The flight from the region is staggering. Perhaps you're implying that Obama needs to engage in a reconstruction of the North in order to rebuild the region following the economic and social devastation association with Progressivism?

Well, not really - the northern states still pay for the south. If you look at dollars fed into the national 'coffers' and dollars taken out of the national 'till' the north puts more money into the federal government and takes out less. The south puts in far less money into the federal government, and receives much more.

So you are saying that in order to defend the country and strengthen our national security, Reagan was forced to accept the wasteful reckless spending forced upon him by the Democrat controlled Congress.

That is a matter of opinion - we are still paying for Reagan's fear of communism.

As for social security, Reagan never had a "chance to fix social security but didn't.." No such opportunity ever existed.

In 1983 Reagan signed a $165 billion dollar band-aid for Social Security - he did it without 'fixing the problem', he just put a finger in the dike. He also created the largest tax hike in history to that point - by doubling the social security tax. And he created a huge problem by taking Greenspan's idea... borrow the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because he was borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," it wasn't listed it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and it won't come back to bite us in the butt until years later. Guess what - it is now about to bite us in the butt.

That is how Reagan helped derail the 'third rail'.

They may very well evolve into something more formal and more structured, but right now, they only serve to give voice to a significant segment of the population that has been ignored, dismissed, and maligned by the media and D.C. for far too long.

It was also to send a message to the politicians in power that people are frustrated and sick of what's going on in government and that they will be held accountable. That unless there's some real "change" there will be a shift and consequence.

But, and I am sorry, I do have a hard time with this... Maybe it is because I am used to working within a political party.

You mention in the second paragraph that unless there is change, there will be a shift and consequence... what will that be? I am really interested in this Cal - And you also mention a significant segment of the population that has been ignored by DC - which I assume you mean the political system? What is that segment - that has been dismissed for 'far too long'? Was it ignored during the last administration?

Again, you seem to have trouble with anything not centrally planned. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with it had ACORN hired some charter buses and brought people to the event from outside counties.

And Cal - I am trying to understand this - by asking questions. Asking you questions, because you have gone to one of the events. I don't think you have to be rude to me.

 

[fossten]

Well, not really - the northern states still pay for the south. If you look at dollars fed into the national 'coffers' and dollars taken out of the national 'till' the north puts more money into the federal government and takes out less. The south puts in far less money into the federal government, and receives much more.

Link or slink.

That is a matter of opinion - we are still paying for Reagan's fear of communism.

False premise. Reagan defeated the totalitarian, Communist Soviet Union. Furthermore, there is no comparison of any defense buildup, anywhere, anytime, compared to the FAILED war on poverty, which cost $11 Trillion and counting.

In 1983 Reagan signed a $165 billion dollar band-aid for Social Security - he did it without 'fixing the problem', he just put a finger in the dike. He also created the largest tax hike in history to that point - by doubling the social security tax. And he created a huge problem by taking Greenspan's idea... borrow the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because he was borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," it wasn't listed it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and it won't come back to bite us in the butt until years later. Guess what - it is now about to bite us in the butt.

Didn't Bush 43 try to fix social security? And what did YOUR Democrats in Congress do? Oh yes, they not only voted it down, but clapped in derision when he chided them for it. Clinton failed to fix social security even though he campaigned on it. You're just full of FAIL today.

But, and I am sorry, I do have a hard time with this... Maybe it is because I am used to working within a political party.

Astroturfing apparently tends to leave you a bit out of touch with real Americans.

And Cal - I am trying to understand this - by asking questions. Asking you questions, because you have gone to one of the events. I don't think you have to be rude to me.

Victim again.