Tax Day Tea Party - April 15th

[magley64]

Glad to see these protests remained peaceful and were pretty much a success...

[jhaag]

i went to this with a couple of friends, here in cols. i thought it was a positive demonstration and def not pro-republican. i was half expecting some opposition to the protest from the "other side" (for lack of a better term, since i'm sure there were some dems there, as well).

i found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo to be quit deplorable. so much for professionalism and non-bias reporting (i know non-biased reporting is nearly non-existent these days) and she totally misses the point altogether, no surpise really.

Jon Stewart said it best tonight, and I can only paraphrase because I don't have the vid, but "So, you're protesting wasteful spending, by wastefully spending money on 'teabags'." Got it.

i've always found this type of reference to be very interesting. you do realize this is a comedy show, right? no more reputable than any of the conservative commentators which are "hacks". i find this same pattern in many of my dem friends, as well. very interesting.....

anyway, you should have gone to see for yourself, if you didnt...

[Disclaimer]

Yea, that CNN reporter fails. While I agree with her that this 'event' was aided through basically free promotion on Fox, and lead by a right-wing group (FreedomWorks) - she picked the wrong forum to discuss that in... Wrong place, wrong time.

Regarding The Daily Show... Yes, it is billed as a comedy show or 'variety show' - but you don't think what they report on is true? It's not like it's The Onion where the news is fake. You can inject comedy into legitimate news to exaggerate hypocrisy or lies and flip-flopping. Stewart leans left, but he's busted on liberals/Dems too when they're completely and utterly full of bullshit.

When the show is basically Stewart interjecting jokes in between news clips of individuals saying things on camera - he's not putting words in anyone's mouth, the producers and writers of the show are just good at painting a brief timeline of events (a to b to c to d) and who said what when.... which leads to the mockery and joking at the expense of the people who were wrong or misguided.

Take a look at how he filleted Jim Cramer. Hell, Stewart asks tougher questions than most of the REAL media because hes on the 'comedy show' so he doesn't have to pander to them, which often makes the Daily Show a better outlet for the truth. And what's better than cracking jokes, exposing hypocrisy, and lies when we have the actual truth?

Edited April 17, 2009 by JRMMiii

[Blitzburgh]

Here is the funnies part of all..

* No TV stations (besides fox and CNN who was there just as a smear tactic) really covered this event at all. Wonder why that is?

* Papers did not cover this or ran this story on a back page.

* White house said, according to ABCs Dan Harris from Good Morning America, that the Obama didn't even know about the Tea parties all over the USA?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090415103312.aspx

Here is my take..

Obama didn't even know about this? Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe he should spend less time looking at a teleprompter and sucking foreign ass and more time fixing our issues. That or he is a complete retard. or better yet thinks we are the complete retards and breast feeds us sunshine and pretty rainbows meanwhile telling us this is all Bush's fault and give him 20 years to make it better..

The damn white house dog got more air time then well over 500,000 US VOTING AMERICANS? Congress better pass a bill that allows dogs to vote because that is a crying shame. Stations should report the news PERIOD.. Not reporting doesn't make it go away..

Ohhh and I like how Obama failed on yet another promise about the family dog coming from a shelter. Ohhh wait it did from a Kennedy shelter..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iuK4RrdQYakZgAF3_iK0WphHFmPwD97HSRD01

It is sad that the media actually thinks we are simple minded puppets that they can twist and turn to their liking. Did the White House, capitol hill, and the left wing media actually think that by not admiting it was going on or covering it that nobody would know?

PEOPLE come on there was well over 500,000 people doing this all accross the USA. Protesting during the middle of a work week on one of the busiest days of the year and yet the turn out was that good. We are not talking about some cult in Kansas on some PBS channel at 3AM..

But hey good news is between the white house and CNN.... There will be a hell of a lot less Dems in office in 2010...:grin:

In Closing here is man who speaks the truth...

Ron Paul Quotes - Ron Paul on Big Government

1. Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. 3/25/04

2. The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. 1/31/00

3. Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states "accountable" for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. 5/23/01

4. However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. 7/16/02

5. Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it’s the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here and there, is a small price to pay. The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so. 12/9/03

6. Since it’s proven that centralized control over education and medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer to Emerson’s foolish consistency than defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution. 2/11/04

7. We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. 3/25/04

8. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government. 7/17/01

[jhaag]

Yea, that CNN reporter fails. While I agree with her that this 'event' was aided through basically free promotion on Fox, and lead by a right-wing group (FreedomWorks) - she picked the wrong forum to discuss that in... Wrong place, wrong time.

Regarding The Daily Show... Yes, it is billed as a comedy show or 'variety show' - but you don't think what they report on is true? It's not like it's The Onion where the news is fake. You can inject comedy into legitimate news to exaggerate hypocrisy or lies and flip-flopping. Stewart leans left, but he's busted on liberals/Dems too when they're completely and utterly full of bullshit.

When the show is basically Stewart interjecting jokes in between news clips of individuals saying things on camera - he's not putting words in anyone's mouth, the producers and writers of the show are just good at painting a brief timeline of events (a to b to c to d) and who said what when.... which leads to the mockery and joking at the expense of the people who were wrong or misguided.

Take a look at how he filleted Jim Cramer. Hell, Stewart asks tougher questions than most of the REAL media because hes on the 'comedy show' so he doesn't have to pander to them, which often makes the Daily Show a better outlet for the truth. And what's better than cracking jokes, exposing hypocrisy, and lies when we have the actual truth?

so, you're saying he's a political commentator....just like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

[Disclaimer]

Yes, but without the wingnutty-ness of either of those two. Stewart doesn't go around fearmongering with the "sky is falling" mantra of either Beck or Limbaugh.

Like I said, he just strings video clips together to expose hypocrisy and lies through research. Easy enough.

[jhaag]

Yes, but without the wingnutty-ness of either of those two. Stewart doesn't go around fearmongering with the "sky is falling" mantra of either Beck or Limbaugh.

Like I said, he just strings video clips together to expose hypocrisy and lies through research. Easy enough.

look, you seem like a pretty resonable guy, but i would have to guess that you have never listened to either of them for an appreciable amount of time, due to your response and obvious party affiliation (i.e. -why would you listen if you're a dem). what does kind of annoy me is the same thing that annoys you about others here. you're holding a bias for which you have not done the research yourself. its the same as not reading the whole article. i'm not challenging you to listen, or anything, but most of the stuff you probably see or hear about them is taken out of context. they play the same sound bites, read the same transcripts and have research teams just like everyone else, they're just not affraid to tell it like it is and dont get their ratings through the comedy channel. besides, how could they be on the air as long as they have if they make stuff up all the time? they would have been off the air in no time, like progressive talk shows. rightys arent that stupid!

[Disclaimer]

I admit I don't listen for an "appreciable amount of time" (which I assume you mean on some sort of constant regular basis) to either GBeck or Limbaugh, but I don't watch the Daily Show or Countdown with Olbermann, or the Rachel Maddow show on a regular basis either. I do not follow any particular commentator.

There is only so much time in the day, so I get the majority of my political news in electronic form which permits skimming and no commercials. I find sites that condense the news from numerous sources down to a quick manageable time frame where I can read and educate myself on what topics interest me. I get highlights from the left side and the right side, and the bickering and bantering back and forth between the two.

Everything, and I mean everything, you read, watch, hear, etc needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I like numbers myself, numbers don't lie, but how they're presented to you makes all the difference in the world. What's their agenda? What are they trying to promote? Why would they present the information this way? What's the most poignant counter argument to what information I'm being told here? It seems like borderline paranoia, but once you get good at filtering information and deciding what's important and what to "let go of" (no matter how wrong or much you disagree with it) - it's simple to spot what's really going on, and even then, things aren't black and white - LOTS of shades of grey in the world no matter what ideological system you subscribe to.

I never accused anyone of the right or left of being stupid, but people do say some stupid things for a number of reasons. This debate was never about intellect, this was about hypocrisy, fear, and lies. People are emotional beings, and maybe I just have a sociopathic streak in me, but once the politicians can no longer control people by preying on their emotions - the real problem solving can being. Not this posturing and politicizing everything that is currently dividing the country.

Edited April 22, 2009 by JRMMiii

[jhaag]

sorry for my delay on this. i dont want to drag this out, but just wanted to clarify.....

my previous response was to the wing-nut fearmongering comments. the point being that if you listened to either you, more than likely, would not profess those sentiments. they're both pretty informed and intelligent once you get past the satire, as you mentioned.

...but people do say some stupid things for a number of reasons. This debate was never about intellect, this was about hypocrisy, fear, and lies. People are emotional beings, and maybe I just have a sociopathic streak in me, but once the politicians can no longer control people by preying on their emotions - the real problem solving can being. Not this posturing and politicizing everything that is currently dividing the country.

interesting, you should have been at a tea party then, because this is precisely what they were about....

[Disclaimer]

interesting, you should have been at a tea party then, because this is precisely what they were about....

Do explain. How were these tea parties non-emotional? The "battle cry" for these has typically been and I'm greatly paraphrasing here: "Obama sucks, he's taking away our guns, he's a socialist, etc. etc." As soon as I hear accusations of Socialism, that's a fear mongering tactic and everything else said after that is taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

For me, and I've said this before, what it boils down to is economics and cost-benefit. In general, I'm apathetic to the people on welfare / gov't assistance programs, but I'll argue for them for the simple fact that it is the most economical solution to the issue given the set of circumstances. I have no emotion in the bailouts - given the problem and the solution proposals, the "expert" advisement was to do it, to bailout everyone. Pay now or pay later. So, emotion is not involved - it's an attempt to solving the problem the most economically efficient way possible. The issue is that economical decisions change on a daily basis. One day, it might've been prudent to use a bandaid, the next day, variables have changed or become known that might show a bandaid fix is the most economical for the short term, but not the long term. Either way, it's still pay now or pay later.

Getting off that tangent, I look at these tea parties from the standpoint that they're supposedly bipartisan, but they're not. They're main support body was right-wing funded. This was a corporate event, not a grassroots people movement. And when something has a corporate backing, I view that with an accusing eye - in the US, people don't support things that they don't benefit from. People are not altruistic. People are selfish. Even donating to charity - people do it so they can feel good about themselves that they are "charitible".

http://www.humantruth.info/altruism.html

So, I have to ask, "What's in it for you?" whenever someone sponsors something, or lobby's for a certain opinion - they have SOME stake in it. Sometimes the value is forthright and obvious (like a MC Gear company sponsoring a MC Rider website), sometimes its not so obvious - and it's the "not so obvious" cases that I really pay attention to. The FreedomWorks company obviously has some sort of agenda. You as a person need to decide if you agree with that agenda or not. In this case, I feel that the agenda is political and capitalistic, set forth to make money for certain individuals that feed off useless mass consumption. The few over the many. I understand that we aren't all created equal, but I guess I don't feel that some a$$hole deserves my money for coming up with the idea for some stupid political rally that sells buttons and other goods to "stick it to the man" when they ARE the man. I'd rather give my money to people who better society, not divide it. People like scientists and engineers and doctors, not skeezebag blowhards.

This is also why I don't contribute any funds to any political party.

[jhaag]

ok, i think what is happening here is that i'm talking about what the assemblies meant TO ME.

i went because (and i'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this) i believe in the free market and that bailing out everyone is not the way out. i havent made the best financial decisions, but i would never expect to get a hand out. if i fail on some level then i deserve to take my lumps and go on. please note here that bush was the instigator of the bail out.

the money for the bailouts has to come from somewhere and it will def be in the form of taxes, where else in this trend towards big government. in my opinion, they should have revised the tax code (somewhere less than 60000 pages, or whatever it is) such that the US is an attractive place for business, again. keeping in mind that it is our job, as comsumers, to keep an eye out for the irresonsible capitalists and avoid patronizing them (a daunting task, i know). further, i believe that our govt is in desperate need of some streamlining, i.e. small and better, not bigger and less efficient. people need to learn to rely on themselves, not the govt.

many people go with an argument without first understanding the basis for that argument (lazy, i guess). that being said, the whole anti-the barrack, socialism, fearmongering, etc., was present at the columbus rally, but in very small number. there was no hate speech. i maybe saw 10 or 12, if that many, signs of that nature out of 300 or so and in my opinion, those people didnt get it. there were republican speakers there also, but had a more libertarian message (catering to the crowd, maybe, but hopefully genuine). and if you have read anything about socialism/communism you would recognize the similarities of what is happening and what has been happening with our govt., not just in the past 100 days. i think folks are tired of the politicking and not feeling like they are being truely represented in congress on both sides of the aisle(i.e. no reps reading the "stimulus bill").

just a couple examples of why I was there. i honestly had no knowledge of the alleged freedomworks involvement and, frankly, dont care. i was there for reasons of my own, that doesnt mean that i fall into any certain category. that is why i went, to see for myself if it was legit. the rally was very peaceful and wasnt only about taxes and republicans winning and democrats losing.

there is a distinct difference between reading op eds and seeing for yourself...

[Disclaimer]

ok, i think what is happening here is that i'm talking about what the assemblies meant TO ME.

i went because (and i'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this) i believe in the free market and that bailing out everyone is not the way out. i havent made the best financial decisions, but i would never expect to get a hand out. if i fail on some level then i deserve to take my lumps and go on. please note here that bush was the instigator of the bail out.

And that's fine - that's what we're discussing. Your take versus mine, nothing more.

the money for the bailouts has to come from somewhere and it will def be in the form of taxes, where else in this trend towards big government. in my opinion, they should have revised the tax code (somewhere less than 60000 pages, or whatever it is) such that the US is an attractive place for business, again. keeping in mind that it is our job, as consumers, to keep an eye out for the irresponsible capitalists and avoid patronizing them (a daunting task, i know).

Point taken, you're right - the money HAS to come from somewhere (unless you just count adding more deficit, but we'll ignore that for now). But, my contention is, why are and the majority of the other Americans at these 'tea parties' worried about taxes? Since Obama's plan the whole time was to take the tax burden off the shoulders of the middle class (making < $250,000/yr), all the people protesting won't have to pay anything to bail these people out. The extra tax money comes from the THOSE people, which coincidentally are the greedy people that put themselves in the position to be bailed out. So it's like the rich are bailing themselves out - your personal tax liability is actually decreasing - again, I'm assuming you're not making more than $250k/yr. So I guess I don't buy into the arguement that the people at the tea parties are fed up with taxes, because they paid more under Bush than they do now. And the "big government" arguement is bunk because Bush increased the size of government more than any other president in history. Therefore, I can't understand why they're protesting taxes and big government now when this should've been done about 2 years ago - Coincidence this is happening under the new Dem administration? I think not. It reeks of Republican politicking.

further, i believe that our govt is in desperate need of some streamlining, i.e. small and better, not bigger and less efficient. people need to learn to rely on themselves, not the govt.

Again, Bush increased it more than any other president in history, but I don't want to turn this into a Bush vs. Obama argument. Let's use the economic one - since you used the word 'efficiency'. Smaller is more efficient. What's your measure of efficiency? If it's purchasing power, bigger is better. That's why people buy Sam's Club membership - to buy things cheaper in bulk. So, that favors BIG government. If efficiency is speed, then smaller is better. Motorcycles > cars, given the same cost. But, in the case of government efficiency is a balance between thousands of factors, so you need a certain amount of people to do and oversee things - build roads, provide security, etc. It's like having a toolbox. I'd love to only have to buy a hammer to do everything, but I need sockets, and wrenches, and screwdrivers, and specialty tools to do certain things. So my hammer now becomes and overgrown set of tools that I need. So, Excessive government is bad, but I don't think "Big" government necessarily is.

many people go with an argument without first understanding the basis for that argument (lazy, i guess). that being said, the whole anti-the barrack, socialism, fearmongering, etc., was present at the columbus rally, but in very small number. there was no hate speech. i maybe saw 10 or 12, if that many, signs of that nature out of 300 or so and in my opinion, those people didnt get it. there were republican speakers there also, but had a more libertarian message (catering to the crowd, maybe, but hopefully genuine). and if you have read anything about socialism/communism you would recognize the similarities of what is happening and what has been happening with our govt., not just in the past 100 days. i think folks are tired of the politicking and not feeling like they are being truely represented in congress on both sides of the aisle(i.e. no reps reading the "stimulus bill").

Like I said, I think it's amuzing that the people directly affected by this, the ones making $250k or more - those same Speakers and Senators at the rallies), are spinning a message to the masses and organizing these rallies, to get the common man fighting for a cause that will monetarily benefit those speakers and congresspeople. The regular people won't see a dime either way. I'm not going to sit and listen to some rich guy complain about taxing the rich and get me to agree with him. I don't sympathize with them that Obama is costing them $20k/yr in taxes and they can't afford to take a 3rd trip to the Alps this year to ski. So sad .

just a couple examples of why I was there. i honestly had no knowledge of the alleged freedomworks involvement and, frankly, dont care. i was there for reasons of my own, that doesnt mean that i fall into any certain category. that is why i went, to see for myself if it was legit. the rally was very peaceful and wasnt only about taxes and republicans winning and democrats losing.

That's great. Glad it was peaceful and you got out of it what you wanted out of it. For me, if I was supporting a political cause and was think about taking time out of my day or money out of my wallet - I would want to make sure I knew exactly what my time/money was going towards to make sure I agreed with that cause 100%, no matter how you spin it - and the devil is always in the details.

there is a distinct difference between reading op eds and seeing for yourself...

Not sure what you mean? I agree that the experience is different firsthand and secondhand (because secondhand has bias added), but there are facts and news articles that you can read to understand the background and nature of the movement to do this - backed by FreedomWorks, etc. etc. that could've been researched beforehand by people that were interested in attending or supporting this type of rally.

[jhaag]

wow, so thorough with your response using the quotes..... i wont be so accommodating, unfortunately.

i thought it was clear that i was not supporting/defending Bush, that was not my intention and i consider 'recently' to include the past several years.

anyway, what about the tobacco tax which will affect more of the middle class than the upper class? i know this is just one example and that it is 'supposed' to be used for the children and all, but it is still early in obamas admin and it [health care] was part of the stimulus. i will expect to see more of such taxes and why is it the smokers responsibility to pay for that (please note that i am not a smoker and wouldnt care if they paid $100 pack, but thats not for me to decide. the market would be the factor here).

moreover, why are those who have managed to be more successful (>$250k) expected to pay for the recklessness of those who are responsible for this mess. sure some fit the bill, but what will be ones motivation to be that successful in the future only to pay much higher taxes? not to mention The Community Reinvestment Act and its affect on some lending practices (i'm aware of both sides on this and that Bush increased the %age of reqirement of such loans).

as far as efficiency, i dont think or want the govt to be responsible for making decisions for me. they can provide a military, infrastructure and a form of governing, all to be proportionate to population, and that is all. i think many govt agencies could be replaced by private companies and the free market. govt shouldnt be the answer for everything.

i may be a bit naive in this, but i didnt see any major repub or big industry involvment. maybe that means they did their job well. i dont think it is difficult to get the word out to people, especially with the internetz. again, even if they were involved that doesnt mean that i am on board with them. and again and again, it shouldnt be a punishment to make more money if you've made the sacrifices and that is important to you.

the rally was free, except we went to Ted's for a buffalo burger and he was not a sponsor.

Not sure what you mean? I agree that the experience is different firsthand and secondhand (because secondhand has bias added), but there are facts and news articles that you can read to understand the background and nature of the movement to do this - backed by FreedomWorks, etc. etc. that could've been researched beforehand by people that were interested in attending or supporting this type of rally.

and what of the reliability of such articles? the tea parties are clearly a threat to the dems and should be looked at as a threat to the reps, too. people are looking for taxation with representation because they dont feel they are/have been getting it. this is becoming a vicious circle between us.

volley....

[Disclaimer]

i thought it was clear that i was not supporting/defending Bush, that was not my intention and i consider 'recently' to include the past several years.

I just mention Bush because he was the most recent ex-Pres, and the country has been divided almost 50/50 since his election in 2000. I feel the same way about Obama, from my responses you may infer that I support everything he does 100%, I don't. I just support the fact that he's a better leader and more critical thinker than Bush or McCain, not that he's 100% right on everything. It's just hard to address these tea parties as 'non-partisan' when they clearly are partisan.

anyway, what about the tobacco tax which will affect more of the middle class than the upper class? i know this is just one example and that it is 'supposed' to be used for the children and all, but it is still early in obamas admin and it [health care] was part of the stimulus. i will expect to see more of such taxes and why is it the smokers responsibility to pay for that (please note that i am not a smoker and wouldnt care if they paid $100 pack, but thats not for me to decide. the market would be the factor here).

I don't smoke either, never even tried. And while I can't justify ALL types of luxury (or "sin") taxes like that, I can justify smoking taxes because A) It's a choice (if you don't like it, don't buy it) and B) the long-term health costs related to the effects of smoking are often picked up by the government after all other care is exhausted or unaffordable through Medicare or Medicaid.

moreover, why are those who have managed to be more successful (>$250k) expected to pay for the recklessness of those who are responsible for this mess. sure some fit the bill, but what will be ones motivation to be that successful in the future only to pay much higher taxes? not to mention The Community Reinvestment Act and its affect on some lending practices (i'm aware of both sides on this and that Bush increased the %age of requirement of such loans).

I think we're mixing ideas here when we discuss the bailout. When you say bailout - I think of AIG, GM, etc - big corporations. You appear to be talking about individual homeowners who got in over their head (for one reason or another). I've read a few articles on the individual bailout (though it's been awhile so I may be rusty, but) it's not so much a bailout as it is a renegotiation. The people are still required to pay for their homes, you as a taxpayer aren't "paying for your neighbors mortgage". They're just renegotiating the terms of the loan, so the people can stay in the homes (which is what we need, economically - because the banks don't WANT assets, they want liquidity).

as far as efficiency, i dont think or want the govt to be responsible for making decisions for me. they can provide a military, infrastructure and a form of governing, all to be proportionate to population, and that is all. i think many govt agencies could be replaced by private companies and the free market. govt shouldnt be the answer for everything.

I understand your point, but I think you'll be hardpressed to come up with a good example of something that was deregulated and benefitted the people of the United States. Deregulate electricity and costs to individuals rose, deregulate the airlines and they've been on the brink of bankruptcy numerious times, deregulate the banks and we get global economic meltdown... What government industry(ies) do you propose we deregulate and leave to the free market? The quick example is the USPS, but I think you'd be hardpressed to find anywhere that'll deliver a first class letter from NY to CA in 3 days for $0.42. Call UPS or FedEx and see if they'll do that for you.

And it's not like the government owns everything, they MANAGE the infrastructure, then contracts are bid by the private sector, and awarded accordingly. So, the government is oversight to set standards, and make sure roads and structures are built accordingly. The government just makes sure the private sector delivers per the requirements and without corruption (relatively speaking of course).

i may be a bit naive in this, but i didnt see any major repub or big industry involvment. maybe that means they did their job well. i dont think it is difficult to get the word out to people, especially with the internetz. again, even if they were involved that doesnt mean that i am on board with them. and again and again, it shouldnt be a punishment to make more money if you've made the sacrifices and that is important to you.

the rally was free, except we went to Ted's for a buffalo burger and he was not a sponsor.

Time is money, or at the very least opportunity cost. And you being there added headcount to the media reporting, so it accomplished some objective for someone out there, but supporting local business was appreciated I'm sure regardless of your political affiliation.

and what of the reliability of such articles? the tea parties are clearly a threat to the dems and should be looked at as a threat to the reps, too. people are looking for taxation with representation because they dont feel they are/have been getting it. this is becoming a vicious circle between us.

volley....

I still don't understand who is being 'taxed' - I'll admit that I don't make $250k (I'm ashamed) but my taxes went DOWN... so I don't understand why the 'taxation without representation' argument?

Return volley

[InyaAzz]

Yup..looks like things haven't changed much since the last time I checked in.

*Going back to worrying about more important things*

[jhaag]

Yup..looks like things haven't changed much since the last time I checked in.

*Going back to worrying about more important things*

yeah, you're not missing much.....just the two of us trying to change eachothers minds....

so....

i'll have to def disagree with the better leader thing and the more obama speaks the more i cringe. at this point i'd say one is no better than the other. obama just seems to get his way, for now, and still riding the i'm-not-bush wave.

since we're on the smoking thing.......i did vote for the smoking ban here in cbus; however, in hindsight, i wouldnt again. it should be up to the bar owner to decide. people should have petitioned the owners to try it, first. like i wrote before, it is our responsibility as consumers to control this, to an extent. there is a commercial on the radio about flavored cigars and kids smoking them. the lady talkes about how its a shame the state is not taxing them more so kids cant buy them as easily. whatever happened to parenting and why is it the states responsibility to prevent this and use taxpayer dollars to do so? anyway, just an example.

i think virtually anything subsidized by the govt should be regulated by the free market and competition, as it was meant to be. so, if its needed it will thrive, if not it will fail or at least be minimized. i would expect that this would spark ingenuity and entrepreneurism, which would meet with the same scrutiny. govt need not be involved. all current subsidies/bailouts would fall under this pattern. gm and chrysler are now going to have the unions with 35% and 55% ownership, respectively; the unions being "workplace socialism".....not ideal, imo (RIP GM and Chrysler), since the unions are also not necessary. if you dont like your job then you have the freedom to find another that suits you. the first, undesirable, company will eventually have no choice but to start treating employees appropriately or have none and, thus, no business. also, if i recall, some of the failing banks were already being bought out just before the bail out. i would consider that to be capitalism at work, but nobody reported it that way.

i think the taxes are yet-to-be-seen, which is, admittedly, hard to argue. but, again, it is, in my opinion, unamerican to segregate one category of taxpayers, some of which were not even involved in the banking melee, to carry much of the burden.

[Disclaimer]

i'll have to def disagree with the better leader thing and the more obama speaks the more i cringe. at this point i'd say one is no better than the other. obama just seems to get his way, for now, and still riding the i'm-not-bush wave.

Guess we'll agree to disagree here then, but I will say that my life was better in the Clinton years than it was in the Bush years. That's what it boils down to is - am I better off now than I was 8 years ago? Or, in this case, will I be better in a few years (once all this mess is straightened out) than I was when Bush was in office? I think for me, the answer will be yes.

since we're on the smoking thing.......i did vote for the smoking ban here in cbus; however, in hindsight, i wouldnt again. it should be up to the bar owner to decide. people should have petitioned the owners to try it, first. like i wrote before, it is our responsibility as consumers to control this, to an extent. there is a commercial on the radio about flavored cigars and kids smoking them. the lady talkes about how its a shame the state is not taxing them more so kids cant buy them as easily. whatever happened to parenting and why is it the states responsibility to prevent this and use taxpayer dollars to do so? anyway, just an example.

I agree, what ever happened to parenting??? But you have to think a step beyond that. Now matter how hard you try, you can't stop people from having kids, and you can't force responsibility on people to be parents. Given those facts, you can only do what's in your power to tailor policies that don't enable whatever group you're trying to protect (children, in this case), because often the people you're trying to protect are too ignorant to realize it. As much as I'd love to jump on the "let Darwin work his magic" bandwagon, it's not practical or economically efficient. Not to mention that the same "stupid" policies that protect stupid people from themselves, often protect the rest of us from the stupid people. That's the fallicy in the ideology that "If I have enough common sense to do this, then why can't everyone else? I don't get special treatment because I'm normal". There are people more capable than you thinking you're the idiot, and there are people less capable than you that still live in this world with you. Therefore; you must formulate policies to accomodate the masses and account for the weakest links, since we can't exterminate people below a certain IQ threshold.

i think virtually anything subsidized by the govt should be regulated by the free market and competition, as it was meant to be. so, if its needed it will thrive, if not it will fail or at least be minimized. i would expect that this would spark ingenuity and entrepreneurism, which would meet with the same scrutiny. govt need not be involved.

Again, I challenge you to give me an example of something that was regulated that ended up better when it was privatized - I gave plenty of examples where it was detrimental to the consumer. I vehemently disagree with your statement that "if it's needed it will thrive". There are a lot of things that we need that wouldn't survive if funded privately. What private fund would the National Highway System have come from? I sure do like not paying tolls every 20 miles. What private fund would the police come from? I think your statement is very shortsighted and there are NUMEROUS example where, if we relied solely on capitalism would cause our society to go backward rather than advance.

all current subsidies/bailouts would fall under this pattern. gm and chrysler are now going to have the unions with 35% and 55% ownership, respectively; the unions being "workplace socialism".....not ideal, imo (RIP GM and Chrysler), since the unions are also not necessary. if you dont like your job then you have the freedom to find another that suits you. the first, undesirable, company will eventually have no choice but to start treating employees appropriately or have none and, thus, no business. also, if i recall, some of the failing banks were already being bought out just before the bail out. i would consider that to be capitalism at work, but nobody reported it that way.

We've been down the union/collective bargaining route before regarding the auto companies, maybe you weren't around for that thread, but I don't really want to rehash all that here. And the bank buyouts didn't occur until after all the trouble began and the small fish (which used to be big fish) were eaten by the midsize fish (which used to be BIGGER fish). Either way, I don't understand how you support capitalism and support corporate buyouts... eventually the end game for corporate buyouts is one single company that "won the capitalist competition" - so now we're in a monopoly. Which can be exceptionally dangerous when there's high barriers for entry into that market, not to mention that startups can easily be bought off by the monopolistic business entity. There's no playing fair when you're in that market position. Furthermore, when one entity has 100% market share, one could make the argument that it's semi-socialistic - one company offering for all consumers with single point control, except instead of having the checks and balances that are built into the government, it's a board of executives making decisions that affect everyone interested in that market. We don't have any control in who's on that board if it's a privately held company. How does that benefit us from a capitalistic standpoint?

i think the taxes are yet-to-be-seen, which is, admittedly, hard to argue. but, again, it is, in my opinion, unamerican to segregate one category of taxpayers, some of which were not even involved in the banking melee, to carry much of the burden.

What is fair? And how is it 'unamerican'? What's 'American' then? I don't understand how people think that placing a larger burden on the upper income isn't fair? They make their money off of the lower and middle classes, which - if they didn't exist - we wouldn't have an upper class, so their fair share should be larger than the rest of us. Do they sh*t golden bricks, have superhuman strength, or have some skill that makes them special enough to warrant a salary that's 100x mine? Yea, we all want to make money and live comfortable, but when is enough ENOUGH? How many Maserati's and Ducati's and yachts do you need? They consume more than the middle and lower classes as well, so they should have to pay for their economic inefficiencies that they're responsible for in our economy. Edited April 29, 2009 by JRMMiii

[Disclaimer]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21870.html

[Disclaimer]

This is Tea party America in action... I find this story very intriguing. Push finally came to shove -- I'm pretty excited to see the legal battle on this issue play out.

Firefighters Watch as Tennesee Home Burns to the Ground

Edited October 5, 2010 by JRMMiii

[Casper]

Yeah, the tea party thing definitely isn't what it started out as.

[Bad324]

This is Tea party America in action... I find this story very intriguing. Push finally came to shove -- I'm pretty excited to see the legal battle on this issue play out.

Firefighters Watch as Tennesee Home Burns to the Ground

maybe I'm confused or just don't know enough, but what does not paying city fee have to do with a tea party?

[Disclaimer]

Oversimplified, but...

City fee == "Taxes"

Tea party == Anti-tax

And...

This is what you have when you don't pay for social services - your house burns down.

Right, wrong, or indifferent... the city made good on their threat/promise.

You get to decide if it was the right choice to teach this guy a lesson in finances, personal responsibility, insurance, and/or public sector services.

[Bad324]

Oversimplified, but...

City fee == "Taxes"

Tea party == Anti-tax

And...

This is what you have when you don't pay for social services - your house burns down.

excellent dumbing down for me, I now understand it

[fusion]

Yeah, the tea party thing definitely isn't what it started out as.

Well the idea was hijacked and abused before the Tea Party was even created if you ask me. From day one it seems like there were powers trying to manipulate things in the background. Definitely not what Libertarians and Independents were aiming for when they started to organize initially. It's sad really.

[jporter12]

Well the idea was hijacked and abused before the Tea Party was even created if you ask me. From day one it seems like there were powers trying to manipulate things in the background. Definitely not what Libertarians and Independents were aiming for when they started to organize initially. It's sad really.

It is sad that most of the time when people get together to try and bring a bad thing into the light, it gets all screwed up, and money is usually what screws it up. (making a generalization here)