Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make any sense? Sure, everyone would love a dream world where the government exercises no taxes, but the roads and schools are somehow maintained and your calls to 911 are answered.
But, come on; a tea party! At the very least, these guys could come up with a historically accurate metaphor for their outrage. You all voted for a new government (well, everything but 2/3rds of the senators) four months ago. If there are so many people who are angry with the status quo, why did they vote for status quo candidates?
The site claims a silent majority are fed up. So, why didn't those people vote for Ron Paul? And why didn't they all vote libertarian for house and senate seats?
I wouldn't. If it's symbolic, then it's symbolic of a punch of angry people who don't know their history. We all voted for these people. We aren't being taxed without representation.
How about a meaningful approach; start a website where a new spending charter is described in detail. Then, orchestrate rallies across the nation in support of this resolution, with the expressed goal of turning your resolution into a constitutional amendment.
That would be both symbolic (it's hard to pass amendments, so it probably would not actually become law) and meaningful. If the resolution were well worded, it might even be the kind of event I would attend. Even if it didn't pass, you know legislators would pay attention if their ability to spend were on the line.
The problem is, real work like that takes thoughtful consideration to a very hard problem. A Tea Party? That just takes being angry.
So now it looks like the AIG scumbags will quietly keep their bonuses. Evidently, the banksters/govt puppets wanted to let the furor die down and then quietly put the whole thing to bed. After all, it sets a bad precedent if "some" scumbag parasites have to give up the lifesytles to which they have wormed themselves into....regardless of the ethics and the lack of accountability. Heavens!!! I mean who knows how many other scumbag parasites "would be next?".
Tea party!!!
Symbolic...perhaps...but a start
Count me in!!!
Geez RCC.....stop being such a sheep and grow some horns!!!
So, I'm a sheep because I don't want to join your little tantrum? WaaaWaaa, we're really angry, and we demand you mean old politicians start doing your jobs. No, we're not angry like during the TARP thing, or the AIG bonus thing, we're way more angry now and pweeze listen to us!!!!
If not joining a mob in a pointless exercise in historically bankrupt "symbolism" makes me a sheep to you, so be it. Have fun shouting and holding up signs. I'm sure that's going to change the way Washington works.
I wouldn't. If it's symbolic, then it's symbolic of a punch of angry people who don't know their history. We all voted for these people. We aren't being taxed without representation.
How about a meaningful approach; start a website where a new spending charter is described in detail. Then, orchestrate rallies across the nation in support of this resolution, with the expressed goal of turning your resolution into a constitutional amendment.
That would be both symbolic (it's hard to pass amendments, so it probably would not actually become law) and meaningful. If the resolution were well worded, it might even be the kind of event I would attend. Even if it didn't pass, you know legislators would pay attention if their ability to spend were on the line.
The problem is, real work like that takes thoughtful consideration to a very hard problem. A Tea Party? That just takes being angry.
The people attending these "tea parties" are doing it to make themselves feel better. They think the leftists who do demonstrations are in on something grand and want to join the party. There is no THERE there.
Geez RCC.....stop being such a sheep and grow some horns!!!
So, I'm a sheep because I don't want to join your little tantrum? WaaaWaaa, we're really angry, and we demand you mean old politicians start doing your jobs. No, we're not angry like during the TARP thing, or the AIG bonus thing, we're way more angry now and pweeze listen to us!!!!
If not joining a mob in a pointless exercise in historically bankrupt "symbolism" makes me a sheep to you, so be it. Have fun shouting and holding up signs. I'm sure that's going to change the way Washington works.
Besides, what's the point in joining a peaceful mob anyways? Historically the point of being in a mob was to engage in wanton violence and destruction...
Wow. This MSNBC bit has to be the most unprofessional piece of so-called journalism I've ever seen on a major television news program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i-OWDjOQfI
It's going to be teabagging day for the right wing, and they are going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals: they want to give President Obama strong tongue-lashing, and lick government spending.
I'm sure that would be hilarious to me if I were in eighth grade.
I stayed away from the tea party idea because of the partisan crap (well, and then the flu). I'm glad the write-up's author didn't have any political mudslinging at his rally (and I'm no sure I believe him), but everything else I saw/read showed it had mostly been commandeered by Republicans and the right wing as an anti-Obama rally. No thanks. That kind of thing is the problem, not the solution.
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither left wing nor Democrat (nor right wing nor Republican) -- I despise partisan politics in all its flavors. But I find the hypocrisy of rallies against deficits and spending NOW, after silence for eight years of massive government deficits by the previous administration, very suspicious. Sure, I would imagine there's a lot of bailout backlash involved, which is why I was interested at first, but if it truly is about getting our financial system healthy again, then the partisans need to be kept out of it IMO. And from what I saw, they were pretty much running the show, despite the testimonials otherwise. They may have started non-partisan, but it sure didn't end up that way, at least to the neutral onlooker.
But I find the hypocrisy of rallies against deficits and spending NOW, after silence for eight years of massive government deficits by the previous administration, very suspicious.
My guess is that as long as times were good, the majority of the people were willfully blind to the dangerous excesses that were common across the board in the government, the private sector, and personal household budgets. And let's face it, times have been good for about 20 years now, with only minor slowdowns along the way.
Now that the debt-fueled gravy train has finally been derailed, some people are beginning to wake up.
The fact that Obama is the current president is largely coincidental. He obviously didn't have anything to do with getting us into this mess, but he's also taking all the wrong approaches for getting us out.
IMO, McCain would have likely been doing many of the exact same things, and I personally would have been just as upset. That's why I didn't vote for either of them.
I have to wonder if those who attempted to coin the word "teabagging" for these events were aware it already had a meaning.
As far as I've seen, the only people calling it "teabagging" are those attempting to disparage, belittle, and otherwise mock the events, and it seems clear (especially in the MSNBC segment I quoted above) that the lewd meaning of the word is the sole reason they chose it.
I've only ever heard these events referred to as "tea parties" by those participating in and promoting them.
I'm sure that would be hilarious to me if I were in eighth grade.
I actually thought that was funny just because they took it so far. A bunch of guys sitting around laughing about "tea-bagging" is lame. But to to actually broadcast "full-throated". That's so in your face that it is laughable. Actually, why didn't they throw a line about how "in your face" the demonstrations are?
Seriously though, they should be embarrassed by that regardless of its humor quota.
But I find the hypocrisy of rallies against deficits and spending NOW, after silence for eight years of massive government deficits by the previous administration, very suspicious.
Agreed...mostly. Except, this isn't really a 8 year problem, it's a problem 28 years in fomenting. OK, you can ignore Clinton's last term I guess, but it's not like running massive deficits in times of general peace is anything Bush thought up. He was just pretty good at it.
Here's what I think it comes down to. The lefties don't particularly care about the budget, but the righties do. Or at least they claim they care. That's the real hypocrisy. When a Bush or a Reagan runs a deficit, they're silent, but when Clinton or Obama (or Pelosi) does it, they are up in arms.
FYI, I give a pass to people like Tim who like the tea party, but also hated Bush's spending.
Here's what I think it comes down to. The lefties don't particularly care about the budget, but the righties do. Or at least they claim they care. That's the real hypocrisy. When a Bush or a Reagan runs a deficit, they're silent, but when Clinton or Obama (or Pelosi) does it, they are up in arms.
FYI, I give a pass to people like Tim who like the tea party, but also hated Bush's spending.
I have to wonder if those who attempted to coin the word "teabagging" for these events were aware it already had a meaning.
As far as I've seen, the only people calling it "teabagging" are those attempting to disparage, belittle, and otherwise mock the events, and it seems clear (especially in the MSNBC segment I quoted above) that the lewd meaning of the word is the sole reason they chose it.
I've only ever heard these events referred to as "tea parties" by those participating in and promoting them.
Agreed...mostly. Except, this isn't really a 8 year problem, it's a problem 28 years in fomenting. OK, you can ignore Clinton's last term I guess, but it's not like running massive deficits in times of general peace is anything Bush thought up. He was just pretty good at it.
Here's what I think it comes down to. The lefties don't particularly care about the budget, but the righties do. Or at least they claim they care. That's the real hypocrisy. When a Bush or a Reagan runs a deficit, they're silent, but when Clinton or Obama (or Pelosi) does it, they are up in arms.
FYI, I give a pass to people like Tim who like the tea party, but also hated Bush's spending.
Government Fiscal policy 101: when times are bad you run deficits while tax reciepts drop and the government acts as the demand-of-last-resort. When times are good the government needs to be increasing taxes and building the budget back up to a surplus. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and the 2001 recession turned that into a deficit -- but after the recovery Bush continued the tax cuts he put inplace and handed Obama a huge deficit which had to be made bigger during the downturn in the business cycle. Obama needs to be judged on what happens after the economy turns around.
I'd be more willing to take them seriously if they subscribed to the theory that we are already 6 feet deep in debt and were before Obama ever got the reins. Not that completely excuses him at all because I was appalled by the consequences of what he was doing after watching some Frontline about it. But, taxes will have to be raised. If you believe in fiscal responsibility and we are in as much debt as we are, taxes will have to be raised IN ADDITION TO cutting spending. I think it is some form of insanity that Obama is trying to lower taxes at a time when we can afford it the least. And it is insanity that the public doesn't realize that it is insanity and doesn't demand that we stop tax cuts across the board. It's time to get over it and pay the piper.
Now that the debt-fueled gravy train has finally been derailed, some people are beginning to wake up.
The name should be Boycott the Banksters, calling these things Tea Parties is a way to take to focus off the core issues.
If you want a highly focused site on those issues and way to help try http://www.stopbailout.org/
Here is a taste of the high caliber background info they link to
From Simon Johnson (former International Monetary Fund's Economic Chief Economist). His latest article in Atlantic Monthly "The Quiet Coup" May 2009 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
"But there's a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them."
Another high caliber voice is William K. Black on financial fraud, 4/2 2009 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html.
Black was the former litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC, former general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision, and former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but Charles Keating— after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — went to jail.
"Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters." "
I personally recommend boycotting the banksters and things they own. It looks like others are too. Goldman Sachs has a +10% stake in BurgerKing. On Wednesday April15, 09 Burger King, stunned Wall Street when it announced that "significant traffic declines in the month of March" are going to lead to a hit to profit margins this quarter. Shares of Burger King tumbled nearly 18%, yet McDonalds price and traffic remain high. On Friday April 17-09 Goldman removes the BurgerKing from their Conviction Buy List.
Tis intriguing to see people who pay the least in taxes whine like they pay the most.
Bailouts trouble you? AIG had contracts on all the bonuses they paid out, want to turn contract law around in our country? Just see how fast everything fails at that point.
Bailouts trouble you? AIG had contracts on all the bonuses they paid out, want to turn contract law around in our country? Just see how fast everything fails at that point.
In bankruptcy court, all contracts are torn up and new "fair" ones are created. $170B in bailouts is bankruptcy in everything but name. AIG is bankrupt, and ALL of their contracts should have been rejiggered.
What's really disappointing, isn't $100M or so of bonuses being sent back, it's that the likes of Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar for their $12B derivatives contracts with AIG. People are just so gullible.
Bailouts trouble you? AIG had contracts on all the bonuses they paid out, want to turn contract law around in our country? Just see how fast everything fails at that point.
In bankruptcy court, all contracts are torn up and new "fair" ones are created. $170B in bailouts is bankruptcy in everything but name. AIG is bankrupt, and ALL of their contracts should have been rejiggered.
What's really disappointing, isn't $100M or so of bonuses being sent back, it's that the likes of Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar for their $12B derivatives contracts with AIG. People are just so gullible.
RCC I agree. Bankruptcy "maybe" would have been the way to go but if a giant like AIG were to banco it would be a sight to see.
People don't realize that if the contracts were voided for compensation then all hell would have broken loose by now.
We've talked about this before, but I think that the answer to AIG was and is an FDIC style nationalization and restructuring. There are parts of AIG that are very profitable. The main reason for their downfall is credit default swaps and claims being paid out on those.
The thing is we don't have an FDIC type organization to do something like that.
These protests it looks like got about 350k people across the country, which is a decent turnout for something like this. However, if it wasn't for the Fox News and Limbaugh cheerleading and sponsoring of these events, it wouldn't have been nearly that size.
I really see these rallies as being mostly people who are pissed off that their team lost the last election. I think they supported the GOP outwardly thru the last 8 years, even though deep down they really weren't happy with how things were being run.
Then once they lost their distaste for the way their guys governed was given a target. It is after all difficult to believe that the guys you followed really screwed you over.
It's also difficult to believe that your ideologies might be incorrect and were in fact one of the main causes of our economic downfall (i.e. deregulation, free markets, etc). Here's a video that's a good example of this, someone reminding people at a teaparty how we arrived here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkOwsIIIe5I
I can totally understand people's frustration at the government and what not. And the government is never going to do things perfectly. I mean, if we were a perfect society, there would be no need for government right?
The thing is, at any sort of rally like this, you're usually going to see the fringe people there. They have the loudest voices and this is when they feel comfortable enough to shout about it. It was the same thing at WTO, or anti-war rallies or whatever.
The fact is that 2/3 of the country right now is OK with the job that Obama is doing. So teapartiers do not represent the majority of our country right now.
Comments
But, come on; a tea party! At the very least, these guys could come up with a historically accurate metaphor for their outrage. You all voted for a new government (well, everything but 2/3rds of the senators) four months ago. If there are so many people who are angry with the status quo, why did they vote for status quo candidates?
The site claims a silent majority are fed up. So, why didn't those people vote for Ron Paul? And why didn't they all vote libertarian for house and senate seats?
I wouldn't. If it's symbolic, then it's symbolic of a punch of angry people who don't know their history. We all voted for these people. We aren't being taxed without representation.
How about a meaningful approach; start a website where a new spending charter is described in detail. Then, orchestrate rallies across the nation in support of this resolution, with the expressed goal of turning your resolution into a constitutional amendment.
That would be both symbolic (it's hard to pass amendments, so it probably would not actually become law) and meaningful. If the resolution were well worded, it might even be the kind of event I would attend. Even if it didn't pass, you know legislators would pay attention if their ability to spend were on the line.
The problem is, real work like that takes thoughtful consideration to a very hard problem. A Tea Party? That just takes being angry.
Were you against the WTC protests too?
Trying to work "within the system" does not work when the system reaches a certain tipping point of inbreeding and corruption.
We are at that point and have been for some time.
BTW....the govt/banksters just gave America the finger (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_co/bailout_bonuses) as the "90% tax on the bonuses" was killed in the Senate and Obama (the puppet) said "let's not demonize investors".
So now it looks like the AIG scumbags will quietly keep their bonuses. Evidently, the banksters/govt puppets wanted to let the furor die down and then quietly put the whole thing to bed. After all, it sets a bad precedent if "some" scumbag parasites have to give up the lifesytles to which they have wormed themselves into....regardless of the ethics and the lack of accountability. Heavens!!! I mean who knows how many other scumbag parasites "would be next?".
Tea party!!!
Symbolic...perhaps...but a start
Count me in!!!
So, I'm a sheep because I don't want to join your little tantrum? WaaaWaaa, we're really angry, and we demand you mean old politicians start doing your jobs. No, we're not angry like during the TARP thing, or the AIG bonus thing, we're way more angry now and pweeze listen to us!!!!
If not joining a mob in a pointless exercise in historically bankrupt "symbolism" makes me a sheep to you, so be it. Have fun shouting and holding up signs. I'm sure that's going to change the way Washington works.
It's kind of a sheepled if you do, sheepled if you don't world these days. I guess...
The people attending these "tea parties" are doing it to make themselves feel better. They think the leftists who do demonstrations are in on something grand and want to join the party. There is no THERE there.
Besides, what's the point in joining a peaceful mob anyways? Historically the point of being in a mob was to engage in wanton violence and destruction...
As far as the actual tea parties go, I thought this write-up was pretty good: Tea Party Report: Washington, You're On Notice
That was a great write up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither left wing nor Democrat (nor right wing nor Republican) -- I despise partisan politics in all its flavors. But I find the hypocrisy of rallies against deficits and spending NOW, after silence for eight years of massive government deficits by the previous administration, very suspicious. Sure, I would imagine there's a lot of bailout backlash involved, which is why I was interested at first, but if it truly is about getting our financial system healthy again, then the partisans need to be kept out of it IMO. And from what I saw, they were pretty much running the show, despite the testimonials otherwise. They may have started non-partisan, but it sure didn't end up that way, at least to the neutral onlooker.
And that news report is pathetic.
Now that the debt-fueled gravy train has finally been derailed, some people are beginning to wake up.
The fact that Obama is the current president is largely coincidental. He obviously didn't have anything to do with getting us into this mess, but he's also taking all the wrong approaches for getting us out.
IMO, McCain would have likely been doing many of the exact same things, and I personally would have been just as upset. That's why I didn't vote for either of them.
I've only ever heard these events referred to as "tea parties" by those participating in and promoting them.
I actually thought that was funny just because they took it so far. A bunch of guys sitting around laughing about "tea-bagging" is lame. But to to actually broadcast "full-throated". That's so in your face that it is laughable. Actually, why didn't they throw a line about how "in your face" the demonstrations are?
Seriously though, they should be embarrassed by that regardless of its humor quota.
Agreed...mostly. Except, this isn't really a 8 year problem, it's a problem 28 years in fomenting. OK, you can ignore Clinton's last term I guess, but it's not like running massive deficits in times of general peace is anything Bush thought up. He was just pretty good at it.
Here's what I think it comes down to. The lefties don't particularly care about the budget, but the righties do. Or at least they claim they care. That's the real hypocrisy. When a Bush or a Reagan runs a deficit, they're silent, but when Clinton or Obama (or Pelosi) does it, they are up in arms.
FYI, I give a pass to people like Tim who like the tea party, but also hated Bush's spending.
from FNC, see almost exactly 2:00 into the clip:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/akdobbins/tea-b ... hite-house
Government Fiscal policy 101: when times are bad you run deficits while tax reciepts drop and the government acts as the demand-of-last-resort. When times are good the government needs to be increasing taxes and building the budget back up to a surplus. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and the 2001 recession turned that into a deficit -- but after the recovery Bush continued the tax cuts he put inplace and handed Obama a huge deficit which had to be made bigger during the downturn in the business cycle. Obama needs to be judged on what happens after the economy turns around.
Fixed that for you?
The name should be Boycott the Banksters, calling these things Tea Parties is a way to take to focus off the core issues.
If you want a highly focused site on those issues and way to help try http://www.stopbailout.org/
Here is a taste of the high caliber background info they link to
From Simon Johnson (former International Monetary Fund's Economic Chief Economist). His latest article in Atlantic Monthly "The Quiet Coup" May 2009 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
"But there's a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them."
More details in a Bill Moyers interview of Simon Johnson "Geithner and the Banking Oligarchs:" http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/profile.html
Another high caliber voice is William K. Black on financial fraud, 4/2 2009 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html.
Black was the former litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC, former general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision, and former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but Charles Keating— after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — went to jail.
"Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters." "
I personally recommend boycotting the banksters and things they own. It looks like others are too. Goldman Sachs has a +10% stake in BurgerKing. On Wednesday April15, 09 Burger King, stunned Wall Street when it announced that "significant traffic declines in the month of March" are going to lead to a hit to profit margins this quarter. Shares of Burger King tumbled nearly 18%, yet McDonalds price and traffic remain high. On Friday April 17-09 Goldman removes the BurgerKing from their Conviction Buy List.
Learn more and get involved!
Bailouts trouble you? AIG had contracts on all the bonuses they paid out, want to turn contract law around in our country? Just see how fast everything fails at that point.
Absolutely true.
In bankruptcy court, all contracts are torn up and new "fair" ones are created. $170B in bailouts is bankruptcy in everything but name. AIG is bankrupt, and ALL of their contracts should have been rejiggered.
What's really disappointing, isn't $100M or so of bonuses being sent back, it's that the likes of Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar for their $12B derivatives contracts with AIG. People are just so gullible.
RCC I agree. Bankruptcy "maybe" would have been the way to go but if a giant like AIG were to banco it would be a sight to see.
People don't realize that if the contracts were voided for compensation then all hell would have broken loose by now.
The thing is we don't have an FDIC type organization to do something like that.
These protests it looks like got about 350k people across the country, which is a decent turnout for something like this. However, if it wasn't for the Fox News and Limbaugh cheerleading and sponsoring of these events, it wouldn't have been nearly that size.
I really see these rallies as being mostly people who are pissed off that their team lost the last election. I think they supported the GOP outwardly thru the last 8 years, even though deep down they really weren't happy with how things were being run.
Then once they lost their distaste for the way their guys governed was given a target. It is after all difficult to believe that the guys you followed really screwed you over.
It's also difficult to believe that your ideologies might be incorrect and were in fact one of the main causes of our economic downfall (i.e. deregulation, free markets, etc). Here's a video that's a good example of this, someone reminding people at a teaparty how we arrived here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkOwsIIIe5I
I can totally understand people's frustration at the government and what not. And the government is never going to do things perfectly. I mean, if we were a perfect society, there would be no need for government right?
The thing is, at any sort of rally like this, you're usually going to see the fringe people there. They have the loudest voices and this is when they feel comfortable enough to shout about it. It was the same thing at WTO, or anti-war rallies or whatever.
The fact is that 2/3 of the country right now is OK with the job that Obama is doing. So teapartiers do not represent the majority of our country right now.