One Lump or Two

Yes, there will be tea parties tomorrow across Connecticut.

Is anyone here going to one?

Advertisements

61 responses to “One Lump or Two

  1. Planning on going to Norwich. I expect a broad spectrum of people with a lot of areas of dissatisfaction.
    One theme: you can’t spend us out of this. We must create business, not make up fake jobs.

  2. I’m going to be in Vernon.

    Another theme: Today’s Tea Parties are not about taxes, spending or partisian differences. Its about waking up the people. Our government has become disconnected. And its time to take it back for the average man.. by the average man.

  3. And its time to take it back for the average man.. by the average man.

    That might require muskets!

  4. CrankyYankee71

    Unfortunately, I am too busy working to pay my taxes:

    federal income
    state income
    local property
    sales
    gasoline
    professional licensing
    telephone universal service charges
    governmendated recycling of car oil/tire/etc. fees
    real estate conveyance
    bottle tax/deposit

    PLEASE ADD TO MY LIST!

  5. It’s not “taxation without representation” just because the party you support is no longer in power; that’s called democracy.

    Stop bitching about taxes and pretending this is 1776 and be glad you live in a country where you actually have a say in who oversees your taxation.

  6. Another theme: Today’s Tea Parties are not about taxes, spending or partisian differences. Its about waking up the people. Our government has become disconnected. And its time to take it back for the average man.. by the average man.

    Are you high? Did you miss the recent election, in which Obama campaigned on raising up taxes on anyone making over $250,000 and stomped McCain to pieces? Our government hasn’t become disconnected — our conservatives have.

    That might require muskets!

    A little frightening how you cats jump straight to revolutionary violence when faced with a political loss. I know you’re joking here, but that shit is for real for a whole lot of people.

    I wonder if conservatives are prepared to own up to what they’re stirring up here when some whacked-out militia dude pulls a Timothy McVeigh — or a John Wilkes Booth — in response to the supposedly illegitimate Obama administration’s actions.

    And Texas is seceding now or something? Crazy.

  7. I know you’re joking here…

    Well Matt, many a truth is told in jest; you might want to remember that.

    I have to go back to burying my gold and guns in the backyard now……..

  8. ….you live in a country where you actually have a say in who oversees your taxation.

    When the ballots are correctly counted that would be true; but now we have ACORN so who in their right mind can trust election results?

  9. Are you high? Did you miss the recent election, in which Obama campaigned on raising up taxes on anyone making over $250,000 and stomped McCain to pieces? Our government hasn’t become disconnected — our conservatives have.

    Your argument is akin to calling the 2004 Presidential election, or the Connecticut 2006 Senate election, explicit endorsements of the war in Iraq. When that dreaded George Bush won the first majority since Reagan’s second term, and when war hawk Lieberman whipped limousine liberal Lamont, all anti-war protesters should have just shut up because they were disconnected. Do you agree?

    I wonder if conservatives are prepared to own up to what they’re stirring up here when some whacked-out militia dude pulls a Timothy McVeigh — or a John Wilkes Booth — in response to the supposedly illegitimate Obama administration’s actions.

    I love how you’re setting the table to blame people who are sick of paying too much in taxes for a hypothetical act of domestic terrorism. Way to stifle thought on an important issue by spreading fear and blame for things that haven’t happened.

  10. A McVeigh quote that sounds too close to what the teabaggers are saying for comfort:

    Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate “promises,” they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight … Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.

  11. if the govt (congress and executive) do not wake up by seeing so many in the streets saying-
    stop taxing us to spend on fake jobs. Start letting the business make the jobs and do not tax more on the most successful.

    we all learn from our experience. if success does not pay, we will have fewer and fewer making good money and collect fewer and fewer taxes.

    it’s a downward spiral coming in fast.

    how about letting those who pay the taxes make the decisions on how the govt $$ is spent? that’s the way the colonies started.

    we are allowing so much to be spent on things for those who pay no taxes. Is that going to work for long?

  12. Yeah, ACR, ACORN is why McCain lost. Keep thinking that…it beats you guys actually coming up with ideas and presenting candidates who can actually win.

    Where were these tea parties back when Ronald Reagan had the tax rate way, way, WAY above where Obama’s proposing it?

  13. Your argument is akin to calling the 2004 Presidential election, or the Connecticut 2006 Senate election, explicit endorsements of the war in Iraq. When that dreaded George Bush won the first majority since Reagan’s second term, and when war hawk Lieberman whipped limousine liberal Lamont, all anti-war protesters should have just shut up because they were disconnected. Do you agree?

    In 2006, Joe Lieberman ran around saying that “nobody wants to end the war more than me.” He won because he was a lying piece of shit.

    In 2004, sure, I think the public did show a vote of support for the Iraq war. That was pretty clearly what the election was about, and Bush won it. A bunch of dispirited lefties of my acquaintance talked about wanting to move to Canada or what have you — but this revolution / secession business is something else entirely.

    I love how you’re setting the table to blame people who are sick of paying too much in taxes for a hypothetical act of domestic terrorism. Way to stifle thought on an important issue by spreading fear and blame for things that haven’t happened.

    Actually, I am comparing the rhetoric from the teabaggers to that of the worst domestic terrorist in American history. The comparison is intentionally unflattering. I invite you to disassociate yourself from the sentiments expressed by McVeigh and the talk of “revolution” that has attached itself to this event.

    Just in this thread, we have WolcottBoy talking about how this “isn’t about taxes, spending or partisian differences” — that it’s about the legitimacy of our government. Really? That’s fucking scary.

  14. In 2004, sure, I think the public did show a vote of support for the Iraq war. That was pretty clearly what the election was about, and Bush won it. A bunch of dispirited lefties of my acquaintance talked about wanting to move to Canada or what have you — but this revolution / secession business is something else entirely.

    Are you kidding me? Liberals spent eight years questioning the “legitimacy of our government,” and yes, it was pretty f__king scary. It seems like you’re justifying absurdly high, job-killing levels of taxation following Obama’s 53-46 victory, but glossing over eight years of anti-government behavior surrounding Bush’s 51-48 victory. Those must have been two big percentage points.

    There’s a different set of rules for you and your beliefs (tax tax tax, war bad, etc.) and for conservatives’ beliefs, no? Just admit it and move on.

  15. we all learn from our experience. if success does not pay, we will have fewer and fewer making good money and collect fewer and fewer taxes.

    Unfortunately, retiredeyes, what good comes when we learn that crime pays? The logic that “the most profit equals the most good” is largely responsible for the financial crisis that we’re in now — looking back, if we had turned those billions of dollars of excess capital vaporized by the financial services geniuses into healthcare or supertrains instead of allowing them to basically bet it on horses, not only would there be a lot more jobs, but there also would have been a higher quality of life for everyone in the country in the meantime.

  16. Are you kidding me? Liberals spent eight years questioning the “legitimacy of our government”

    Who? Where? Show me an example of something like these crazy teabagging parties.

    In hindsight, the closest thing we had to a “revolutionary” style outcry is almost hilarious — that Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes in a court of law. Even when we’re against the existing government we don’t think of going outside it. That might merit some ridicule, but you have to admit it’s about as far from “revolution” as you can possibly get.

    There’s a different set of rules for you and your beliefs (tax tax tax, war bad, etc.) and for conservatives’ beliefs, no? Just admit it and move on.

    No, actually. You asked if the 04 election was a sign that the public supported the Iraq War, and I agreed that it was. You are the one denying that 08 was a sign that the public supports a more progressive tax code. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

  17. … sounds too close to what the teabaggers are saying for comfort:

    After the way the national tea party organizers treated Mike Steele, I’m making sure to avoid the whole thing today and want nothing to do with it.
    Even the KKK would be proud of Eric Odom and his sidekick Juliana Johnson.
    For all I know Eric’s the Grand Wizard of Illinois.
    I am quite sure he’s a total jerk.

    Personally I’m sick to death of those that say things like:
    (generally in an obnoxious whiny tone)
    ..have had it with both parties, we need to start a 3rd party and then we’ll show `em

    Barf.
    (Where the heck were YOU when the GOP was nominating some clueless dork like Scott MacLean for congress? (3 years ago)).

    Unhappy with either party?
    Great!
    Now get off your rear end and do something about it and that doesn’t mean show up at a town committee meeting for the 1st time in your life just to bitch about it and stomp out.
    That’ll have no impact and you’ll be marked as a putz.

    Democrats.
    Not too thrilled that your party’s been taken over by the minions at Daily Kos and moveon.org?
    Show up at every Democratic function you hear of and write a check for 25 bucks; they’ll start to notice you right away and your voice will matter in no time flat.

    Republicans
    Starting to notice we’ve got out hands full with a few characters that can spend tax dollars with the best of them and get wishy-washy when it comes to liberty?
    Time to show up regularly.
    Be polite; write a small check; inside of a year the members of the local Town Committee will probably start taking you seriously.
    It’s really not all that difficult.

    A 3rd party?
    How about a 4th, 5th, 6th?
    Why in no time flat we’ll be running like some sort of Parliamentary disaster where they can never come to any consensus about so much as the time of day.

    That’ll be efffing perfect won’t it?

  18. Personally I’m sick to death of those that say things like:
    (generally in an obnoxious whiny tone)
    “..have had it with both parties, we need to start a 3rd party and then we’ll show `em

    Haha, on this we totally agree. Taking over your party is relatively easy, and it speaks to the unserious nature of those doing the complaining that they’ve never even tried it.

    I was once a Green, and now generally hold them in the deepest contempt. Those assholes are always trying to dictate what the Democrats should do without bothering to do it — maybe you have the same problem with Libertarians (or with the AI / Constitution parties)?

  19. Where were these tea parties back when Ronald Reagan had the tax rate way, way, WAY above where Obama’s proposing it?

    At the end of President Reagan’s term twenty years ago, top marginal tax rate was 28%. Today, it’s 35%. Under Obama and Biden, it would rise to 39.6%. How does a 39.6% rate amount to “less taxes” than a 28% rate? Obviously, it doesn’t. When the Democrats talk about taxes paid “under Reagan” they cite the first months of his term—before the Gipper (and the great tax slasher) succeeded in radically lowering the top tax rate. He inherited a top marginal rate of 70%, then cut it several times to produce the booming economy of the ‘80’s

  20. you have the same problem with Libertarians (or with the AI / Constitution parties)?

    I tend to agree with Libertarians except I’m a Hawk; while the social-conservatives will go on and on about Roe (which even I’ll admit is a rather dicey decision and I am pro-choice) and Gay this or that (Who cares? Leave me alone) they do stick with both on Constitutional issues such as the 2nd.

    Knitting the whole thing into a functioning single party that can work well enough to win elections has become a full time task.

    Hence my fury towards the Chicago based national tea party organizers as well as any praise you’ll see from me time and again for our state chair, Healy who has shown great talent in walking the fine line and embracing *all* Republicans without seeming to offend anyone save for some Democrats.
    I must say, he’s quite gifted.

    My friend and fairly well known Conservative, Joe Markley (the “Axe the Tax” rally was his creation) saw it all coming too as the Berlin Wall came down he commented that without the common enemy of the USSR (which clearly frightened Rpeublicans more than Democrats) the party would suffer a fracture exactly as it has; and exactly along the fissure Markley predicted 2 decades ago.

  21. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

    No. That’s not what you said. Here’s your quote:

    Are you high? Did you miss the recent election, in which Obama campaigned on raising up taxes on anyone making over $250,000 and stomped McCain to pieces? Our government hasn’t become disconnected — our conservatives have.

    Here’s why your “logic” is worthless: Bush won 51-48. Obama won 53-46. Under Bush, the anti-war protests did NOT diminish, and in fact, increased in strength. Yet you’re arguing that we should all shut up simply because 6 out of 11 voters voted for the high tax guy, despite the fact that 5 out of 11 didn’t. That’s absurd. Setting aside the fact that it assumes that Obama was elected solely because he wants to raise taxes (when people could have voted for him for any reason — the fact that he was the first mixed-race candidate, the fact that some voters didn’t like Sarah Palin and the fact that Michelle Obama dresses nicely were all cited reasons why Obama received votes) — why would you try to stifle discussion and thought, on anything, and how can you argue that a taxpayer is “disconnected” from paying more taxes (or insist that he must be “high” because he doesn’t want to pay more taxes)?

    Like many liberals, when you don’t agree with a position, you do whatever it takes to prevent anyone from speaking about it. We already knew you didn’t like the Second Amendment — who knew you didn’t like the First?

  22. Here’s why your “logic” is worthless: Bush won 51-48. Obama won 53-46. Under Bush, the anti-war protests did NOT diminish, and in fact, increased in strength. Yet you’re arguing that we should all shut up simply because 6 out of 11 voters voted for the high tax guy, despite the fact that 5 out of 11 didn’t.

    No, I am saying that advocating for an end to a war is different from advocating for the overthrow of our government. You seem to think — or at least rationalize — that protests are all alike regardless of content.

    If you are in opposition to the calls for revolution coming from these protests (and let’s be honest here, overthrowing the government is the straightforward premise of a “tea party”), then of course I still invite you to say so.

  23. Are you high? Did you miss the recent election, in which Obama campaigned on raising up taxes on anyone making over $250,000 and stomped McCain to pieces? Our government hasn’t become disconnected — our conservatives have.

    Just look at all of these disconnected people

  24. always trying to dictate what the [your politcal party here] should do without bothering to do it

    We have them right now – they’re called “Tea Party Organizers”

    Had these same people that are showing up from coast to coast today lifted so much as a finger last November, most of this wild spending wouldn’t be happening right now, Coleman would’ve held his seat as would Shays and countless others from across the nation.

  25. Like many liberals, when you don’t agree with a position, you do whatever it takes to prevent anyone from speaking about it. We already knew you didn’t like the Second Amendment — who knew you didn’t like the First?

    No one is saying these tea party idiots don’t have the right to run around the country and wax poetic about why Ron Paul is Jesus Christ and how taxes and spending are going are worse for America than loose nukes. What we’re saying is that these people are stupid and, if no one else is saying that, that is what I’m saying.

    The tax code has not really changed under Obama for 95% of Americans. And seeing as how I’m guessing most of the people parading around today are millionaires, they have nothing to complain about. Moreover, even if they were in that 5% that is going to see an increase, they too have nothing to complain about because they’re just paying their fair share.

  26. Like many liberals, when you don’t agree with a position, you do whatever it takes to prevent anyone from speaking about it. We already knew you didn’t like the Second Amendment — who knew you didn’t like the First?

    I visited your article, and it appears some people shouted down an anti-immigrant Congressman, and were subsequently pepper-sprayed by local law enforcement. Looks like a bad day for the 1st all around, doesn’t it?

    By the way, why did you scare-quote “logic” above? It seems like there’s some meaningful evolution of the English language afoot in conservative blogging circles, but I am struggling to understand the rules for it.

  27. If you are in opposition to the calls for revolution coming from these protests (and let’s be honest here, overthrowing the government is the straightforward premise of a “tea party”), then of course I still invite you to say so.

    I’m for a revolution in November 2010, and again in November 2012. I’m also for having legislators look out their windows right now. I’m also for job growth (and against all things that stunt or reverse job growth).

    I’m for a lot of things. However, you’re not being “honest,” and you’re only pretending to know what you’re talking about, when you say that “overthrowing the government is the straightforward premise of a “tea party.” No one wants to overthrow the government here. They just want the government to take its hands out of their pockets.

    Regardless, if you supported MoveOn, then you have no business challenging the patriotism of anyone involved with the tea parties. None.

  28. business challenging the patriotism of anyone involved with the tea parties. None.

    You’re right – however asking them where the hell they were on election day, or how many checks they wrote for more fiscally conservative candidates, seems fair.

  29. I’m for a lot of things. However, you’re not being “honest,” and you’re only pretending to know what you’re talking about, when you say that “overthrowing the government is the straightforward premise of a “tea party.” No one wants to overthrow the government here. They just want the government to take its hands out of their pockets.

    The government has authority over you and has the right to tax you. Get over it. Pay your taxes. Vote in elections. Go to work. Support the Republicans. Go see a movie. Calm down.

  30. No one is saying these tea party idiots don’t have the right to run around the country and wax poetic about why Ron Paul is Jesus Christ

    Many of them do do exactly that.

    Amazing to me as only Paul is even tougher to listen to than even the only true Elmer Fudd; Ron Wyden.

  31. You’re right – however asking them where the hell they were on election day, or how many checks they wrote for more fiscally conservative candidates, seems fair.

    You’re absolutely, positively correct.

  32. The tax code has not really changed under Obama for 95% of Americans. And seeing as how I’m guessing most of the people parading around today are millionaires, they have nothing to complain about. Moreover, even if they were in that 5% that is going to see an increase, they too have nothing to complain about because they’re just paying their fair share.

    If you think that Obama is only going to increase taxes on the top 5% of wage earners (which is, in and of itself, unfair), you’re fooling yourself. Employers’ taxes are increasing, as are Social Security and Medicare taxes, and he’s also threatening to remove the deduction for interest paid on loans for owner-occupied homes. Nothing is safe.

    Setting aside the warped ideas that raising taxes on a small minority of Americans is somehow fair or good for the economy (when it is neither, and we wouldn’t tolerate any other type of discriminatory behavior of this sort), this is simply not his plan. Obama ran as a game-changer, and he’s changing the game.

  33. I’m for a revolution in November 2010, and again in November 2012. I’m also for having legislators look out their windows right now. I’m also for job growth (and against all things that stunt or reverse job growth).

    I don’t think anyone is so dense that they’d confuse an election with a revolution.

  34. Jack, it occurs to me that you live in a world in which practically everyone — your allies who speak of revolution, your opponents who rally behind MoveOn (which is practically the Gentle Ben of political organizations), the President (who is following through on his campaign promise to move the tax rates for people making over $250K up and the rates for those making under $250K down), voters who repeatedly state their preference for center-left economic policies — is lying about what they think and what they intend to do.

    Everyone except for you. You, of course, understand what everyone really means, and must carry this lonely burden in a terrifying world forged by an unholy alliance of media giants, housing advocates, and Democratic Party operatives.

    I dunno, that shit is just too confusing for me. I find it’s easier to take people at their word until there’s evidence to the contrary. It’s pretty bizarre to be having an argument where the person on the other side of it claims to have secret knowledge of everything.

  35. 10% of the Top wage earners pay 72% of the taxes in the Country.
    and 50 % of the people don’t pay any income tax at all.
    so how much more of the tax burden can we expect form the job produceres Matt W?
    Should it be 80, 90, 100%.

  36. I don’t think anyone is so dense that they’d confuse an election with a revolution.

    Really?

    http://literaryobama.com/2009/03/31/campaign-volunteer-publishes-the-obama-revolution/

  37. I dunno, that shit is just too confusing for me. I find it’s easier to take people at their word until there’s evidence to the contrary. It’s pretty bizarre to be having an argument where the person on the other side of it claims to have secret knowledge of everything.

    A benefit of the doubt that you conferred on George W. Bush, right? Go ahead and answer Bluecoat’s question. At what levels of taxation will you be happy? Apparently having 10% of the country pay 72% of the income taxes, and 50% of the country pay 0% of the income taxes, isn’t enough for you. So, what’s the answer? What’s “fair” in your eyes?

  38. A benefit of the doubt that you conferred on George W. Bush, right? Go ahead and answer Bluecoat’s question. At what levels of taxation will you be happy? Apparently having 10% of the country pay 72% of the income taxes, and 50% of the country pay 0% of the income taxes, isn’t enough for you. So, what’s the answer? What’s “fair” in your eyes?

    Jack…I know you seem have a B.S. from George W. Bush University in Katrina Ethics, but we’re all in this together. This is, after all, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Those who make more owe more. It’s a pretty simple philosophical theory.

    If you worked hard and earned a lot of money (or, let’s get more realistic here, you got a lot of money passed down to you from generation to generation) it is only fair that you give some of that money back to the government so that they can give people the chance to do what you did/what someone in your family has done.

    Your response will likely be “hey, liberal, ever heard of the American Dream?” Yes, in fact, I have. But the American Dream is not possible when you grow up in the projects of the South Bronx or in rural West Virginia. Not everyone can overcome the challenges life faces them without the assistance of others. And that, professor, is the purpose of government: to give people an equal shot at having a decent life.

    If you have a problem with that than you, my friend, are the one who does not believe in the American Dream and/or the principles upon which this country was founded.

  39. Bruce Rubenstein

    the tax and spending policies of George Bush is what got us into this mess anyway…the tea folks ought to go down to his ranch and protest there, after all Bush was the biggest spender by far of all the presidents and handed us a huge deficit……never-ending war…another huge governmental beauracracy….and a terrible trade imbalance….

  40. Scanman,

    I don’t think you’ll find anyone who objects that those who make more should pay more, they should, and do. The question is: how much more?

    Your compassion for the kid in the South Bronx or rural West Virginia is noted, but how about when those same kids are saddled with this enormous debt that we’re racking up? Is that not a concern at all for them? How are they going to make the American Dream happen when, as soon as they start making a decent living, they need to fork-over an outrageous percentage of their income in taxes just to service the debt on all today’s spending? Sure, Obama might not raise taxes that much, but he’s making sure that someone, some day will have to just to keep the government afloat.

    Sure, George Bush spent — a lot — but let’s not kid ourselves as if Obama is just picking up where GWB left off. He’s doubling-up, if not tripling, GWB size deficits. And, oddly enough, without much “stimulus” being spent yet, the world continues to function.

  41. “And that, professor, is the purpose of government: to give people an equal shot at having a decent life.”

    No.

    No, no, no, no, no, NO.

    A thousand — a MILLION — times no.

    I don’t know what Constitution you read, but the one I am reading says all men are CREATED equal.

    A state dedicated to the principle that all men (yes, and women) HAVE to be equal is socialism.

    At best.

    And therein lies all the trouble in the world.

  42. Your compassion for the kid in the South Bronx or rural West Virginia is noted, but how about when those same kids are saddled with this enormous debt that we’re racking up? Is that not a concern at all for them? How are they going to make the American Dream happen when, as soon as they start making a decent living, they need to fork-over an outrageous percentage of their income in taxes just to service the debt on all today’s spending? Sure, Obama might not raise taxes that much, but he’s making sure that someone, some day will have to just to keep the government afloat.

    J-

    Debt is as American as apple pie. Who among us does not have debt? I will be paying back my college loans for the next 20 years. And in a few years, I’ll start paying a mortgage. That’s on top of car payments, bills, etc. We’ve been lucky to have had periods of balanced budgets throughout our history. But I’m not concerned about debt (I’ll leave that to the GOP and the Dem deficit hawks).

    Do I think it is good to have trillions of dollars of debt? Of course not. But does it keep me up at night? No. What keep’s me up at night is worrying about people who are struggling RIGHT NOW, not whether my kids will struggle in 20 or 30 years. That will be the problem for their generation of leaders; finding the solution to today’s problems is our struggle.

  43. The scope of this debt is what scares me. There is debt, and then there is DEBT. Sure, many of us have debt, but most of us aren’t bankrupt. I fear the level of spending — starting with the previous administration and greatly expanded by this one — will do immeasurable long term damage.

  44. RedFive,

    Just curious – have you ever studied political science? Scratch that…human nature?

    You’re right, the Constitution does say that all men are created equal. But, left alone, society tramples equality. If you’re at all familiar with Hobbes you would know that in the state of nature (where there is not govt), equality goes out the window in favor of anarchy and chaos. The government needs to step in to level the playing field so that each person can enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that were given to us by our creator (if you’re into that) and by the Founding Fathers.

    You and I both believe in the notion of “all men created equal.” The difference? You think that equality ends at birth and have a “you’re on your own” attitude. I, on the other hand, believe that in order for society to remain equal there needs to be a higher authority to balance the power among the masses.

  45. The scope of this debt is what scares me. There is debt, and then there is DEBT. Sure, many of us have debt, but most of us aren’t bankrupt. I fear the level of spending — starting with the previous administration and greatly expanded by this one — will do immeasurable long term damage.

    But J, the US is not bankrupt and the US never will be bankrupt. If one of the families on your block goes bankrupt, the neighborhood as a whole will be fine even if a huge for sale sign goes up on that guy’s lawn. If the US goes bankrupt, the neighborhood (i.e. the world) goes bankrupt and the neighborhood association (i.e. world community) would not let that happen.

    Right now the US is like a bleeding patient with heart disease. You have to find out what is causing the bleeding and stopping it before you address the long term problem of heart disease. In other words, we have to address energry, healthcare, education, etc before we worry about the debt because if we do not address them we just keep getting sicker and sicker. What is another trillion when you already have trillion(s)…?

  46. Scanman,
    Your jealousy of others will kill you. It is none of your business how much money someone makes in the private sector, period. And Mr. Rubenstien, sure Bush spent alot, but congress approved it, and the Big O’s plan is to quadruple that spending. Good grief Charlie Brown.
    The sub-prime mortgage fiasco sponsored and pushed by Democrats ruined the World Economy.
    I’ve posted this before, but please study it, and tell me if Obama knows what the hell he is doing…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html

    Bush called for reforms 17 times while Democrats ignored the problem…

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html

    And lastly scanman and Mr. R, if you want a donkey, go out and get your own, don’t tell me I owe you one…

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/04/opinion/op-orourke4

    “Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there’s the tenth: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”

    Here are God’s basic rules about how we should live, a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. And, right at the end of it we read, “Don’t envy your buddy because he has an ox or a donkey.” Why did that make the top 10? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?

    Well, think about how important this commandment is to a community, to a nation, to a democracy. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don’t whine about what the people across the street have. Get rich and get your own.”

  47. Scanman,

    I hate to disagree with you again, but left alone, society and anarchy would threaten your natural rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty and property — but not your equality.

    As far as being “created equal” (which is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution) that just means we’re all the same in the eyes of the government, that none of us are bestowed with nobility or any other governmental birthright. Of course we’re all not “created” equal in an absolute sense. Some of us are born with talent, some not. Some rich, some poor. But, none of that has to do with how we fair under the government’s laws.

    As for anarchy, well, that’s the absence of authority, so everyone would be “equally” on their own.

    As for the bankruptcy stuff. If we take on unsustainable levels of debt, we could of course go bankrupt, or we could just inflate our way out of the mess by printing money, either way we’d all be screwed.

  48. scanman:

    As usual, PJ O’Rourke says it far more effectively than I might hope to do:

    “Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking.”

    “Eat The Rich” (1999)

  49. CrankyYankee71

    . . . it is only fair that you give some of that money back to the government so that . . . .

    No. No. No. No. No.

    This is one of the main problems with the tax-and-spend crowd. By saying that we should give some money “back o the government” assumes that the money “comes” fromt he government. The government has no money of its own. It all comes from those of us that pay taxes.

    The points are (a) those of us paying taxes are paying more than our fair share when you consider that 50% of the population pays no income tax, (b) the tax money collected by the government is not being spent wisely, and (c) the government is spending more than it is collecting by a wide margin.

  50. For anybody at the rallies, were there any of the predictable anti-socialism signs being waved like “STOP SOCIALISM, END MEDICARE, END SOCIAL SECURITY” …….(I assume the predominantly elderly crowd may have frowned on this, but come on granny, put your money where your mouth is. Commie.)

    or,… historically accurate signs like “IF THIS WAS 1773 WE’D BE TORIES…..but whatever that’s not important today.”

  51. Okay, let’s at least try to get the history of the Boston Tea Party right. There were genuine revolutionists among the “Indians” who threw the tea into Boston harbor. The principle organizer was Sam Adams, as fine a made in America revolutionist as you are likely to see anywhere.

    Sam was always saying stuff like this: “In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

    But the issue that propelled the dumping was THE TEA.

    In an attempt to save the East India Company, an early government supported entity (GSE), from stunning losses of revenue, the British government gave a subsidy to the company in the form of a tax reduction that allowed the company to reduce the price of its tea. Americans drank a lot of tea in those days because Starbucks as yet was no where to be seen, and the British knew they could undercut the market by lowering the price of tea produced by their principle GSE. So they loaded all the tea from their warehouses – and they had a lot of it, because the American had for sometime been buying tier tea form Holland – and shipped it to Boston.

    The merchants in Boston did not want to disturb their tea business and resented the GSE scam; so it was pretty easy for Sam Adams, a much better community organizer than Barack Obama, to turn Boston against the British.

    The British government , as Edmund Burke back home had warned, was always over-reacting. It was a pro-active government.When they imposed a stamp act on their colony, Bostonians resisted the act and managed to get it rolled back. Then came the Townsend Act and the so called Intolerable Acts. These were attempts by the British government to collect from Bostonians revenues that the government needed to protect their shipping from the likes of Sam Adams and the merchants of Boston, who were free traders.

    The Bostonians resented that they were taxed to provide revenue to a far away government so that that government could pay for unruly troops to monitor they trade of Boston merchants, bully citizens on the street and knock young boys on the head with their rifle buts.

    One thing led to another, shots were fired, and the rest is history.

    Now, there are several lessons here, the most important of which is that GSE’s are bad. Pity we had to learn this lesson all over again with Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack and other government sponsored entities and support systems like AIG.

    I was at the Harford tea party and am happy to report back that no shots were fired. The phrase most often repeated at the party by the revelers was something along the lines of, “Lets take out country back.”

    This may help matt w to breath easier.

    The signs were humorous mostly – and, best of all, Richard Blumenthal was not in attendance.

  52. No Don, you are correct, lets get to the bottom of this “history question”

    The Tea Party was spurred on by the Tea Act of 1773 which reduced the tax paid by the British East India Co. from two shillings and six pence per pound to 3 pence per pound. The rationale behind this was that lower taxes meant lower prices and the British East India Co. would sell more tea and everyone would be happy. Right?

    Basically this is the first example of free market supply side Reagan economics. In other words: A large predatory corporation was facing financial problems. The solution that the powers that be came up with at the time was an enormous tax cut. Not for everyone of course, just the one company that had shareholders who also happened to be wealthy well connected members of the House of Lords. Remind anyone of one political party’s philosophy more than another? Anyone?

    The reaction to this by colonial merchants in ENGLAND and America was a collective ‘go screw’ as many smaller merchants were severely undercut by this measure, forcing them out of the market, unable to compete against the larger British East India Co. Hence, political activists (Sons of Liberty) along with poor working class folks staged a protest demanding taxation with representation. In other words, if you’re going to screw around with taxes, let us have a say in it with a representative democracy. Which we now have and have enjoyed for well over 200 years. We actually just had one of those, what do you call them, elections, where the people overwhelmingly elected one guy over another by 6 million votes.

    Now, if consistency and accuracy are important to you, the only way I could see a protest being staged in 2009 using the name “Tea Party” being intellectually honest would be if say Barack Obama was elected, and then….mandated that Walmart had to sell tools with almost zero sales tax, but all other small hardware stores were still required to charge a federally madated 5% sales tax. Then, then….go tea bag your head off.

    But whatever,……it’s just history right, no need to get bogged down in facts. You’re a Tory Don.

  53. “…and I won’t look back.”

    http://www.rep-am.com/news/409228.txt

    Sounds like another “disconnected” conservative, right, Matt? If he was a real patriot, he’d pay taxes and like it.

  54. Jack Dobb is a Tory

  55. For Reals,

    Freddy Mack, Fannie Mae, Countrywide, the East India Tea Company — all GSE’s

    I’m pretty sure Sam Adams might have understood that a multi-Trillion debt would have to be paid eventually by someone — certainly not legislators.

    By the way, voices were raised against the spending proclivities of Republicans at the Hartford festivities. It was a grand time. You would have enjoyed that part of it.

  56. I’m sure I would have, it’s just the timing is a little suspect. Apparently there weren’t any tea bags available from 2000-2008.

    Just seems a little disingenuous is all. Rob Simmons, a man who served from 2000-2006, basically the years that created this mess can show up at this thing? C’mon? …….I hope an agnostic, gay marraige loving, gun totin, weed smokin, libertarian punches out the next Republican hack who trys to hijack this movement.

  57. Reals,

    I agree. But this thing is probably bigger than parties. No doubt people will try to appropriate it for their own purposes. We now have a government too big to fail attempting to bailout companies too big to fail. This suggests the problem with the companies is – they’re too big. I’ve said elsewhere that Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide and AIG were government supported entities, really government supported molopolies. So was the East India company. The reaction to all this from the Bostonians was instinctively right. There is a connection between government created entities that are big and a deprivation of liberty. The same is true of Big Government, which wants to regulate everything but itself. That is the spirit I find animating this movement. And it was infectious at the rally. All this movement needs is a Sam Adams. As for revoltion– there is nothing better than a cleansing relolution. We are the sons of revolution. The only thing to fear about revolution is fear itself.

  58. Don, I appreciate the dialogue, but the comparison of Freddie, Fanny or Country Wide,..or anything for that matter to the British East India Co. is just patently false. Members of the House of Lords were shareholders, along with the King. There is no comparison. Haliburton is by far more historically accurate in this instance.

    With regards to revolution, I don’t really give a fuck. I’m just looking forward to the Libertarian vs. Republican showdown which will have to take place if this movement continues. It will be interesting to see how the R’s deal with a large amount of gay marriage loving, gun toting, weed smoking, porn watching, atheist, Hunter S. Thompson freedom loving, voters. Time to throw one faction overboard, because the Republican base does not match up with this base.

  59. easthartfordtaxpayer

    I attended. Party people and reps were excluded from the Hartford Tea Party too. I agree with it. When Michael Steele denounces elected republicans who act like democrats and when the CT republicans stop giving Dodd juniors like Simmons the good word the 5000 people who showed up today might start looking at the republican party as something they can identify with again.

    There are very serious problems with the republican party which blind loyalty will not solve. This party republican is skeptical that authentic change will come at the national level any time soon. Any change we see will be as much clintonian wind socking as anything we’ve seen from democrats.

    When you look at their proposals national republicans aren’t arguing that we shouldn’t be spending so much money. They are arguing that we should be spending it differently.

    Sheep no more.

  60. I agree. But this thing is probably bigger than parties. No doubt people will try to appropriate it for their own purposes. We now have a government too big to fail attempting to bailout companies too big to fail. This suggests the problem with the companies is – they’re too big.

    I actually more or less agree with this diagnosis.

    I’ve said elsewhere that Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide and AIG were government supported entities, really government supported molopolies.

    In what way is Countryside a government supported entity or monopoly?

  61. I’ve said elsewhere that Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide and AIG were government supported entities, really government supported molopolies.

    First, it’s important to understand the principle involved. GSE’s (government supported entities) enjoy a tilted playing field in the free market because the government in such cases provides favored companies with advantages not available to other of its competitors. In a free market, such favored companies will necessarily drive others from the field, Companies too big to fail are too big for a reason. As competitors disappear, the favored companies tend to become monopolies. In an economy in which securities add to profits, the drive towards monopoly will be accelerated.

    This is what happened in the case of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and Countrywide; also AIG, which provided fail safe insurance to banks buying new toxic products from AIG.

    Over a period of time, GSE’s tend to become monopolies – in the case of Fannie and Freddie, with the assistance of legislators who had a political interest in providing mortgages to people who could not afford down payments or even long term mortgage monthly payments. The combination of legislative easements and regulatory failure resulted in a lowering of banking standards, easy credit and high credit rating for dubious products and services. All of it has produced the mess we see before us.

    It’s interesting, I think, to consult the assessment of a non-Tory publication like Worker’s World http://www.workers.org/2005/us/housing-0505/
    :

    “Today, Fannie Mae is a publicly-traded company on the stock market. Its primary aim is to accumulate huge profits for its corporate heads and big-time investors.

    “Fannie Mae is a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE)—a monopoly with special privileges, including borrowing money below market-interest rates, exemption from state and local taxes, and a credit line at the U.S. Treasury.

    “It is the largest non-bank financial services company in the world. Fannie Mae and its junior partner, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have grown rich on these freebies. Their combined assets are 45 percent greater than those of the nation’s largest bank. On the other hand, their combined debt is equal to 46 percent of the current national debt.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s