stlouiedipalma wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

First of all, these are not close personal friends...more like acquaintances, neighbors, and family friends. Could that be why these people I know hate Obama? Sure, it could be. Let's just say I have heard enough questionable language regarding black people from these people to highly doubt it.

It's also very tiresome that people on the right try to pretend that our current situation is all the other side's fault, and only really get pissed about it when the other party is in power. It shows a higher concern for party than country.

It's also very tiresome to see very complex issues reduced to labeling like "socialist, Marxist, communist, etc.",

It's tiresome to see Republican congressmen vote against issues that they sponsored in the name of short term political expediency.

I could go on and on, but that's not the point of this thread. I continue to ask "where was the outrage?..." as our previous three Republican Presidents buried us in debt...only to hear deafening silence from the Tea Party advocates who just magically became furious about a year ago...

Good point about the previous Republican administrations. I just wonder which one of those 20 years of running up the debt was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Perhaps it was a combination of things...like spending hundreds of billions of dollars on PORK projects that did squat to stimulate anything other than the folks who got fatter from it.

Perhaps it was the government intrusion into the market place, like taking control of car companies when it accomplished nothing but continuing to throw good money after bad.

Perhaps it was watching as two separate health care "reform" bills proposed ideas that would essentially insert the government too much into one-sixth of our economy, and take more decision-making away from patients and doctors.

Perhaps it's that this president is still considering a "global warming" bill that would basically add an additional $1,700 average to everyone's energy bills and destroy industries in states like Ohio, West Virginia and others.

Perhaps it's that this president has taken ridiculous debt accrued by those other presidents and DOUBLED it in one year, with a ridiculous amount of debt yet to come, according to his projected budget.

Perhaps it's ALL of these things (my guess is that this is the real answer).

They are seeing the direction of our country headed straight down the toilet on too many domestic fronts, mostly economic, and have simply had enough.

Is anyone else growing weary at the finger-pointing at "previous Republican administrations" for "running up the debt" when the POTUS has zero authority to spend a dime?

I think Congress might have been around for that too. But, that's probably just me.

At the present time, no, I don't think violent revolution is in order or warranted. But who knows what the future looks like, I know I can't see into the future. If nothing else, it's good to protect yourself/family from the amount of crime that would follow from an economic collapse.

And I disagree, you can NEVER see a Founding Father quote too much.

fish82 wrote: Is anyone else growing weary at the finger-pointing at "previous Republican administrations" for "running up the debt" when the POTUS has zero authority to spend a dime?

I think Congress might have been around for that too. But, that's probably just me.

Fair enough. Both parties have had their fair share of power in Congress over the past 30 years, and nothing has changed. The President does have to sign off on the budget that Congress sends, though, so he is not totally innocent.

The only time that there was any semblance of fiscal responsibility in recent history was during the second half of the Clinton administration. As I have said before, if it takes a Dem President and a Republican Congress to get things under control again, I'm all for it, and really don't care who gets the credit.

^^^ I think that is really what the country needs. Having Congress and the Presidency controlled by opposing parties keeps things balanced and the parties honest.

cbus4life wrote: Do you guys honestly think that a "violent revolution" could happen?

Seems a little much, we still have liberty, better than can be found anywhere else in the world. Yea, changes should be made, and i think are in the process of being made, that is what this movement is showing.

But, if a "violent revolution" were to begin, we would be the laughing-stock of the entire universe. The most prosperous nation on Earth, incredibly high standard of living, etc., etc., rebelling in violence.

Yes, they can advocate for change all they want, and good for them, but i think the idea of violence is ridiculous.

Unless, of course, you believe some of the BS about internment camps, Interpol becoming Obama's personal police force, etc.

Make change at the polls, it is already going to happen in 2010 and possibly in 2012. Violence is absolutely not necessary.

And, if i see another person quote Jefferson one more damn time, i'm going to puke.

We all know he said it, we all know what it means and why it applies. A great quote. But, come on.

As bad as it is only real change has come through violence.

2quik4u wrote: As bad as it is only real change has come through violence.

Really? Man, I'd consider FDR, JFK and Reagan real change over what was the norm at the time.

I'd even add in the 1994 GOP retake of Congress.

Belly35 wrote: With weapons ... right is right

Belly,

You're supposed to edit out the man's head and hands so that nobody looking at the pic can tell that it is a black man, clear reference to Contessa Brewer, so that it can be used as a racial weapon

I have to ask...

Why does ONLY the timing of the Tea Party movement aggravate people?

Does it really matter WHEN the public has had enough?

Should the movement have been put on hold until somebody (obviously a white male) else has been elected?

Why do people get so insulted (like somebody slapped their mother) when people throw around terms like socialist, marxist, etc., but then toss around words like teabaggers themselves?
- would that be hypocrisy or incompetent thought process?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

2quik4u wrote: As bad as it is only real change has come through violence.

Really? Man, I'd consider FDR, JFK and Reagan real change over what was the norm at the time.

I'd even add in the 1994 GOP retake of Congress.

well I guess it depends on what you consider what real change is.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I have to ask...

Why does ONLY the timing of the Tea Party movement aggravate people?

Does it really matter WHEN the public has had enough?

Should the movement have been put on hold until somebody (obviously a white male) else has been elected?

Why do people get so insulted (like somebody slapped their mother) when people throw around terms like socialist, marxist, etc., but then toss around words like teabaggers themselves?
- would that be hypocrisy or incompetent thought process?

Both, actually.

You forget that the folks using that vulgar phrase are the same ones who believe this reaction is racist and little else.

There's not a lot of thought being put into it -- it's reactionary.

bigmanbt wrote: And I disagree, you can NEVER see a Founding Father quote too much.

Yeah but notice you won't see any quotes from Alexander Hamilton or Chief Justice Marshall around here, to name two who probably wouldn't be frothing at the mouth...

Such as this one by Hamilton;

"A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

I'm sure everyone will say our debt is excessive but realistically, if we look at it in the way we'd look at the debt of a firm we might invest in, it's not so bad.

The U.S. Debt as a percentage of GDP is around 80% in 2010. The Gross Debt as a percentage of GDP was >120% in the 1940's. Add to that a company with good cash flow can keep large amounts of debt and the U.S. has access to shareholder's with >14 trillion dollars of income every year. EVERY YEAR. Also, when you consider the amount of assets Uncle Sam has the debt to equity ratio isn't all that bad and the U.S. could start selling off those assets like the U.K. Isnt' that the right thing to do anyways? Sell off what we own of GM, sell off all that piece time defense build up. Sell some of our military assets to the Japanese and let them fight for themselves. Sell the Washington monument to the private sector so they can capitalize on it....do the same for Yellowstone.

OR, we could simply raise the top marginal rate from 35% back up to 39.6% (with no offsetting exemptions or deductions aimed to make the tax reform revenue neutral...a goal often associated with tax reform efforts and hence why tax revenue has remained relatively the same as a percentage of GDP over the decades. The goal of the 1986 act was to broaden the base and get more taxpayers paying income tax when the CEO's raised wages...but oh wait...)

Keep in mind this rate is one a rate affecting only 2% of income earners (the only group that saw significant wage increases after the Reagan era when it was suppose to start trickling down and we learned about the evils of taxation.) Why aren't they trickling it down eh???

(And of Course cut the entitlements, which was on the table with a 400 billion dollar cut but the Conservatives, eh, urggh I mean Republicans ran away from that like it had AIDS...)

But, if we break down tax revenue into its component parts, we can see that increases in tax rates can correspond with greater revenue. The Pay Roll Tax increases in the 80's resulted increases in social insurance receipts by about 5%. State an Local tax revenue has increased with aggregate tax increases as well.

You can verify that information in; Changes in Total Governemnt Tax Receipts Since 1929, 100 TAX NOTES 953 (2003); written by Adam Carasso and Eugen Steuerle.

And then, there's justice Marshall;

"We must never forget this is a constitution we are expounding...a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs" ~McCulloch v. Maryland

We're hearing all this talk about "the founders rolling in their graves" and the "constitutionalists" taking their country back, and hearing about Jefferson's quote about the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, etc.

And you know, that makes sense on one level I guess...Jefferson's got the memorial in Washington...where's Hamilton's? Where's Marshall's?

The fact is that Hamilton's memorial is the world we live in, a strong vibrant, industrialized society with a powerful federal government and our Constitution, the one interpreted in his image, is Marshall's.

If logical coherency were of any virtue, the security and yet great and meaningful power and liberty ensured by this world and taken for granted by us, would not exist of the tea partiers had their way.

bigmanbt wrote: At the present time, no, I don't think violent revolution is in order or warranted. But who knows what the future looks like, I know I can't see into the future. If nothing else, it's good to protect yourself/family from the amount of crime that would follow from an economic collapse.

And I disagree, you can NEVER see a Founding Father quote too much.

I don't see any other solution honestly. The politics are too entrenched and the two parties will never be voted out.

But Americans are too divided right now to ever have something like this happening.

^ All I can say is your view of what we are right now is very optimistic. We keep jacking up our national debt at record levels and levy more taxes on business then we will struggle to even be a shell of our former selves.

And Justice Marshall's view of the Constitution is a good one, hence the reason we have the amendment process. But we haven't followed the Constitution in a LONG time.

edit: was for the post above eers'

eersandbeers wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: At the present time, no, I don't think violent revolution is in order or warranted. But who knows what the future looks like, I know I can't see into the future. If nothing else, it's good to protect yourself/family from the amount of crime that would follow from an economic collapse.

And I disagree, you can NEVER see a Founding Father quote too much.

I don't see any other solution honestly. The politics are too entrenched and the two parties will never be voted out.

But Americans are too divided right now to ever have something like this happening.

Constitutional Amendment for Proportional representation in the House. I believe if this really got on the national scene...reps who were against it could easily be framed as power hungry.

It's a necessary consequence of PR that multi party systems form.

And, it's more just IMO. my district is the most liberal in Ohio and if you're black and not mentally handicapped and have a D next to your name you will be elected. A rich white Libertarian gets 0 representation in this district and in a PR system would at least get some.

And, the agency relationship between the people and their representatives would be more accurate and more just IMO.

I don't really think there is any systemic solution to the problem. I follow the Jeffersonian school of thought that we need a rebellion every 20 years to maintain our power in this type of system. Otherwise you have lifetime politicians basically just doing what they want. Which is what we have now.

Term limits maybe, like the President has. You would have no lifers then at least.

BoatShoes wrote: Notice the "Thank you Glenn Beck" sign. I suppose there could be signs offering praise for Thomas Sowell in the back but I have my doubts.

cbus4life wrote: I admire the movement, and really enjoyed the article, but it was disturbing how many references there were to "Glen Beck" and how he has "shown them the light."

Not the man that i would want to be ideological figurehead for a so-called "revolution."

Beck is in it for the money and exposure, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. Let's give credit for the origination of the Tea Party to the man that deserves it, Dr. Ron Paul.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

You're telling me the Patriot Act didn't intervene on the private sector?

Seriously...that's the best you can come up with?

Not good, bro.

That's the best response you could come up with? Not that good either. The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is very unconstitutional and has had different articles revised and renewed because different courts have ruled that they were not constitutional.

bigmanbt wrote: Term limits maybe, like the President has. You would have no lifers then at least.

I have always felt that term limits would really help. You would not have career politicians in office. These are the true criminals as they only represent their own self interest, not their constituents.

Let it be a government of the people again because right now, it isn't.

Term limits for Congress and a Constitutional Amendment requiring the budget to be X amount below the previous year's tax receipts, with the excess mandated to be spent on the debt. Also probably need to have a tax increase thrown in, too.

bigmanbt wrote: Term limits maybe, like the President has. You would have no lifers then at least.

Maybe, but then you just have the rotating door of weak politicians who are pawns of the party. Which is basically all they are now.

Rebellion may be the only true answer.

Like Jefferson said, "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"

How do you ensure government fears it's citizenry?

bigmanbt wrote: ^ All I can say is your view of what we are right now is very optimistic. We keep jacking up our national debt at record levels and levy more taxes on business then we will struggle to even be a shell of our former selves.

And Justice Marshall's view of the Constitution is a good one, hence the reason we have the amendment process. But we haven't followed the Constitution in a LONG time.

edit: was for the post above eers'

The debt really isn't AT record levels as a percentage of GDP and that's what really counts because GDP is our ability as a nation to pay it off. We could pay off our debt in one year and still have more income left over as a nation than the country 2nd to us in GDP, Japan. Hell China's GDP is only 4.3 Trillion and they have a BILLION people to spread it out amongst.

Most American's live more comfortably than Henry VIII. If we were really serious about it...we could tighten our belts and pay it off very quickly. But hey, that's not what's important...what's important is increasing the wealth of 2% of Americans and getting the masses to do the nasty political work for them by arguing for "smaller government, Freedom, Don't tread on me, darpa darrr, strict constructionisstt...DARbbb DArr, Socialist, hmr Darp."

And, the thing about taxes on businesses being "crushing"; this is a little true in that the U.S. has a very, very low mean tax rate for individuals but a decently high one on businesses. Evil Socialist/Marxist/Anti-Capitalism states like Denmark, Finland and the UK all of mean corporate tax rates below 30% whereas the U.S.'s is more like Germany's around 40%.

But ya know, one way to reduce this burden has been proposed with the tax credit for businesses that hire. AND, the stimulus bill frontloaded depreciation deductions on businesses capital expenditures even more. These can signfiicantly reduce the corporate tax burden....But, alas, both opposed by the Republican party....

(It's important to note that the Tax credit for hiring employees...instead of just offering a tax cut up front will do more to stimulate hiring because the business has to hire to get the cut...instead of getting the cut and waiting til things turn around to start hiring...which can have bad economic facts if everyone does this...which, acting rationally, it's easy to see why they might). If a business wants to lower its tax burden they call a tax planner and she says, "hire somebody because you'll get a double tax benefit for the same dollars because you'll get a tax credit dollar for dollar and a deduction for an ordinary business expense."

Can you believe it? Republicans arguing against a double tax benefit for the same dollars! The ultimate stick em to the feds! Oh, if only a guy with an R next to his name had thought of it!

Back to the different tax burdens of other countries...

The difference is that all of those countries have mean individual tax rates above 30% with Germany's as high as above 50%. The AVERAGE above 50%!

It should also be noted that of those countries, besides the U.S., the most economically powerful is Germany, the world's top exporter with a trade surplus of 165 billion dollars; fourth in the world in GDP.

The country also has the highest individual and corporate tax rates (when you combine the percentages) of any nation in the world....it has the highest average corporate taxes and it's average individual income tax is second only to Belgium.

And all of the other countries I mentioned rank highly in terms of economic freedom as well.

It really is amazing, when we look at the tax burdens of other countries, and people will act like Obama is somehow the doppleganger of some conglomeration of Mao-Engels-Marx-Satan because he wants to raise...get this...

ONE...rate bracket 4.6% percentage points. THE AVERAGE TAX in the Country that builds and exports more crap than us (therefore, people are still going to work and actually putting shit together out of raw material instead of swiping some shit made in Vietnam through a checkout line) is OVER 50%!

* Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Germany recently cut some taxes to stimulate economic activity...which yes, guess what it DOES work; just like increased spending does and it made more sense for Germany to cut taxes rather than increase spending (which might not for us...at least in the individual sphere)...but the mean tax rates are still far greater than our own.

The bottom line is that...the debt is cause for alarm and it's on an unsustainable path...but, it's relatively easy to fix. I mean hell, Paul Ryan proposed away to fix it with out a single damn tax raise!

I don't see why everyone thinks term limits are a good idea. Suppose I really liked my representative and she was the most talented and best representative available in my district...how is it helpful for the cause of my freedom to limit me from choosing her to represent me as long as I wish?

If you don't want career politicians there needs to be some kind of public campaign support provided to fresh faces who get enough signatures to run for office. A lot of people would like to run for office but can't afford to leave their family and job, etc.

Also, there needs to be more voter education at the polling stations from non-partisan sources. As I've mentioned before that I think it would be a good idea to have election day be a holiday. And, when people go to vote...I'd like to see them be able to watch a short video explaining the nuts and bolts about each candidate and hear a personal appeal from all of them. Voting, would take longer, be more expensive but I think the price is worth it.

The only way to get out "career politicians" is to get people to vote on more than pure name recognition or the little letter next to their name...and you have to inform these people with more than rancorous political TV ads that interrupt the football game.

BoatShoes wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: ^ All I can say is your view of what we are right now is very optimistic. We keep jacking up our national debt at record levels and levy more taxes on business then we will struggle to even be a shell of our former selves.

And Justice Marshall's view of the Constitution is a good one, hence the reason we have the amendment process. But we haven't followed the Constitution in a LONG time.

edit: was for the post above eers'

The debt really isn't AT record levels as a percentage of GDP and that's what really counts because GDP is our ability as a nation to pay it off. We could pay off our debt in one year and still have more income left over as a nation than the country 2nd to us in GDP, Japan. Hell China's GDP is only 4.3 Trillion and they have a BILLION people to spread it out amongst.

Most American's live more comfortably than Henry VIII. If we were really serious about it...we could tighten our belts and pay it off very quickly. But hey, that's not what's important...what's important is increasing the wealth of 2% of Americans and getting the masses to do the nasty political work for them by arguing for "smaller government, Freedom, Don't tread on me, darpa darrr, strict constructionisstt...DARbbb DArr, Socialist, hmr Darp."

And, the thing about taxes on businesses being "crushing"; this is a little true in that the U.S. has a very, very low mean tax rate for individuals but a decently high one on businesses. Evil Socialist/Marxist/Anti-Capitalism states like Denmark, Finland and the UK all of mean corporate tax rates below 30% whereas the U.S.'s is more like Germany's around 40%.

But ya know, one way to reduce this burden has been proposed with the tax credit for businesses that hire. AND, the stimulus bill frontloaded depreciation deductions on businesses capital expenditures even more. These can signfiicantly reduce the corporate tax burden....But, alas, both opposed by the Republican party....

(It's important to note that the Tax credit for hiring employees...instead of just offering a tax cut up front will do more to stimulate hiring because the business has to hire to get the cut...instead of getting the cut and waiting til things turn around to start hiring...which can have bad economic facts if everyone does this...which, acting rationally, it's easy to see why they might). If a business wants to lower its tax burden they call a tax planner and she says, "hire somebody because you'll get a double tax benefit for the same dollars because you'll get a tax credit dollar for dollar and a deduction for an ordinary business expense."

Can you believe it? Republicans arguing against a double tax benefit for the same dollars! The ultimate stick em to the feds! Oh, if only a guy with an R next to his name had thought of it!

Back to the different tax burdens of other countries...

The difference is that all of those countries have mean individual tax rates above 30% with Germany's as high as above 50%. The AVERAGE above 50%!

It should also be noted that of those countries, besides the U.S., the most economically powerful is Germany, the world's top exporter with a trade surplus of 165 billion dollars; fourth in the world in GDP.

The country also has the highest individual and corporate tax rates (when you combine the percentages) of any nation in the world....it has the highest average corporate taxes and it's average individual income tax is second only to Belgium.

And all of the other countries I mentioned rank highly in terms of economic freedom as well.

It really is amazing, when we look at the tax burdens of other countries, and people will act like Obama is somehow the doppleganger of some conglomeration of Mao-Engels-Marx-Satan because he wants to raise...get this...

ONE...rate bracket 4.6% percentage points. THE AVERAGE TAX in the Country that builds and exports more crap than us (therefore, people are still going to work and actually putting shit together out of raw material instead of swiping some shit made in Vietnam through a checkout line) is OVER 50%!

* Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Germany recently cut some taxes to stimulate economic activity...which yes, guess what it DOES work; just like increased spending does and it made more sense for Germany to cut taxes rather than increase spending (which might not for us...at least in the individual sphere)...but the mean tax rates are still far greater than our own.

The bottom line is that...the debt is cause for alarm and it's on an unsustainable path...but, it's relatively easy to fix. I mean hell, Paul Ryan proposed away to fix it with out a single damn tax raise!

It may be technically easy to fix, but politically it is impossible in today's climate. Unless there is some radical change (I doubt it) it's a no go.

Had this "movement" started before January 20th,2009...I would have ZERO problem with them


I never thought I would see the day when Americans would be advocating and armed revolt againist their own government!! That was tried once before in the history of our nation...and you see how well that worked out.

An armed "revolt" would be crushed in about 5 minutes

Boatshoes....you cite the National Debt as a percent of of the GDP during the 40's. Any cause and effect there?. What was going on at that time? A very high percentage of that debt was used to finance the war. When the war ended, the US pretty much quit living off the country credit card.

But your point does serve a great purpose. There is a very heavy cost in financing wars. IMO, we are not at war today. We started one in Iraq...and we responded to a brutal terrorist attack by occupying a shithole for almost 9 years now in another.