Tea-Bagger Potty Line?
Like most observers of politics, I was amused by the tea-bag parties organized by anti-tax protesters in response to Obama's tax cuts. The sputtering outrage of the right wing provokes not fear, dread or even respect from those that pay attention. How dare right-wingers protest taxes when Obama is cutting them for 95% of us? How dare the Republicans complain about deficits when the Bush administration launched us on a disastrous path after Clinton had generated budget surpluses? How dare the tea-baggers denounce government spending after Bush created an economic crisis and launched an unnecessary war on the wrong country?
The tea-baggers were not to be taken seriously, so I basically ignored them.
But this morning, I happened across Platte Countian Ivan Foley's hyped-up coverage of the protest, and saw that it was less of a protest than a gathering. Here is a picture that Mr. Foley took of their "crowd":
Seriously. A few months ago, that would have qualified as the shortest of the porta-potty lines for Barack Obama's rally. But, whatever, if they want to count that cluster of like-minded folks as a rally, that's their right. Personally, I'm a little surprised they could find even that many people to stand with this guy without wearing a hood:
Labels: racism, republicans, right wing, silliness
posted by Dan at 4/27/2009 06:26:00 AM
31 Comments:
“How far would have Moses gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?” –Harry S. Truman
These "Tea-Baggers", as you call them, are not defending former-President Bush; they simply want to stop the walk started by Bush that Obama is bringing to a full-blown gallop. The protests were not as much about taxation as they are about spending.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of people’s money." Margaret Thatcher
■President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
■President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
■President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
■President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
■President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
■President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
■President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. Guffaw. By what measure?
Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers aboveYours is the first comment. Nice cut and paste.
But, whatever, if they want to count that cluster of like-minded folks as a rally, that's their right.Dan,
That's a bit snotty. The comparison is important in terms of -- Obama has no need to fear the teabaggers' numbers. The porta-pottie comment is funny. But that's still a lot of people. They're big enough morons as is. No reason to deny them the "rally" categorization.
Hm. Why has it become impossible to have a paragraph break after an end tag? It shows up fine in preview, but disappears in publish.
Masters of the Internet, what say ye?
The only thing wrong with the perscription drug benefit is that the conservatives keep the government from negotiating with the drug companies on price, and making the benefit part of the profit driven Medicare supplement insurance sector rather than a core benefit.
you choose who you rally with - no one seemed outraged by the posters like the one in your post. They stood behind them . . . and pretended they were upset about taxes. They won't complain as they watch their healthcare become more affordable, their tax liability go down, their economic profiles rise (however slowly) . . . But I'm sure they'll find reasons to make more ignorant, blatantly racist, and shameless rhetoric in the years to come.
Sophia said; "President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. Guffaw. By what measure?"
Sophia, the shift was in the burden carried by those in the upper-income tax bracket. I know the numbers can be a little confusing, and the term "burden" doesn't do much to explain it.
A family of four with two incomes totaling $47,500 saw its federal income taxes decline by 56 percent under the Bush plan, from $3393.00 to $1493.00. By contrast, a family of four with one worker making $250,000 saw its tax bill fall by only 13 percent, (from $68031.00 to $59187.00)
Oversimplified: I you only pay $100.00/yr in taxes, and I pay $10,000/yr; an X% tax cut could result in you paying nothing, and me paying $9000.00/yr. I would save $1000.00/yr and you would only save $100.00/yr. The end result is that I see a greater savings, but I also assume 100% of the burden.
What, I think, you want, is for you to pay nothing, and for me to pay the part that you're saving; because I have more money available to do so.
that all sounds fine and dandy, until you figure out that I work 80 hrs per week, and you only work 10. --Why should I work so hard to pay your share?
That sign in the picture you posted says it all as far as I am concerned. These rallies weren't about taxes or even the deficit. It was a reunion for the people who voted against the president to once again put their hate on display. They were also displaying their ignorance, although I doubt that was their intent.
Two videos taken at teabag rallies stick in my memory. The first one was in Florida. There was an open mic and one man asked everyone who earned less than $250K a year to cheer. The crowd cheers. Then he told the crowd that they were all paying less taxes under the current administration and they boo.
The second video was from Michigan. Two women at a teabag rally are interviewed and can't explain what it is they don't like about Obama or his plans, they just don't like him. One of them says the best liberal is a dead liberal and the other one says that Obama needs to be dead too.
These aren't patriotic Americans. They are haters who found a reason to display their hate in public. And it was that hate for the president that motivated them to attend a teabag rally. If they were concerned about govt spending money, they would have spoken up when Bush was spending $720 million every day in Iraq.
Hey Earthygirl,
"That sign in the picture you posted says it all as far as I am concerned. These rallies weren't about taxes or even the deficit. It was a reunion for the people who voted against the president to once again put their hate on display. They were also displaying their ignorance, although I doubt that was their intent."
Article II or Our Constitution denotes "natural-born citizen" as a qualification to be President of the United States. -What do you think should be sufficient proof of meeting that qualification? We have a thing called a "Certificate of Live Birth" that is signed by the doctor who delivered the baby. Do you think someone who claims to meet that qualification should be accepted at their word? Or do you think a request for a certified copy of the certificate of live birth should be ignored?
If you applied for a job tht required a Master's Degree, and you weren't willing to produce your degree after you got the job; do you think you would be able to keep that job?
Do you know the difference between a "certificate of live birth" and a "certification of live birth"?
Since everyone claims that a certificate of live birth, demonstrating the President's actual birth place does exist --according to Hawaii --Why keep it hidden from the public? Why continue the controversy, when it can be settled by maing one document public?
In case you are unaware, President Obama has never made his certificate of live birth public. -Only a certification of live birth has been made public.
Good God, you tea-baggers are a goofy lot.
Please tell me, what was the point of the tea-bagging?
Anon 12:37 -
You misuse the term "controversy." For an issue to be a "controversy," there must be more than a handful of people who care.
People who hold views like yours are few and far between, as evidenced by the small numbers that turned out for the tea bag parties. With each passing day, your narrow and ignorant view of this country (which is not steeped in history or the Constitution) comes closer to extinction.
So, please continue to shout your frustration in message boards and at tea bag parties. But, the problem for you is, no one is listening.
12:37 - you're a nutbag. To put it another way, stating the painfully obvious,
"Your comments speak for themselves."
My question to you is - do you have enough water stored in your basement in preparation for the socialism-induced rapture?
Chesterfield,
A better question should be; why shouldn't the elected president be required to present evidence of his or her qualification?
Can a president be elected, and not meet the qualifications required by the Constitution? -It would appear so.
The Twentieth Amendment has a provision for "if the president elect shall have failed to qualify". Why do you think that provision exists?
Only three qualifications are defined:
1. 35 years old.
2. natural-born citizen
3. 14 years a resident of the United States.
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but it was in the picture.
That guy with the sign may be a plant... all the words are spelled correctly.
Sophia, the shift was in the burden carried by those in the upper-income tax bracket. Anony:
When the government cuts everyone's taxes and increases spending, that's a shift to deficit spending and burdens future taxpayers, not the upper bracket right now. If you'd like to cite a source claiming that the upper bracket is currently paying a greater proportion to fund the government (including deficit spending) than they did previously, I'd be interested to see it.
What, I think, you want, is for you to pay nothing, and for me to pay the part that you're saving; because I have more money available to do so..
All I did was laugh at the disingenuous suggestion that the top earners were paying more taxes, or shouldering more of the burden in any meaningful sense. From this, you've assumed a lot of inaccurate things.
I'm not sure who linked to Dan's post to command these responses, but "you lazy liberals just want to tax my hard working ass AND IT'S NOT FAIR!!" is neither an interesting or new conversation.
Sophia and Dan,
You miss the point of the Tea Parties.
People are fed up with the overspending. By the GOP and the Democrats. Remember the "drunken sailor" joke that McCain told until it became stale? That is the sentiment.
Your argument against the Tea Parties is a juvenile "Teabagger" statement, ridiculous claims of racism, and Bush did it first. It is lame at best.
Two ongoing wars
highest unemployment since the depression
Swine flu
401K's in the tank
People are scared and feel the need to blame someone and do something. Is it any wonder that tea bag partys are forming?
Is this really any different than when scared liberal's massively protested GW? Now we just have scared conservatives.
Funk was scheduled to speak to the T-baggers until there was public push back, which means that the powers that be in City Hall had approved it.
Yet he managed not to attend either AIDS WALK or The Precious Doe Memorial.
Funking Scum
More and more, I understand why so many commenters here remain anonymous. A 3% increase on taxable income over $250K is an unbearable burden? It is to laugh; where were you whiners when Reagan was prez? Of course the "burden" of taxation is shifting to the upper brackets; 65% of the income increase over the bush years went to the top 5% of income earners, whole the rest of us stayed nearly flat or declined.
Please, anonymice--go Galt. Remove your incredible productive genius from our midst; somehow doubt you're irreplaceable, but maybe the next guy won't be such a pathetic whimperer.
Les,
I won't even bother telling you where I was when Reagan was in office, but I'll bet I was sacrificing more than you were. Should we compare scars?
Sure, make the people that make more than $250K pay 3% more in taxes. Remove the deductions for charitable donations too.
Our government has proven itself to be very efficient when it comes to spending taxpayer money. -NOT
Before raising taxes, we should demand that our government do some housecleaning. Get rid of everything but essential programs. Only idiots would put their money in the hands of someone who can't live within their means. -Our government should be treated the same way.
I don't know whether the conspiracy theorists are correct when they claim that the seemingly grass roots Tea Party Protests are just a Republican astroturf movement, but it does appear that the "rightwingers" and Republicans participated on some level. However, the message as I understand it isn't about Obama so much as it is about the quality of our government in general. I have the impression that the protestors are upset about taxation without representation, sort of like the complaint expressed by those who participated in the original Boston Tea Party.
I think people miss the point when they look at this like a left/right thing. No doubt there were kooks attending these protests, but despite partisan defenses of Bush Derangement Syndrome or Obama-hatred/racism, the country is not doing well.
Earthygirl, learn to link like this so people can see what you're talking about. I would have liked to watch those videos.
I have the impression that the protestors are upset about taxation without representation, sort of like the complaint expressed by those who participated in the original Boston Tea Party.Uh, perhaps you were out of the country and missed that big event last November? Lessee--yeah, it was called "an election." People, like, voted and stuff, to decide who would, like, represent them."Representation," outside of wingnutville, does not mean "I always get my way." And frankly, the claims that all these tea partiers are non-partisan are, so to speak, pretty weak tea. Dollars to doughnut holes, they were perfectly happy, and were yelling "traitor" at anyone who disagreed, the whole time Reagan and Bush were creating the biggest increases in the national debt in history. Yeah, total coincidence they find their voices 2 months after the election of a moderate Democrat. I'd be shocked if 3 people in that picture even know what a socialist is. But they sure know Obama is a non-white, non-Republican.
Les,
Can you be any more condescending? Have you ever tried to inject an alternate opinion without being an ass?
Are you a skinny little wimp with huge "net balls"? Could you be any more obvious about it?
How far to the left do you need to be before you can call President Obama a moderate Democrat?
What would you consider to be- too far to the left- for you? Is there such a thing? Is there anyone more extremist than you?
"And frankly, the claims that all these tea partiers are non-partisan are, so to speak, pretty weak tea."Who made the claim that "all these tea partiers are non-partisan"? hmmmm?..Let's see....It was Les!
Now, according to Les; “all these tea partiers” are racists too. Not because of anything they did or said, but because the President isn’t lily-white.
You should learn to understand the message: The protestors are upset because they feel that their elected representatives are not representing their best interest. –You know, like Democrats did against G.W. –Do you want to suppress their voice?
Lefty, read Lance's post; it's all about the arguments that the TP's aren't partisan, it's some kind of general uprising that just happens to occur now. Yet it's source was right wing astroturf, Fox News and Repub leadership. If my style is too mean for you, too bad--it makes a great excuse for ignoring points, so you win twice.
Of course Obama is a moderate democrat; he has been his entire career. Or are you of the socialist/communist/fascist gang; worried that his community service proposals are the new Brown Shirts? He's maintaining Bush era positions on executive power; he's maintaining "faith based intiatives;" he's trying to do health care by leaving the present bloated, inefficient, costly private insurance industry in place; he's addressing the financial industry problems with left over Bush programs, run by Wall Street insiders; he's implementing Iraq with a Bush negotiated agreement. If this is radical, you need to get out more. By the standards of our major allies, he's right wing. By U.S. standards, he's a middle of the road Democrat.
Now, according to Les; “all these tea partiers” are racists too. Not because of anything they did or said, but because the President isn’t lily-white.
You should learn to understand the message: The protestors are upset because they feel that their elected representatives are not representing their best interest. –You know, like Democrats did against G.W. –Do you want to suppress their voice?First point--did you actually look at the picture in Dan's post? Did you look at pictures and reports on other TP events? They are fueled in no small part by personal dislike, and a significant racist representation. Stormfront is in support, and their buddies. The birthers are prominent. Are all the protestors racist--no. Are they apparently comfy with their fellow travelers? Sure appears so.
Elected reps not representing their interests, eh? I say again, where were they for the last eight years, when the problems in this country were generating? What has this admin. done, in less than 3 months, that forced 'em out? They lost an election, and they feel entitled to rule. That's not how it works.
Certainly they have a right to protest. I and many others--far more than the tea partiers--protested the Iraq war, and were pronounced traitors for it. These people aren't traitors, and I don't believe in love it or leave it. But they are disgruntled partisan right wingers, with a strong leavening of racists, birthers and assorted right wing nut jobs. Their sole platform, echoed by the local Galters, is that a return to Ron Reagan's tax scheme will destroy the country. It's a joke.
The teabaggers are like a five year old threatening to run away from home. Repeatedly stating the intention to leave, slowly and sloppily packing some odd and unpractical assortment of things, and loudly marching towards the door. Waiting the entire time for the authority figure to beg for forgiveness and completely unaware of the emptiness of the threat.
If you've ever seen this scenario, it's hard to keep a straight face. Because we're not responsible for the upbringing of republicans, we have no reason to suppress the desire to laugh.
I agree with you in saying that republicans have no right to complain about the new administration in comparison to the previous one. However, liberals and conservatives alike can all agree that we are all paying taxes on things that we never use. Although President Obama has reduced taxes for most people, they will always go back up again, and won't many of his policies (i.e. healthcare) still cost us?
My point in saying this is: wouldn't an increase in consumption tax for what we as Americans decide to use be worth the abolishment of state income tax that is used for spending we do not approve of? This could appease the demanding tea partiers as well as simplify the Missouri tax code.
This website provides some really great information on the HJR 36 bill: www.mofairtax.com
What do you think about it? I, as a reader, would really enjoy an article on your opinions and some insight into the whole tax argument.
Abby - I would love to put together a thorough analysis of that issue, and will do so soon. It's going to take a little while, though - busy times are ahead for me. Give me a couple weeks!
I don't think people realize...YOU CANNOT SIMPLIFY our TAX SYSTEM! The only solution is a flat tax.
They do not want a flat tax, because they can not game the system anymore and make up rules as they go, But I agree, it is the only way to do it!
whats a "dixie chicken"
heh! That a nice protest banner.
Post a Comment
<< Home