This is in response to comments received on "Why The Tax Day Tea Party is a Stupid Idea" -- for further information and for the original comments, check back there.
Â
I think whoever organized the Tea Parties needs to work on their publicity campaign and documentation. Just reading through these comments, I have counted five separate reasons given behind them:
1) 'I am personally plotting a revolution against the federal government because I just don't like income tax.' (Incidentally, the link connected to this one doesn't seem to work, so I'm forced to draw a conclusion based on the comment itself.)
So what's the R3volution about? Well, according to my trusty companion, Google, it's the work of a politician named Ron Paul, who depending on who you ask is either a failed Republican (which doesn't make this sound any less like a Republican publicity stunt) or a reborn Libertarian (which, according to their website, thinks that things were much better when the state and federal governments didn't interfere in people's business and didn't impose taxes. You know, back when we had the Articles of Confederation.
2) 'This was a grassroots event of the people to show their outrage against the government!' I'll buy that if Republicans will stop claiming that every time someone raises a grassroots event against Wal-Mart, for example, it's not simply backed by greedy unions. Or, on the other side of the coin, that whenever someone protests against a grassroots event against said company, that they aren't immediately accused of being shills for the other side. Grassroots movements are typically usurped to represent greater causes -- this is part of the risk of letting people into the movement, especially if you're actually concerned about representing 'the will of the people'. The people might not want what you want. Which brings us to...
3) 'But it is about taxation without representation! Our politicians don't listen to us and our president is a dirty liar!' To put it bluntly, elected representatives are supposed to listen to the populations of the people they were elected by. The problem, of course, is when they don't. That said, it's awfully difficult to claim that someone is lying / not listening to the voice of the people when they are, at least to outward appearances, attempting to do exactly what they promised.
4) 'But we're against Republicans AND Democrats!' For all that we smile and pretend that we work on a system of multiple parties, the 'silent majority' of Americans are in either the Republican or Democratic party, which means that if you aren't, your goals automatically fall into the realm of 'vocal minority'. You might have some valid points, but witty acronyms are the sort of thing I do to make my players laugh at the gaming table, not the sort of thing a third party considering a serious run at political power should be trying.
5) 'Our budget is too overblown! We need to reduce spending!' This seems to be the point most people are trying to make -- and there is a kernel of truth to it. Remember how I said that 2010's budget was lower than 2009's (Obama signed for $3,552 billion versus Bush's $3,938 billion?) Both numbers are still dramatically higher than 2008's $2,983 billion. The question is, how much of this increase includes folding in of appropriations and other 'off-budget' expenditures, and how much of this increase is pure inflation?
One statistic given by a commenter was that "Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today." So I pulled up an inflation calculator and typed in 66 for 1999, and asked it to tell me what the results were for 2009 -- $87.14. Roughly two thirds of the budget increase between 1999 and 2009 can be attributed to raw inflation. Scary, huh?
Â
Let's keep talking, though -- it's interesting to hear others' perspectives, and it does explain a few things that haven't really been openly discussed yet.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 46
We can argue until the cows come home about the nature and organization of a grass roots movement but it’s moot. Grass roots movements aren’t “organized” in the first place. Don’t expect everyone to be on the same message; that message is going to vary from state to state and from group to group.
So did Ron Paul start the revolution? You mean the same Ron Paul who managed to be the Republican with the most earmarks in the recent Pork Fest? Somehow I don’t think so. What about CNN? Did they start the fire? What about Fox News? Did they start the fire? No, this wasn’t arson, the ground was already dry and the winds were blowing; the fires were a natural occurrence, the right thing at the right time.
Why is it that when liberals, who tend to protest at the drop of a hat protest it’s a wonderful expression of democracy and when conservatives protest it’s panic and paranoia all around? (I might just decide to answer that question later.)
Let’s get one thing perfectly clear. Most people think simple thoughts. It’s not a sign of the presence or absence of intelligence, it is a sign that sometimes emotions influence our thinking and emotions are cumulative. People are upset about taxes, federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, etc. People are upset that there were so many Obama appointments that didn’t pay their taxes. People are upset that money that should have gone to stimulus went for wasteful pork projects designed only to secure incumbents their incumbency. People are upset at proposed taxes, proposed massive spending projects, and so forth all of which will kick in several years from now. People are upset about massive federal spending and all the buying of debt by the communist nation of China. Are these things true? In one sense it doesn’t matter; just as the truthfulness of all the accusations against Bush didn’t matter.
The result is that there is a movement against more taxes, more spending, and more concern about the deficit. Democrats are in power so it looks like it’s against them but the backlash against the Republicans is also there. Blaming Bush will no longer work. Obama won, we got over it. The fact that Obama refuses to live to a single promise that got him elected fuels the fire more than any network or flip flopping politician. The fact that states are deciding that in times of hard economic problems it’s easier to tax their citizens to oblivion rather than make the necessary budget cuts to their bloated governments that do not help those who are really needy in their states, but just helps bureaucrats.
The people complained. They protested. Why? Because the people who they elected LIED to them and well they believed the lie. At least my congressman proudly stated that earmarks were the only way to bring money to the region and they voted for him over the Republican Iraqi War Veteran.
Was I supposed to answer my own question? It’s all about control. Liberals are all about control. Liberal MSM controlling the news, belittling contrarian views and acting superior; elite in the very worst sense of the word. They speak and they must be obeyed. Conservatives, on the other hand, are all about selling. They don’t tell you what to think they just manage to get you to buy into what they are selling. Just watch the liberal and conservative coverage of the tea parties. Control vs. selling.
Um ... The difference in one kind of waste as compared to another kind of waste is, the waste being protested against is someone else wasting our money, our time, our sovereignty, our traditions, our culture, our safety, our greatness, our leadership position in the world.
Bob gave a really good example on the previous article to this one that I'd never heard of:
"One example of a government study I heard about was how the size of a woman's legs compare to her personality. That's the type of thing we surely shouldn't be wasting our tax dollars on.
Bob Cronley, Apr 16, 2009, 1:47pm EDT "
The waste you and some others are worried over is someone wasting their own stuff - whether it was stuff that belonged to someone else who donated it, or it was stuff we/they brought from home paid for out of our own pockets.
Biiiig difference between the two.
In fact, the one kind of waste really is waste in so many ways which include money but are not confined only to monetary waste as I noted above.
The other kind, someone wasting his own money and stuff ..? I can guarrantee you those someones do not view it as waste. And even if they did --- it was theirs to waste as they saw fit.
"Somehow, if I were concerned about wasteful spending, I might think twice about giving away $1,000 to a group of people whose best solution to our ongoing financial problems is to mail bags of tea to the White House. (Incidentally, how much money is wasted on the postage?)"
However, I agree that wasting perfectly good tea (and money) is a sad way to protest waste. Lydia (part of the solution) Shelley, Apr 16, 2009, 11:02am EDT
Say you owe the electric company for 6 months worth of electricity. How would you take care of that debt? Would you cut down on cigarrettes - 1 pack a day instead of two... go to the park instead of to the movies ... um ... WAIT to buy that new hat .. pay off that debt surely if slowly? Or would you go to the bank and borrow money, then spend that money on a new car, some new shoes, give some to a friend down the street and send some to a man who beat up your brother last week? Bottom line, in it's simplest form this is what Obama is doing. I changed the names but the story is the same.
8 years of Bush, and they blame us? Duh. What am I missing here?
I'm proudly Liberal and Democrat.
Sharon P., Apr 16, 2009, 4:08pm EDT
The tea parties are not just an attack on Obama either. Bush, Clinton and several presidents before them have all been big spenders and have allowed basic, unconstitutional laws to continue. Income tax, fiat money by the private FED, and public education just to name a few.
This is not a republican stunt either. It just seems more republicans are responding to the call for freedom, financial responsibility, and following the Constitution.
Unfortunately many of you are to loyal to your party to step back and realize what is happening. I sincerely hope you will wake up before it is too late.
Matthew Murphy, Apr 17, 2009, 11:15am E
But if it's my stuff and I choose to do something with it that others perceive as waste (like donate it to a candidate of my choice, dump tea or wave it around, waste a stamp to send a teabag or a tea tag) ... +shrug+ it's my stuff.
If I have an extra $1,000.00 or if I have to scrape and save to get $20 or to get the thou and I then decide I want to save it, give it away, or shred it. It's mine to do with as I please. If I want to use it as kindling or donate it to the Association to Save the ShrewWorm on Mars... or even to the Association to Combat Waste, I can do that if I want to.
And if anyone is still worried about waste, waste of the tea...? Well, the answer is the same. If I bought, or received as a gift some tea bags - I can make tea and drink it, I can give it away, donate it, sell it, or shred it into a flower pot or dump it down the toilet .. it's mine. And it's mine until I voluntarily give it to someone else.
And not to get huffy or anything ... it's not Obama's business to worry over how I "waste" my stuff - but it is definitely my business how he wastes my stuff. It's not his buisness how many people could have eaten on what I throw away, or how much money I or anyone has that we may never be able to spend in this lifetime, or if and how I spend it or don't spend it. It's just not his business to be coveting, taking, spending, redistributing, and wasting what is lawfully someone else's stuff even if he thinks that someone else doesn't need it. What he thinks in that regard is irrelevant and unconstitutional in the extreme.
Annnd ..+saying this next softly but not as softly as I might have said it yesterday, but still without animosity; and quite firmly+ It's not your business either to worry or be offended if I or anyone wastes our own stuff.
Summary:
Obama wasting and continuuing to covet our stuff (while bad mouthing us to every tom dick and chavez he meets) - Bad.
Me wasting my own stuff - Not good but my decison.
Me spending my own time my own money on things I believe are worth something but which other people don't agree with - Fine and dandy and no one's business but my own. No one's business to be worried over or jealous of or offended at what I do with my own time and money.
And this seems to be the crux of the problem with this admin and the people who support it. They/you? do not understand the concept of private ownership. The terms 'mine' and 'yours' seem to be interchangeable; the line between them blurred.
"Somehow, if I were concerned about wasteful spending, I might think twice about giving away $1,000 to a group of people whose best solution to our ongoing financial problems is to mail bags of tea to the White House. (Incidentally, how much money is wasted on the postage?)"
"However, I agree that wasting perfectly good tea (and money) is a sad way to protest waste." Lydia (part of the solution) Shelley, Apr 16, 2009, 11:02am EDT
Of course the messages at the rallies were different. The one in Cincinnati, for instance, was started in the kitchen of one man by three men in the community. They put up a web site. We found it. We went and every person there had a different sign. But the general idea was - we don't want to give any more money to the idiots in Washington who think that spending money is the answer. We don't want anything to do with politicians who don't read what they're signing. We don't want to bail out any business or individual who fails because of their own stupidity. I'm really not sure how that could be more simply stated. We all agree - that fiscal conservatism is our goal.
::winks:: As mentioned earlier, the 'Tea Party' is already a broken metaphor, so why not break it further?
Protests seem to be about theatrics, whether liberals or conservatives organize them. Unfortunately, they seldom offer any ideas about what to do, and in some cases, they become ridiculous. When an argument becomes ridiculous, it is far easier to discredit -- ask any ad man, or look at the Mac or AllTel commercials for an example. The product being sold is made to look respectable versus the ridiculousness of the competitor.
The protests of the Sixties turned many people off against the Democrats in part because of the deliberate ridiculousness involved. The protests PETA regularly holds involving the rights of animals are routinely dismissed because they use shock tactics and ridiculousness to the point where it's difficult to sound credible and still support them -- and to the point where by associating themselves with a logical argument, they damage its credibility.
If one was really into conspiracy theory, one might even postulate that this whole thing is actually a carefully planned liberal conspiracy intended to make conservatives look bad by convincing them it's in their own best interests to host these things...
But that's just getting into nutty territory. Either way, it usually doesn't help an argument to go out of your way to make it ridiculous, even if you claim it's for purely patriotic reasons. If for no other reason than that people will be too busy laughing at you on their way to work to actually think of supporting you -- and if your argument involves any sort of interest in the opinion of the majority, you have to get them to be on your side first.
Of course you're free to waste in whatever way you see fit - as long as it doesn't hurt others - but that doesn't mean anyone has to take you seriously or respect you for doing so. (One could argue that the protest did hurt public safety to some extent, or hurt the economy, but that's semantic nonsense.) If your movement of choice happens to be getting bankrolled (or simply very openly supported to the point of serving their mailing lists) by a party that people associate with the problems you suggest, and you don't repudiate them for doing so, then it adds hypocrisy to the pot, and that just makes things worse.
Let me ask you something: how much work would have gotten done if the amount of effort made into setting up elaborate tea-bag-related protests, handling the security issues involved, getting funding, etc had gone into going to work, doing a good job, and then going out for dinner? What about the people who spent money - possibly even went into debt - to fly to Washington DC? Did anything change for the better for them?
Counterbalancing your electric company example, let's say you're already in debt, and your car breaks down. Do you fix the car - even if it pushes you further into debt - because without your car you can't drive to work, and therefore can't make the money to pay your bills? Or do you let the car break down, lose your job, and keep borrowing money from your friends and family to eat? Either way, you are accumulating debt - but if you fix the things that would threaten your income, you can keep a bad situation from becoming worse.
As far as I can tell, the basic argument is lost in the fact that the various supporters who have attempted to collude think the best way to protest this situation involves tea bags. Even the original Boston Tea Party involved actual property damage, extortionate threats, and rebellion against local governments - whereas the closest this comes to actually making anyone worry is trying to figure out whether foreign or domestic terrorists are going to use this situation to hide bombs or chemical warfare agents in things.
If the concern is 'misappropriation of funds', why not just call for criminal prosecution, arrest, and sentences equivalent to manslaughter convictions or worse for more white collar criminals - including those who embezzle from the United States of America? "Arrest the Bailout Embezzlers!" ... Somehow, I don't think you'd be likely to get a protest permit for that, either, but it certainly sounds more revolutionary than mailing tea. 'Life imprisonment or death row for embezzlers' sounds a lot more intimidating than 'throwing a tea bag in the river' -- and both parties can likely agree that there are some people who are as bad for the country as Madoff but just haven't spent a day in court for it. I'd be willing to bet that at least as many people would show up to that grassroots ceremony. (And then we could discuss it without snickering about 'teabagging' once every hour or so.)
Let's sort this out, because here's where I personally get confused on the issue. Whenever I hear people arguing who's spending more, I look at the numbers, and the arguments don't seem to match. It doesn't help that this seems to be timed to protest next year's numbers -- since, after all, right now we're actually running on Bush's 2009 budget, and Obama's proposed budget is for 2010.
So the question I guess I'm asking is -- are you upset about this year's numbers - the ones that are providing the funding actually being spent right now from taxes gathered last year, or next year's numbers - the ones that were recently released, and that will be paid using taxes collected for the 2009 year? Either way, it's a lose-lose argument.
The part I agree with personally is 'no bailing out businesses for being stupid'. As you've seen above, and probably elsewhere in the ramblings I make regarding the economy and the government, I don't think we should be rewarding stupid people who screwed up -- and I don't think they should keep their jobs -- and I don't think the stupid or deliberately malevolent people should be getting paid for the privilege of screwing us all over. Unfortunately, the problem is (if I understand properly), nobody really wants the industries receiving bailouts to become nationalized under government control -- and presumably, they can't just close the doors on the business, divvy up their clients and confidential information to other companies, and let them handle things from now on ("Okay, company A will be getting customers A through D, company B will be getting customers E through H...") while letting these failing companies drop dead. As mentioned above, truthfully I think that being under contract is no excuse for failing thousands of employees and screwing over millions of Americans, but the law's the law.
Unfortunately, this tea bag thing means that it's harder to support that argument, because anyone who supports that argument will now be associated with the teabaggers. If you really wanted to focus on that point, why not arrest them in effigy for embezzling from the American people (see above)? It would make for a more direct metaphor than tea bags -- and it would probably strike a much more resounding chord with Americans.
If you want the silent majority to work for you and not against you, don't make them look stupid for agreeing with you! Calling for impeachment, even if it's not going to happen? Sure! Mailing tea bags you bought from a store? Um...
At last count, only 6 more states were required to dissolve the current Union and begin again. I don't see this as a bad thing. which is why I'm currently an expat that's not allowed to reenter the US.
Spending money on agri/military poisons to spread all over our farmlands, forests, and the planet - now that is incredibly wasteful.
Spending money on high speed lightrail for the nation, and on greening up the rest of the transportation industry- now THAT is good investment.
Tea-party on, those who feel called to do so. You're actors in a play and we all need the play in order to figure out where we can think more productively. So give it your all.
I don't feel called to tea-party, myself. I'd rather be part of the movement to make health-giving kombucha out of tea. To me - just my way of thinking, no offense - to me, though, making a health-giving substance to share has a generous, expansive feel to it; and generosity creates more generosity, and thus flows of abundance. So That's where I want to be: open minded/open hearted, building hopeful positive action.
It is the rich SOB's that don't want to pay taxes, and the poor don't have anything to pay with so it is only the rich repubs who need to put up AND shut up!
I know for a fact that's how our Cincinnati Tea Party Rally started. One guy heard about the ones in February. And in the span of 3 weeks, he and 2 other guys met in his kitchen and planned our rally. They put up a web site. I found it because I heard about the ones in February and heard that others were planned, and when I Googled Cincinnati Tea Party, there it was with its own web site.
At our March rally, our speakers were 1) the organizer 2) a housewife 3) a man who was born and raised in East Germany and who could tell us about living in that kind of government and 4) a former politician
You can bet that current politicians did show up and even got interviewed on the news. But they were not speakers and stayed at the back of the crowd. At some of the rallies, politicians were told they would not speak. At some they were allowed.
Fox News had minor mentions of the February and March Tea Parties. But when the numbers started increasing at each one and the number of rallies planned throughout the country grew, of course they had to start covering them...and sending their people to get involved. At first, I think Glenn Beck was a bit put off that he had started the 9/12 organization at the same time and ended up piggybacking that with the Tea Parties.
Georgiana, I'm not rich. I've been both better off than today and worse off than today. But I don't want to have my tax dollars go for foolishness, and so much of the so-called stimulus bill is foolishness - including plans for Cincinnati. That's why we had a petition signed and delivered to City Hall asking them to turn down the money. Most of the City Council members are Democrats, though, who love spending money, so I'm sure a 4-block trolley costing millions - and that will have to carry 200 passengers per hour of operation to break even - makes sense to them.
Spending money does not get anyone out of debt. The budget is too big. The government is too big and growing even more. Those are the things we're upset about.
We're mad as heck and we're not going to take it any more, was our mantra. (Can't say h*ll)
nijushrestha.gather.com
Duh, a republican admitting that his party is responsible for economic mess. Straight from the horses mouth.
They claim that "our mission is to put pressure on Congress to repeal the "stimulus" bill." So essentially they're a special interest group attempting to pressure the government to do what they want, regardless of whether or not the majority of the American public agrees with them or not. And while it seems that the American public has very mixed feelings about the stimulus, and the role of government in general, a Gallup poll from last month found that 46% of Americans believe that President Obama's proposals to deal with the current economic downturn call for the "right amount" of expansion of government power. Another 10% think there needs to be a bigger expansion of government power. And only 40% think the expansion is too big. The same poll found that a slight majority (55%) of Americans believe that too much money is being spent in the stimulus, but I don't see any reason to believe that a majority of the American people want the stimulus bill repealed.
The Cincinnati Tea Party website also says that the people in the group share some values, including fiscal responsibility/fiscal conservatism, a love of free markets, a desire for smaller government, and respect for the Constitution. I don't know if that's true for other people involved in the Cincinnati Tea Party, but I can say, based on the people I've seen posting about it here at Gather, that I don't believe that's entirely true. Especially the part about loving free markets.
So at the end of the day, they're just another special-interest pressure group, right?
<font size="2">Glitter Graphics & Comments</font> for sharing
I think, at these T.E.A. Party rallies, a lot of people showed up just to see the show. Much of the actual messege was lost, by those simply wanting to complain about Obama, whom they did not vote for in the first place.
Other than that, The idea of the T.E.A. rallies are a good start.
I can't say it's because of the stimulus bill, but at the least, it's a happy coincidence, and it's a really nice thing to see. And my son may be able to replace the shoes he's worn out, looking for work, if it continues.
Those who attended for whatever reason believe it did. Those who did not attend for whatever reason think it might have. Since the media has stopped talking about it, we don't get a clue from them. And since the media made a big deal out of it (some more than others), why are they now silent ?
Guess it wasn't such a big deal after all.
There are a lot of things we as individuals can do to help, and hopefully your tea party leaders address those issues and don't just have Bitch Sessions to blame the politicians. After all, who voted them in? This country may not be perfect, but we aren't doing half bad. Why else does the rest of the world want to live here?
http://teaparty.gather.com/
glitter-graphics.com
Of course the tea parties were free speech, and for that reason I'm glad we live in a country that (still) allows such protests. To make attendance/non-attendance at such functions a qualification to be called "patriotic" is counterproductive and a d**n lie!
That people are POd should not surprise anyone anymore. You think people were mad over Repub spending/abuses just so Dems could come up and play one upmanship? The abuses are even worse now and its finally sinking in to some people that this spendathon we've been on for years is getting worse under the new bosses and it can't be supported. Two wrongs don't make a right and sad to say, its likely the Repubs will be the ones who gain from the current anger. It'd be real nice if people rejected both parties and we tried another direction but I think the duopoly is now set in stone.
I vote for TERM LIMITS and BALANCED BUDGET...!!!!
Stop listening to the "Chicken Little" commercial news, and get some good news out for a change.