Tea Parties - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

You are all over the place here, so I won't get into the details. But the fact remains, any tax cuts without cuts on military, healthcare or SS is unsustainable in the long run and will be followed by tax hikes.

The fact that certain organizations like to pretend that that is not true is just a testament to their own hypocrisy and the political games they are playing, which publicly they like to decry.

Read me very carefully...... WITHOUT A TAX BASE YOU WILL NEVER HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET NOR WILL YOU BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THAT WHICH YOU DO HAVE.

IF YOU DO NOT GET MANUFACTURING AND JOBS OUTSOURCED OVERSEAS BACK, THE BASE WILL CONTINUE TO SHRINK, YOU WILL HAVE TO INCREASE TAXES JUST TO PAY FOR THE INTEREST AND IN THE PAST (AS I SHOWED ABOVE), WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE PEOPLE WILL REVOLT.

Is that more clear?

roachboy · 03-30-2009, 03:28 AM

pan---fact is that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has been happening since the 1970s. where were you?
the "model"that the united states has been pursuing in response? service industry + debt + denial.

the french revolution was *not* caused by taxation. if anything it was caused by the absence of taxation. the proximate cause was that the french state floated bonds to pay for its role in the american tax revolt which were bought by the aristo-types. the crown defaulted on the bonds, and so there was effectively an aristocratic revolt which resulted in a call for an estates general. but there's alot more to it than this. suffice it to say that your version is a fantasy. proof is that centralizing taxes at the state level was a RESULT of the revolution, not it's cause. if you're curious about this, read tocqueville's l'ancien regime: it's a classic history of the french revolution and its main argument is about taxation, so he details the before situations (there were lots of them).

people may at some point wake up, pan, but i think it'll only be the militia set that imagines revolution possible over taxes.

and it continues to be surreal to me that you can manage to compress 30 years of neoliberal devolution on obama. so much for perspective.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan---fact is that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has been happening since the 1970s. where were you?
the "model"that the united states has been pursuing in response? service industry + debt + denial.

the french revolution was *not* caused by taxation. if anything it was caused by the absence of taxation. the proximate cause was that the french state floated bonds to pay for its role in the american tax revolt which were bought by the aristo-types. the crown defaulted on the bonds, and so there was effectively an aristocratic revolt which resulted in a call for an estates general. but there's alot more to it than this. suffice it to say that your version is a fantasy. proof is that centralizing taxes at the state level was a RESULT of the revolution, not it's cause. if you're curious about this, read tocqueville's l'ancien regime: it's a classic history of the french revolution and its main argument is about taxation, so he details the before situations (there were lots of them).

people may at some point wake up, pan, but i think it'll only be the militia set that imagines revolution possible over taxes.

and it continues to be surreal to me that you can manage to compress 30 years of neoliberal devolution on obama. so much for perspective.

From Wiki..... French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Another cause was the fact that Louis XV fought many wars, bringing France to the verge of bankruptcy, and Louis XVI supported the colonists during the American Revolution, exacerbating the precarious financial condition of the government. The national debt amounted to almost two billion livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the monarchy's military failures and ineptitude, and the lack of social services for war veterans. The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Another cause was the continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace. High unemployment and high bread prices caused more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a tax on crops known as the dime or tithe. While the dîme lessened the severity of the monarchy's tax increases, it worsened the plight of the poorest who faced a daily struggle with malnutrition. There was too little internal trade and too many customs barriers.[3]

There were also social and political factors, many of which involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals, which included resentment of royal absolutism, resentment by the ambitious professional and mercantile classes towards noble privileges and dominance in public life, many of whom were familiar with the lives of their peers in commercial cities in the Netherlands and Great Britain, resentment by peasants, wage-earners, and the bourgeoisie toward the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by nobles, resentment of clerical advantage (anti-clericalism) and aspirations for freedom of religion, and resentment of aristocratic bishops by the poorer rural clergy, continued hatred for Catholic control and influence on institutions of all kinds, by the large Protestant minorities, aspirations for liberty and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism, and anger toward the King for firing Jacques Necker and A.R.J. Turgot (among other financial advisors), who were popularly seen as representatives of the people.[4]

From Many factors led to the revolution; to some extent the old order succumbed to its own rigidity in the face of a changing world; to some extent, it fell to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners and with individuals of all classes who had come under the influence of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

As the revolution proceeded and as power devolved from the monarchy to legislative bodies, the conflicting interests of these initially allied groups would become the source of conflict and bloodshed.

Certainly, causes of the revolution must include all of the following:

* Resentment of royal absolutism.
* Resentment of the seigneurial system by peasants, wage-earners, and a rising bourgeoisie.
* The rise of enlightenment ideals.
* An unmanageable national debt, both caused by and exacerbating the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.
* Food scarcity in the years immediately before the revolution

There's a whole wiki page that describes the French revolution: Causes of the French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I won't post the whole page.

From French Revolution Time Line

Quote:

Many factors led to the revolution; to some extent the old order succumbed to its own rigidity in the face of a changing world; to some extent, it fell to the ambitions of a rising bourgeoisie, allied with aggrieved peasants and wage-earners and with individuals of all classes who had come under the influence of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

As the revolution proceeded and as power devolved from the monarchy to legislative bodies, the conflicting interests of these initially allied groups would become the source of conflict and bloodshed.

Certainly, causes of the revolution must include all of the following:

* Resentment of royal absolutism.
* Resentment of the seigneurial system by peasants, wage-earners, and a rising bourgeoisie.
* The rise of enlightenment ideals.
* An unmanageable national debt, both caused by and exacerbating the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.
* Food scarcity in the years immediately before the revolution

Sound familiar?

IT IS NOT ALL OBAMA'S FAULT. I have never said that it was his fault. But the sand in the hourglass is almost out and Obama is not doing anything to slow it down or stop that flow.

The government is not being held responsible, the rich are getting away with whatever they want, we have an unsustainable debt causing a grossly inequitable tax system, we are paying for wars that were not necessary and drained our resources Korea, Nam, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, Iraq, and so on. We have raided our taxes to aid other countries at the cost of the people at home, and so on.

When inflation comes and it will because of the Obama plan that will put us further into debt.... food will become unaffordable.

The only outcome if we continue the road we have been on and Obama continues to lead us down is revolution.

We have no tax base that can handle the debt we are accruing. We manufacture NOTHING anymore. The tariffs we have are not paying for anything and allow imports to be cheaper than domestic product. The whole reason for tariffs is to protect your own industry... EVERY INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD KNOWS THIS AND TARIFFS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES EXCEPT US.

The only way out is to rebuild a manufacturing sector and the jobs it allows, thus rebuilding the tax base and making sure that tax base is not overburdened ever again.

roachboy · 03-30-2009, 09:10 AM

pan--

the debt created by the american revolution took the form of bonds. that's how the french state paid for all it's military adventures. essentially, the state would borrow money from the aristocracy BECAUSE THE ARISTOCRACY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXES not the state. so it's a fundamental mistake to see in the factoids arrayed in the wiki pages that you quoted as meaning that you can project the current notion of taxation and how it works back to before 1787---because, like it or not, the modern system of taxation--along with the modern state---were CREATIONS of the french revolution.

generally, folk point to the cahiers de doléances that were issued in preparation for the convening of the estates general with crystalizing a whole host of problems---and the shape of the revolution emerged across this process of collecting the cahiers. the process involved a nation-wide network of town meetings essentially in the course of which people actually talked to each other and collectively drew up lists of problems or greivances---THAT was a fundamental process and the revolution came out of aristocratic attempts to shove the genie back in the bottle if you like by jimmying around the composition and rules of the estates general.

basically, the aristocratic "revolt" of 1787 set into motion a process that escaped them almost immediately.
this process turned on them, ate them alive.

so there is no way to consider the french revolution as a "tax revolt" in anything like a modern context. it's simply wrong, pan. and it's not central to your main arguments, so i don't know why you'd bother trying to defend it as if it was.

i'm not particularly interested in an argument about how to interpret the french revolution with you.
if you want a better idea of what i'm referencing, start with reading tocqueville. a wiki page is not a substitute.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan--

the debt created by the american revolution took the form of bonds. that's how the french state paid for all it's military adventures. essentially, the state would borrow money from the aristocracy BECAUSE THE ARISTOCRACY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXES not the state. so it's a fundamental mistake to see in the factoids arrayed in the wiki pages that you quoted as meaning that you can project the current notion of taxation and how it works back to before 1787---because, like it or not, the modern system of taxation--along with the modern state---were CREATIONS of the french revolution.

generally, folk point to the cahiers de doléances that were issued in preparation for the convening of the estates general with crystalizing a whole host of problems---and the shape of the revolution emerged across this process of collecting the cahiers. the process involved a nation-wide network of town meetings essentially in the course of which people actually talked to each other and collectively drew up lists of problems or greivances---THAT was a fundamental process and the revolution came out of aristocratic attempts to shove the genie back in the bottle if you like by jimmying around the composition and rules of the estates general.

basically, the aristocratic "revolt" of 1787 set into motion a process that escaped them almost immediately.
this process turned on them, ate them alive.

so there is no way to consider the french revolution as a "tax revolt" in anything like a modern context. it's simply wrong, pan. and it's not central to your main arguments, so i don't know why you'd bother trying to defend it as if it was.

i'm not particularly interested in an argument about how to interpret the french revolution with you.
if you want a better idea of what i'm referencing, start with reading tocqueville. a wiki page is not a substitute.

Out of all I have said it's coming down to how we see the French Revolution?

Come on now RB.... this is distraction we don't need. French Revolution aside, we are on the road to one of our own. You can only burden the taxpayers so long, take away so many rights and keep allowing the mass exodus of jobs before the people revolt.

The Tea Parties are just the start.... government and the extremists are trying to laugh it off but the people aren't. It is the start of people truly waking up and saying enough.

Of course if you are a conspiracist like myself... then you would believe maybe there is a reason the government is allowing a flood of heroin/oxycontin/meth/etc to flood our streets. It is easier to control the population and stop their revolt and their disobedience if you keep them dopes up... but that's for a different thread in a different forum heading (paranoia I believe).

roachboy · 03-30-2009, 09:32 AM

well, the reason i dwelt on it isn't quite what you think---it wasn't only that you're take on it was wrong---it was also that the revolution did not start because of some hydraulic relation between events and people---it happened because people started to organize amongst themselves---and the circumstances ended up transpiring that people who were somewhat organized, who had something of an idea of what they were doing found themselves in the middle of a power vacuum, because the monarchy fell in around them.

but the french revolution was also a problem, and many many generations of revolutionary theorists have know this: it had no particular political goals, it kind of backed into being a revolution at all. it ate itself two or three times over. and it resulted in the convention, which resulted in a coup d'etat, which resulted in a restoration...(from a remove, this is how it worked...it's really alot more complicated, but so's everything)

revolutions almost never happen--they're made. so the idea that the present economic system will issue into a revolt seems to me naive. particularly if you're looking to conservative-sponsored agit-prop events like these tea parties. it's all a rhetorical effect--the right would no doubt be among the first to call out any revolt as communist. or whatever. it ain't gonna happen. not that way.

dippin · 03-30-2009, 09:41 AM

Im done discussing this with you, Pan. But as a last statement, even if you went back to a 1945 tax base, or a 67-70 tax base, you'd still be in a deficit with the current spending on military, healthcare and pensions.

Personally, I'd cut the military budget deeply, change to a more efficient single payer healthcare system, keep pensions as they are and increase taxes as necessary.

People who want to keep it all up with tax cuts need to live in a world of fantasy where outrage makes up for numbers. You can't spend 16-18% of GDP on military, healthcare, pensions and expect to pay that or less in taxes. It seems like you will never get that, so Ill let that be.

Ps: The tax burden and tax in general have been in a decade long decline. I fail to see how that will spark a revolution.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Im done discussing this with you, Pan. But as a last statement, even if you went back to a 1945 tax base, or a 67-70 tax base, you'd still be in a deficit with the current spending on military, healthcare and pensions.

Personally, I'd cut the military budget deeply, change to a more efficient single payer healthcare system, keep pensions as they are and increase taxes as necessary.

People who want to keep it all up with tax cuts need to live in a world of fantasy where outrage makes up for numbers. You can't spend 16-18% of GDP on military, healthcare, pensions and expect to pay that or less in taxes. It seems like you will never get that, so Ill let that be.

Ps: The tax burden and tax in general have been in a decade long decline. I fail to see how that will spark a revolution.

The taxes can't be cut because there is no true tax base. I think you are trying to read into something I am not saying.

I am saying that what government needs to do is increase tariffs to protect our industry for a limited time so that we can rebuild a manufacturing sector that will provide better jobs and rebuild the tax base. This is the only way you will increase the tax base to a sustainable level.

You cut the pork spending streamline government to a point where, yes the programs are out there but they aren't bogged down with paperwork, 15 people who have to approve the paperwork, and if it isn't approved it has to start all over. Because the way the system is small businesses cannot afford to apply for small business loans. People who need help with the programs in place to help them with healthcare are bogged down with so much paperwork they have no idea how to get it.

Cutting military spending in the middle of a war is pretty stupid and going to get a lot of people killed.

You want to tax people then streamline taxes. Base taxes on income, get rid of loopholes, hidden taxes and say you make 50,000 you pay this amount, not taxes hidden anywhere else. Once people see how much money truly goes to taxes, then show us where every cent is spent.

Mandate Congress have the townhalls I discussed that force them to explain what is going on, why they are voting how they vote and and how it helps their constituency. If a Congressman doesn't do this he is impeached. Plain and simple.See how fast pork spending and bullshit gets taken out of bills.

pan6467 · 03-30-2009, 10:26 PM

We elect Congress and the President, governors, mayors, council etc. We pay them to find ways to manage the spending in their constituencies.... if they cannot do it or we find fault with how they do it, we have the right to elect differing parties and people.

Today, however, since both parties are extremely corrupt and have agendas that are not in the best interest of the people and they control the media, we may have to revolt. The Tea Parties give us the voice to at least show our displeasure peacefully and demand we be heard and they change. If not and they continue to bankrupt this country and refuse to give up power.... then we must revolt one way or another.

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

We elect Congress and the President, governors, mayors, council etc. We pay them to find ways to manage the spending in their constituencies.... if they cannot do it or we find fault with how they do it, we have the right to elect differing parties and people.

Today, however, since both parties are extremely corrupt and have agendas that are not in the best interest of the people and they control the media, we may have to revolt. The Tea Parties give us the voice to at least show our displeasure peacefully and demand we be heard and they change. If not and they continue to bankrupt this country and refuse to give up power.... then we must revolt one way or another.

that's all fine and good, but the government doesn't care. that's the problem. in some countries, protests really work (see: France) because the government is afraid of pissing off the citizens. in the US, the people are afraid of the government (and they're happy to perpetuate that fear, as it keeps us quiet). So if several thousand people have peaceful protests about how their tax dollars are spent, great, but don't expect the government to pay any attention.

genuinegirly · 03-31-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

that's all fine and good, but the government doesn't care. that's the problem. in some countries, protests really work (see: France) because the government is afraid of pissing off the citizens. in the US, the people are afraid of the government (and they're happy to perpetuate that fear, as it keeps us quiet). So if several thousand people have peaceful protests about how their tax dollars are spent, great, but don't expect the government to pay any attention.

Are we afraid of the government? Interesting concept. Thank you for giving me something to think over.

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Are we afraid of the government? Interesting concept. Thank you for giving me something to think over.

I think a lot of people are, yes. We live in a huge country with a huge government. They have control over a lot of aspects of our lives.

Rich people aren't afraid of the government, as they have the means (and power) to do what they want.

Poor people have been kept down by the government for so long that they don't even know what to do. If every poor person in the country rallied and voted for politicians that actually had their best interests in mind, there would be a great deal of change in our government.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

that's all fine and good, but the government doesn't care. that's the problem. in some countries, protests really work (see: France) because the government is afraid of pissing off the citizens. in the US, the people are afraid of the government (and they're happy to perpetuate that fear, as it keeps us quiet). So if several thousand people have peaceful protests about how their tax dollars are spent, great, but don't expect the government to pay any attention.

does this mean that you advocate possible violence against the government then?

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

does this mean that you advocate possible violence against the government then?

No, not violent action. But sitting in tea rooms bitching about things won't work either. I think if you want to force the government into real change, you need to protest on the scale of the civil rights movement.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

No, not violent action. But sitting in tea rooms bitching about things won't work either. I think if you want to force the government into real change, you need to protest on the scale of the civil rights movement.

isn't there a saying that goes 'all politics are local'? wouldn't, or shouldn't, these protests be taken as showing whichever representative belongs to the district where these protests are that 'hey, my job is at stake'?

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

isn't there a saying that goes 'all politics are local'? wouldn't, or shouldn't, these protests be taken as showing whichever representative belongs to the district where these protests are that 'hey, my job is at stake'?

theoretically, yes, but if you live in Oregon and your reps in Congress never leave Washington DC, that's a bit tough

roachboy · 03-31-2009, 08:52 AM

derwood's right---i've been arguing versions of the same point for a long time, here and in 3-d: american political culture is entirely top-down--these days, it's also entirely passive. we're a dominated, docile bunch who are simultaneously terrified of the state and expect it to save us. we do not organize, we do not protest--hell we don't even think too hard in ways that are not dictated for us by our sustained training in happy-face passivity in schools and its continual reinforcement via the dominant media--which stage the world as something we watch, that is separate from us, and we watch it alone, locked up in living rooms. it seems our collective vanity is assuaged by the fact that we repeat as we're told to repeat it that we're all very very free, but that's really just an expression of our docility, almost a joke being played on us, one that we're too far inside to see.

there's no revolution coming in the united states. people are afraid of organizing because in part they're afraid of being found out. they're educated in repetition so they repeat without knowing the difference. what's more likely is a long, pathetic decline in the context of which varying degrees of denial will be proffered and most folk will duly repeat whatever they're told, in the way they're told. chances are that this decline won't even register until its fallout gets so bad that that there's no way around it.

other places with more viable political cultures--places that are not so centered around the fear of dissent as is the united states--would be in better shape were the same process of decline to happen because at least there's enough of a diversity of viewpoints that something of reality can slip through. not so in the monolithic mediascape of the united states.

i hope i'm wrong.
but i don't think i am.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

derwood's right---i've been arguing versions of the same point for a long time, here and in 3-d: american political culture is entirely top-down--these days, it's also entirely passive. we're a dominated, docile bunch who are simultaneously terrified of the state and expect it to save us. we do not organize, we do not protest--hell we don't even think too hard in ways that are not dictated for us by our sustained training in happy-face passivity in schools and its continual reinforcement via the dominant media--which stage the world as something we watch, that is separate from us, and we watch it alone, locked up in living rooms. it seems our collective vanity is assuaged by the fact that we repeat as we're told to repeat it that we're all very very free, but that's really just an expression of our docility, almost a joke being played on us, one that we're too far inside to see.

there's no revolution coming in the united states. people are afraid of organizing because in part they're afraid of being found out. they're educated in repetition so they repeat without knowing the difference. what's more likely is a long, pathetic decline in the context of which varying degrees of denial will be proffered and most folk will duly repeat whatever they're told, in the way they're told. chances are that this decline won't even register until its fallout gets so bad that that there's no way around it.

we are also handcuffed by ourselves when we not only disapprove of those who DO protest, but also ridiculing those who attempt to get us to think 'outside the box'. When 3rd party candidates and supporters are labeled radicals and extremists because they want change......change that the rest of the nation is just not ready to accept or attempt.

Derwood · 03-31-2009, 09:24 AM

Americans are also too selfish to rally around a common interest. Their only interests are their own.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Americans are also too selfish to rally around a common interest. Their only interests are their own.

only when their own interests are targeted, do they wonder why nobody will help them rally.

roachboy · 03-31-2009, 10:05 AM

dk--you sound like an anarchist, of the black block sort, who imagines actions are ends in themselves. so that it almost doesn't matter what the action's organized around, only that it happens--and that there's a kind of political consciousness which follows from a simple confrontation with the Man.

maybe i'm wrong, but i think that radical political action follows in part from having clear objectives, but also from changing how people experience their worlds, themselves in the world, etc. so i think through a basically different conception of what information is than i suspect you do (based on our interactions here at least)...

when you write, it seems like you want to go back to some earlier, better time. i think there's nowhere to go but forward.

btw i'm actually pretty sympathetic to direct democracy, and it's probably because i am sympathetic to it that i don't see anything in a "power to the people" type slogan, particularly not in 2009. i think there's something maybe revolutionary in the idea, but not if you frame is as a return to some pre-capitalist version of what already is. this is probably a function of political background as much as anything else. i come out of a heavily marxist orientation, but one that sees marxism itself as entirely outmoded.

just so you know.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

dk--you sound like an anarchist, of the black block sort, who imagines actions are ends in themselves.

and my point is proven true, that out of the mainstream ideas and statements are portrayed as extremist or radical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

when you write, it seems like you want to go back to some earlier, better time. i think there's nowhere to go but forward.

Our nations history clearly indicates that as the years have gone by, we've lost more and more freedom, so I have always failed to see how you postulate that moving forward is the only form of progression.

roachboy · 03-31-2009, 10:43 AM

there are flows and there is what we call time that is our form and they all only go in one direction.
it's simply the way it is.

pan6467 · 03-31-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there are flows and there is what we call time that is our form and they all only go in one direction.
it's simply the way it is.

I disagree. As human beings, we can change the direction of not just our lives but those who are around us.

A drug addict does not have to die from the use but if he only goes in that one direction he will. If he makes conscience effort and changes his direction he can live a fulfilled life.

Our country is the same way, we can sit and be docile and say "that's just the way things are" or we can start demanding change.

The "Tea Parties" may not be big, but they may awaken more people who decide to do something and they participate in demonstrations the next time and that awakens more people and so on.

The Civil Rights Movement did not just happen over night, the Vietnam demonstrations did not just happen over night, the ERA movement did not just happen over night. Nothing just happens over night... change true change takes time, it starts with a few voices that awaken a few more that awaken a few more, until enough people have tested the waters and the rest see it's ok and jump in.

This is America, try as the government may and the media wants us to believe it is foolish and we who speak out are freaks and fringe people... America has not yet had it's Tienanmen Square. Hopefully, we never will... however, it may take that to truly awaken people.

When we become a nation more scared of government than government scared of the people..... we need change because that is not what these United States is supposed to be not should it ever be.

Our founding fathers believed this and risked everything to fight for a government scared of the people and thus would do the right thing. We today sit losing everything scared of what government may do to us, of what our neighbors may think of us and scared that it is just "me" feeling this way and no one else does, at least not "normal people" the media and government tell me that.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE. OPENNESS IN GOVERNMENT. DEMAND YOUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2009, 11:30 AM

As I understand it, there are 300 scheduled 'tea parties' across the nation. All on a single day. will there be more?

pan6467 · 03-31-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

As I understand it, there are 300 scheduled 'tea parties' across the nation. All on a single day. will there be more?

I know every major city and county seat in Ohio has one going the 15th.

now for something to be that structured, well planned and set up with many looking forward to going, many wanting to but missing because of work and many many more probably wanting to but are scared or feel they may not have anything to add...... that's a sign there's some very dissatisfied people in this country.

Maybe the government should um....... take the time to start listening? Just an insane observation from an insane person.

roachboy · 03-31-2009, 12:16 PM

pan---that there's something deeply fucked up seems to me to be entirely the case. that there's every reason to be alarmed, be upset...we agree on that. where we don't agree is on the cluster of issues you pile around the tea party things, whether they're the problems or if they're symptoms of deeper problems, whether objecting to taxation makes sense and so forth. there's simply disagreement about the particular political choices you've made. disagreement does not entail more than that--you disagree with me, i disagree with you--you will probably go to a tea party, i will probably do something else.

that's really all that's happening here, yes?

pan6467 · 03-31-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pan---that there's something deeply fucked up seems to me to be entirely the case. that there's every reason to be alarmed, be upset...we agree on that. where we don't agree is on the cluster of issues you pile around the tea party things, whether they're the problems or if they're symptoms of deeper problems, whether objecting to taxation makes sense and so forth. there's simply disagreement about the particular political choices you've made. disagreement does not entail more than that--you disagree with me, i disagree with you--you will probably go to a tea party, i will probably do something else.

that's really all that's happening here, yes?

True for you and I.... but for some as demonstrated here they believe that the Right controls it or that it's some agenda other than what it is, etc. There are some who want the people to believe that the tea parties are nothing more than show and no one is serious and that they will be attended by few and those will just be sheep led by some Neo Conservative talk show host or extremists trying to just get attention. That is probably how the media and the government will write it off too.

The point is, at least people are working together to demonstrate there are problems and government needs to be more accountable for those problems and these parties will awaken more people to speak out.

SecretMethod70 · 04-10-2009, 07:39 AM

Rachel Maddow had a hilarious story about this.

msnbc.com Video Player

SecretMethod70 · 04-12-2009, 05:36 AM

Nope, Fox has nothing to do with these tea parties. Not at all.

Firedoglake What Part of “FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES” Don’t You Understand?

And some more...

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/t...s-strange_brew
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-tea.html?reds

There's plenty to be upset about with our government. Geithner is, so far, a failure. But these tea parties are ridiculous.

Rekna · 04-12-2009, 06:06 AM

A few years ago the right would call anyone who questioned the government an unamerican terrorist sympathizer. They they are are pushing this... Sometimes I wonder if they realize how big of hypocrites they are.

Tully Mars · 04-12-2009, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Rachel Maddow had a hilarious story about this.

msnbc.com Video Player

Yep, Astroturf. Grass roots go the other way.

Seriously people bitching because their tax rate went down... unless they're making other 1/4 mill a year. Wonder how many of these people make that kind of money? I mean other then the guys at Fox News pushing this crap.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

A few years ago the right would call anyone who questioned the government an unamerican terrorist sympathizer. They they are are pushing this... Sometimes I wonder if they realize how big of hypocrites they are.

It's never ok to second guess the POTUS during a time of war... unless of course he's a democrat. Then, well, then it's ok to question everything including his ancestry.

ratbastid · 04-12-2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

And guess the POTUS during a time of war... unless of course he's a democrat. Then, well, then it's ok to question everything including his ancestry.

Don't forget his religious affiliations and what fabric he's made of!

Seriously, people. Fox News is shilling these things, and you honestly think they're pure non-partisan political discourse? Come the fuck ON.

These aren't Tea Parties. They're Tea Tantrums. They're being thrown to commemorate the death throes of the American right. They're being sold by some of the same people who were screaming for impeachment on January 21st.

dippin · 04-12-2009, 07:02 AM

anyone see some of the videos from some of these tea parties?

Apparently, Obama is a pawn of George Soros and the communists, and part of the solution is to burn all the books who teach all that crap of evolution.

Nothing too surprising given that Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, the Constitution Party, and the John Birch society are some of the major sponsors...

By the way, has anyone figured out exactly against what these parties are protesting?

roachboy · 04-12-2009, 07:23 AM

i think this sums it up.

Tully Mars · 04-12-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Don't forget his religious affiliations and what fabric he's made of!

Seriously, people. Fox News is shilling these things, and you honestly think they're pure non-partisan political discourse? Come the fuck ON.

These aren't Tea Parties. They're Tea Tantrums. They're being thrown to commemorate the death throes of the American right. They're being sold by some of the same people who were screaming for impeachment on January 21st.

Half-breed Muslin... that just classic! Morons.

Cynthetiq · 04-12-2009, 09:27 AM

some guy called me last night...

"America! We'll not... blah blah blah, April 15, blah blah Tea Party...blah blah." And then hung up.

I was thinking to myself, how random and what a kind of crank call, no identification, not real explanation, I thought people stopped doing that when they were like 12.

Willravel · 04-12-2009, 09:39 AM

Yeah, I got that same call the other day. I started to mount a decent argument, but the dude hung up. At least when I get calls from California Republicans, they can actually debate.

SecretMethod70 · 04-12-2009, 09:43 AM

That wasn't a crank call. It was probably a robodialer. If that doesn't prove that these tea parties aren't grassroots, I don't know what could. Those phone calls are fairly expensive, and I guarantee you that they're not being sent to everyone (that would be REALLY expensive). Instead, they're being sent to targeted voters... except doing the targeting is expensive too.

This only drives the point home that John Stewart made: they're confusing tyranny with losing. Apparently the people behind these tea parties just can't accept that they lost and the election is over, because it seems they're now using standard campaign tactics to promote these things.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Yeah, I got that same call the other day. I started to mount a decent argument, but the dude hung up. At least when I get calls from California Republicans, they can actually debate.

So were these real live people? That's a little less expensive than a pre-recorded message, but there's no way in hell they have enough volunteers for two TFPers in two different markets to both get one of these calls. That means they're probably paying people to fill call centers. And they still have to pay for the phone lines, the targeting, etc.

Willravel · 04-12-2009, 10:07 AM

Yes, it was a real life person. His tone got pissed when I interrupted to start a discussion.

Meanwhile, a lot of libertarians are getting really pissed about what's going on, because it turns out the things have nothing to do with ideology:

Quote:

The Tea Tantrum Movement

I spent the better part of an hour earlier today scanning the various sites and blogs to try and understand what specifically the Fox-Pajamas tea parties are about. Having absorbed about as much of the literature as I can, I have to say I'm still befuddled.

Option 1: It's a protest of the bank bailouts orchestrated by Bush and now Obama. But surely these tea-partiers understand what would happen if we didn't bail the banks out. Are they advocating letting major banks fail? Or are they advocating a Krugman-style government take-over? No idea.

Option 2: It's a protest against tax hikes. But there have barely been any! Are they arguing that the planned return to Clinton era marginal rates is an outrage worthy of the colonists ... only months after an election in which the winning candidate ran on exactly that platform? Is that postponed future increase so radical that it demands a protest modeled on one in which people were taxed with no representation at all? Truly bizarre. And when you consider that we have gone through a very long period of relatively low taxation for the very successful, and a very long period in which their wealth has soared, and after an election where a majority of such people voted for Obama, the extremism seems unrelated to anything substantive underneath it.

Option 3: It's a protest against illegal immigration. Ok, so why the tea? Weren't all the original tea-partiers illegal immigrants?

Option 4: It's a protest against government debt. Yay! I will leave aside the somewhat awkward fact that Fox News and Pajamas Media barely covered the massive debt racked up by the Republicans during a period of economic growth. Instead, I'll proffer a simple point: If the tea-partiers are concerned about debt and concerned about taxes, one presumes they favor drastic spending cuts. But what are the tea-partiers proposing to do to Medicare, Medicaid, and social security?

I'd love to see a proposal that they support on any of these entitlement programs, but particularly Medicare which is the culprit for much of the debt burden. Where is it? Or are we really going to hear more diversions about "pork"?

As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.

These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

03-30-2009, 03:28 AM	#82 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan---fact is that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has been happening since the 1970s. where were you? the "model"that the united states has been pursuing in response? service industry + debt + denial. the french revolution was not caused by taxation. if anything it was caused by the absence of taxation. the proximate cause was that the french state floated bonds to pay for its role in the american tax revolt which were bought by the aristo-types. the crown defaulted on the bonds, and so there was effectively an aristocratic revolt which resulted in a call for an estates general. but there's alot more to it than this. suffice it to say that your version is a fantasy. proof is that centralizing taxes at the state level was a RESULT of the revolution, not it's cause. if you're curious about this, read tocqueville's l'ancien regime: it's a classic history of the french revolution and its main argument is about taxation, so he details the before situations (there were lots of them). people may at some point wake up, pan, but i think it'll only be the militia set that imagines revolution possible over taxes. and it continues to be surreal to me that you can manage to compress 30 years of neoliberal devolution on obama. so much for perspective. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-30-2009, 09:10 AM	#84 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan-- the debt created by the american revolution took the form of bonds. that's how the french state paid for all it's military adventures. essentially, the state would borrow money from the aristocracy BECAUSE THE ARISTOCRACY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXES not the state. so it's a fundamental mistake to see in the factoids arrayed in the wiki pages that you quoted as meaning that you can project the current notion of taxation and how it works back to before 1787---because, like it or not, the modern system of taxation--along with the modern state---were CREATIONS of the french revolution. generally, folk point to the cahiers de doléances that were issued in preparation for the convening of the estates general with crystalizing a whole host of problems---and the shape of the revolution emerged across this process of collecting the cahiers. the process involved a nation-wide network of town meetings essentially in the course of which people actually talked to each other and collectively drew up lists of problems or greivances---THAT was a fundamental process and the revolution came out of aristocratic attempts to shove the genie back in the bottle if you like by jimmying around the composition and rules of the estates general. basically, the aristocratic "revolt" of 1787 set into motion a process that escaped them almost immediately. this process turned on them, ate them alive. so there is no way to consider the french revolution as a "tax revolt" in anything like a modern context. it's simply wrong, pan. and it's not central to your main arguments, so i don't know why you'd bother trying to defend it as if it was. i'm not particularly interested in an argument about how to interpret the french revolution with you. if you want a better idea of what i'm referencing, start with reading tocqueville. a wiki page is not a substitute. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-30-2009, 09:32 AM	#86 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, the reason i dwelt on it isn't quite what you think---it wasn't only that you're take on it was wrong---it was also that the revolution did not start because of some hydraulic relation between events and people---it happened because people started to organize amongst themselves---and the circumstances ended up transpiring that people who were somewhat organized, who had something of an idea of what they were doing found themselves in the middle of a power vacuum, because the monarchy fell in around them. but the french revolution was also a problem, and many many generations of revolutionary theorists have know this: it had no particular political goals, it kind of backed into being a revolution at all. it ate itself two or three times over. and it resulted in the convention, which resulted in a coup d'etat, which resulted in a restoration...(from a remove, this is how it worked...it's really alot more complicated, but so's everything) revolutions almost never happen--they're made. so the idea that the present economic system will issue into a revolt seems to me naive. particularly if you're looking to conservative-sponsored agit-prop events like these tea parties. it's all a rhetorical effect--the right would no doubt be among the first to call out any revolt as communist. or whatever. it ain't gonna happen. not that way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-30-2009, 09:41 AM	#87 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Im done discussing this with you, Pan. But as a last statement, even if you went back to a 1945 tax base, or a 67-70 tax base, you'd still be in a deficit with the current spending on military, healthcare and pensions. Personally, I'd cut the military budget deeply, change to a more efficient single payer healthcare system, keep pensions as they are and increase taxes as necessary. People who want to keep it all up with tax cuts need to live in a world of fantasy where outrage makes up for numbers. You can't spend 16-18% of GDP on military, healthcare, pensions and expect to pay that or less in taxes. It seems like you will never get that, so Ill let that be. Ps: The tax burden and tax in general have been in a decade long decline. I fail to see how that will spark a revolution. Last edited by dippin; 03-30-2009 at 09:45 AM..

03-30-2009, 10:26 PM	#89 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We elect Congress and the President, governors, mayors, council etc. We pay them to find ways to manage the spending in their constituencies.... if they cannot do it or we find fault with how they do it, we have the right to elect differing parties and people. Today, however, since both parties are extremely corrupt and have agendas that are not in the best interest of the people and they control the media, we may have to revolt. The Tea Parties give us the voice to at least show our displeasure peacefully and demand we be heard and they change. If not and they continue to bankrupt this country and refuse to give up power.... then we must revolt one way or another. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-31-2009, 08:52 AM	#97 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	derwood's right---i've been arguing versions of the same point for a long time, here and in 3-d: american political culture is entirely top-down--these days, it's also entirely passive. we're a dominated, docile bunch who are simultaneously terrified of the state and expect it to save us. we do not organize, we do not protest--hell we don't even think too hard in ways that are not dictated for us by our sustained training in happy-face passivity in schools and its continual reinforcement via the dominant media--which stage the world as something we watch, that is separate from us, and we watch it alone, locked up in living rooms. it seems our collective vanity is assuaged by the fact that we repeat as we're told to repeat it that we're all very very free, but that's really just an expression of our docility, almost a joke being played on us, one that we're too far inside to see. there's no revolution coming in the united states. people are afraid of organizing because in part they're afraid of being found out. they're educated in repetition so they repeat without knowing the difference. what's more likely is a long, pathetic decline in the context of which varying degrees of denial will be proffered and most folk will duly repeat whatever they're told, in the way they're told. chances are that this decline won't even register until its fallout gets so bad that that there's no way around it. other places with more viable political cultures--places that are not so centered around the fear of dissent as is the united states--would be in better shape were the same process of decline to happen because at least there's enough of a diversity of viewpoints that something of reality can slip through. not so in the monolithic mediascape of the united states. i hope i'm wrong. but i don't think i am. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2009, 09:24 AM	#99 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Americans are also too selfish to rally around a common interest. Their only interests are their own.

03-31-2009, 10:05 AM	#101 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dk--you sound like an anarchist, of the black block sort, who imagines actions are ends in themselves. so that it almost doesn't matter what the action's organized around, only that it happens--and that there's a kind of political consciousness which follows from a simple confrontation with the Man. maybe i'm wrong, but i think that radical political action follows in part from having clear objectives, but also from changing how people experience their worlds, themselves in the world, etc. so i think through a basically different conception of what information is than i suspect you do (based on our interactions here at least)... when you write, it seems like you want to go back to some earlier, better time. i think there's nowhere to go but forward. btw i'm actually pretty sympathetic to direct democracy, and it's probably because i am sympathetic to it that i don't see anything in a "power to the people" type slogan, particularly not in 2009. i think there's something maybe revolutionary in the idea, but not if you frame is as a return to some pre-capitalist version of what already is. this is probably a function of political background as much as anything else. i come out of a heavily marxist orientation, but one that sees marxism itself as entirely outmoded. just so you know. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2009, 10:43 AM	#103 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are flows and there is what we call time that is our form and they all only go in one direction. it's simply the way it is. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2009, 11:30 AM	#105 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	As I understand it, there are 300 scheduled 'tea parties' across the nation. All on a single day. will there be more? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-31-2009, 12:16 PM	#107 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pan---that there's something deeply fucked up seems to me to be entirely the case. that there's every reason to be alarmed, be upset...we agree on that. where we don't agree is on the cluster of issues you pile around the tea party things, whether they're the problems or if they're symptoms of deeper problems, whether objecting to taxation makes sense and so forth. there's simply disagreement about the particular political choices you've made. disagreement does not entail more than that--you disagree with me, i disagree with you--you will probably go to a tea party, i will probably do something else. that's really all that's happening here, yes? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-12-2009, 05:36 AM	#110 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Nope, Fox has nothing to do with these tea parties. Not at all. Firedoglake What Part of “FNC TAX DAY TEA PARTIES” Don’t You Understand? And some more... http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/t...s-strange_brew http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-tea.html?reds There's plenty to be upset about with our government. Geithner is, so far, a failure. But these tea parties are ridiculous. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 04-12-2009 at 05:55 AM..

04-12-2009, 06:06 AM	#111 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	A few years ago the right would call anyone who questioned the government an unamerican terrorist sympathizer. They they are are pushing this... Sometimes I wonder if they realize how big of hypocrites they are.

04-12-2009, 07:02 AM	#114 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	anyone see some of the videos from some of these tea parties? Apparently, Obama is a pawn of George Soros and the communists, and part of the solution is to burn all the books who teach all that crap of evolution. Nothing too surprising given that Limbaugh, Malkin, Beck, the Constitution Party, and the John Birch society are some of the major sponsors... By the way, has anyone figured out exactly against what these parties are protesting?

04-12-2009, 07:23 AM	#115 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think this sums it up. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-12-2009, 09:27 AM	#117 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	some guy called me last night... "America! We'll not... blah blah blah, April 15, blah blah Tea Party...blah blah." And then hung up. I was thinking to myself, how random and what a kind of crank call, no identification, not real explanation, I thought people stopped doing that when they were like 12. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-12-2009, 09:39 AM	#118 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yeah, I got that same call the other day. I started to mount a decent argument, but the dude hung up. At least when I get calls from California Republicans, they can actually debate.