By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

theprof00 on 19 April 2009
ironman said:
No, most don't even pay taxes, so these "tax cuts" are just another form of welfare. Also the tea was a symbol, I saw no costumes but if there were any then they were only to serve as an even further symbol. This was not as much of a protest on taxes as it was a protest on spending, get it right.

haha you should tell that to the protesters and the media!

For the purpose of the debate I will believe your sole assertion, possibly made to further your point, in spite of the many thousands saying the opposite.

 



Around the Network
akuma587 on 19 April 2009

The line that most people don't even pay taxes is totally off base. Some people don't pay federal INCOME tax. That doesn't mean they don't pay one or more of the many other federal income taxes.

Here are the federal income tax brackets by the way:



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 19 April 2009
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

was that a joke?

If we didn't do anything it would be cheaper to print newspapers on dollar bills.

 

Actually that's the opposite of what would of happened.

Also. Yes a full scale nuclear war would still be worse then that.

 



Kasz216 on 19 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

I recognize that some people believe that, but saying that the rational behind one is substantially more sound than the other is questionable to me.

I don't blame Reagan for the spending as much as I blame the people who have taken some of Reagan's ideas to such an extreme degree that it has really come back to haunt us.  I hate how he popularized deficits and demonized taxes while doing so under the cloak of fiscal responsibility.  And I think his tax cuts were a good idea for the economic problem he was facing, stagflation.  Tax cuts are about the only way to deal with stagflation.

I cannot stand how some people now believe that tax cuts can solve any economic problem.  That's just as stupid as saying that government spending can solve any economic problem.  You can't fix every problem with one solution.

 

Which is completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.

 



akuma587 on 19 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

was that a joke?

If we didn't do anything it would be cheaper to print newspapers on dollar bills.

 

Actually that's the opposite of what would of happened.

Also. Yes a full scale nuclear war would still be worse then that.

 

You also make the assumption that spending more on a war is always an effective way to win that war.  That may be true in some cases, but we put a lot of money and manpower into wars like Vietnam and Iraq and have only gotten back questionable results in return.  Sometimes spending money on a war just means you spent a lot of money and didn't get shit in return.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
theprof00 on 19 April 2009
Sqrl said:
theprof00 said:
sqrl
my whole observation was based on that video you posted. Those two assertions I made were solely based on it and why you posted it. It obviously had some meaning, so I was asking was that meaning was.

Our disagreement is solely based on the prevalence of the racism. I think it is probably about 20% (honestly the garofalo video instantly made me say, "please stop talking you're making us look bad") but you think it is like <1%.

It is already apparent that the video of the blogger showed that people got confused when he said they were getting a tax cut.
The difference between the two camps in this thread is that you guys believe that these people are educated well informed individuals like yourselves, whereas I don't believe that, based on what I've seen, together with the numerous contradictions shown in their actions.
paying money to waste tea, costumes, not knowing they are getting tax cuts.. so on and so forth.

Yeah I think less than 1% is probably quite accurate.  My question would be what are you basing your estimate of 20% on? 

I can tell you my assessment is based on my own conversations with the people you see in these crowds...I'm friends with at least a dozen of the 400k (likely more tbh) and they were all excited and pumped up after the tea parties.  But what were they excited about though??

How positive the message was, that they felt like this movement was taking the right approach by saying it is BOTH PARTIES and that frivolous spending is a problem no matter who does it and that they are going to fight any politician who is not fiscally conservative and support any politician who is..regardless of the other policies they might support (including canvasing, donations, fundraising, etc..).  At no point did they ever bring up race or even Obama alone as an issue and I can tell you they are extremely offended by comments like Garofalos and found it to be a pathetically ignorant comment.  They've been deliberate and explicit in their efforts to point out that it isn't just Obama, that this problem is much bigger than one politician or one party. In fact when racism did rear its head in Papillion the crowd is the one who reacted the strongest towards it according to my friend Kairi who I have no reason to doubt.  She isn't exactly a conservative by any stretch of the imagination either....the bottom line is that the these events were of a very different tenor to what was being portrayed in the media.

Do you understand that their plan for the next set of events is actually a 4th of July picnic/BBQ setup?  I mean I'm sure racists like picnics and BBQ's as much as anyone else but the fact is that the kind of vitriolic hatred that racism is based on doesn't produce a protest via picnic parties...there is just a fundamental disconnect between the tone being put out by the grassroots organizers of these events and their supporters compared to their portrayal by folks like Olby and Garofalo.

Consider that by your estimate you think that statistically it is likely that 2 to 3 of my friends are racists....I strongly beg to differ.

I will probably be participating in the 4th of July festivities if the movement stays on the same message and tone it has right now.  I wanted to see how they handled themselves at this first round before I got involved and I'm more than pleased.  But don't worry I don't take offense to the idea that you think there is a one in five chance that I'm a racist .

Man, you actually don't get it. You base your percentage off your friends. Not nearly anything remotely like a random sample, but yet you can base your judgements off of it without second thought.

This is what I mean, when I kind of agree with Garofolo where you really just don't understand.

My point has nothing to do with racism btw and I know you read the OP. It is about the message of the original tea party being no taxation without representation. I just thought it was interesting to follow that thought through into these tea parties. It would mean they are protesting the taxes, and the person who was taxing them. MY point does not reside on 20% of the people being racist. But yours strongly relies on the fact that your friends accurately reflect the entire population. I'll let you think about that for a minute.

 



akuma587 on 19 April 2009

I think 20% of the population is moderately to very racist. Its not just the white people who are racist either.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

theprof00 on 19 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

was that a joke?

If we didn't do anything it would be cheaper to print newspapers on dollar bills.

 

Actually that's the opposite of what would of happened.

Also. Yes a full scale nuclear war would still be worse then that.

 

You also make the assumption that spending more on a war is always an effective way to win that war.  That may be true in some cases, but we put a lot of money and manpower into wars like Vietnam and Iraq and have only gotten back questionable results in return.  Sometimes spending money on a war just means you spent a lot of money and didn't get shit in return.

 

You know what would be almost as bad as nukulur war? If everyone's currency went to shit at the same time. I can't even begin to describe the implications. Militia rule, people freaking out, if a country was perceived as being weakened it could even lead to nukulur attacks because of the lawlessness and chaos.

 



Kasz216 on 19 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

was that a joke?

If we didn't do anything it would be cheaper to print newspapers on dollar bills.

 

Actually that's the opposite of what would of happened.

Also. Yes a full scale nuclear war would still be worse then that.

 

You also make the assumption that spending more on a war is always an effective way to win that war.  That may be true in some cases, but we put a lot of money and manpower into wars like Vietnam and Iraq and have only gotten back questionable results in return.  Sometimes spending money on a war just means you spent a lot of money and didn't get shit in return.

 

How do you think the Iraq and Vietnam wars would of went without spending a lot of money on them?  The same or worse?

Also, the Iraq war went awesome.  It was the gameplan for the reconstruction of Iraq that was screwed up.  They never came up with a gameplan for what to do after they won the war.

As for Vietnam... Vietnam actually went well consdering we were fighting both Vietnam and China... and also keeping military actions to a low enough level as to not ignite a nuclear war.  You can't really win "Limited wars".  Not against China anyway.

Kudos for actually bringing up something democrats have done wrong for once though.

 



Kasz216 on 19 April 2009
theprof00 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
So the Cold War can justify deficit spending but a humongous economic crisis can't?

For a lot of people yes.

A full scale Nucleaer war between the US and USSR would of been a lot more disasterous then the current economic crisis.

The fact you can't instantly recognize that is kinda crazy.

was that a joke?

If we didn't do anything it would be cheaper to print newspapers on dollar bills.

 

Actually that's the opposite of what would of happened.

Also. Yes a full scale nuclear war would still be worse then that.

 

You also make the assumption that spending more on a war is always an effective way to win that war.  That may be true in some cases, but we put a lot of money and manpower into wars like Vietnam and Iraq and have only gotten back questionable results in return.  Sometimes spending money on a war just means you spent a lot of money and didn't get shit in return.

 

You know what would be almost as bad as nukulur war? If everyone's currency went to shit at the same time. I can't even begin to describe the implications. Militia rule, people freaking out, if a country was perceived as being weakened it could even lead to nukulur attacks because of the lawlessness and chaos.

If you actually think that would of happened.  Though that's something like the people who think Global Warming will lead to half the US being underwater in 50 years.

Not all major banks in the US were in trouble... furthermore there were plenty of banks that aren't major just waiting to step into the role.

For example Wells Fargo was fine... until the government had them by Wachovia by giving them money to buy toxic banks.