@viper
I lost respect? Do you know how to argue without debasing your "opponent"?

I'm saying that the original tea party was a demonstration against foreign ruling powers that were not elected by the people.
My whole assertion in the OP is that the use of the "tea party" moniker might mean that the message is in the same vain as the original.

I think the most ironic part is that 95% of the country is getting a tax cut. So unless every member of those protests is part of that 5%, they are actually protesting Obama's choice to cut their taxes.

I wonder how 95% can get a tax cut when only 50% pay taxes to begin with....

I guess you have never heard of payroll taxes.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/40034872.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc7YUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

What to expect: The tax credit -- up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married couples -- will be doled out through the rest of the year through a payroll tax cut reflected in paychecks. Most workers should see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. But the credit is phased out for higher-income taxpayers. People who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes can file for their share.

If it doesn’t matter if you collect as much money as you spend, why collect taxes at all?

They are protesting, because they know that the math does not work out. When you spend money you don’t have, you have to earn it back at some point. To say we are going to double or triple the expenses, but not take any more taxes from people, reminds us all of the famous saying:

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

When he said “we will cross that bridge when we get to it”, what he really meant was “we will put these programs in place that become extremely difficult to remove now, and then we will raise taxes to pay for them later”.

When the people you are manipulating don’t look more then 3 months into the future, it’s easy to sway them.

If that's what this is really about, where were these people for the last 8 years?

So why weren't they protesting during the Bush Adminstration, or the Bush Sr. Adminstration, or the Reagan Adminstration?  Reagan was even specifically known for his "voodoo economics" of increasing spending and cutting taxes.

That's the real question. We should be pissed that people didn't start this 6-7 years ago. Not that they are doing it now.

Very good.  At least someone knows their history.

To answer you question, the Boston Tea Party had almost nothing to do with tea although the idea of "no taxation withour representation" still was something they agreed with.  But the Boston Tea Party was propoganda.  Look at it from the Americans point of view.  They were about to fight the largest military and economic power in the world for their freedom.  They needed help.  First they needed people at home to join in.  They needed some sort of propoganda to rally spirts and loyalties at home.  By doing this act and publically arousing spirits of the common hatred towards the British government for "no taxation without representation" and "less harsh economic controls on the colonies".  Was propoganda for the most part.  And secondly it was to hopefully arouse support from other countries, particualarly the French in helping them in this cause. 

OT- What do I think of the "tea parties"?  I think they are pathetic outcries of hypocrisy by people who no idea what they want or what they are talking about.  Apparently they are angry at the way their taxes are being spent and that it should be spent the way they want it to.  However, this is a representative democracy.  You elected the people to do this.  Either you support the ideology or you really are saying something revolutionary towards the idea with your direct democracy ideologies.  Second, you don't want government to spend the money that you gave to them in taxes.  So what you want them to waste money by NOT USING IT INSTEAD.  I'm sure the headlines would be a lot more favorable if we learn about sitting tax money in the vaults.  Finally, the complain about the things it is being spent on yet this tax money is also going to other things such as supporting the soldiers. 

I mean it's a very hypocritical and self-interested act with the absolute show of ideas that help the situation.  Instead they walk out with their signs with a disrespectful play on the old Boston Tea Party and ask for things that make no sense.  If you wanted to actually make a protest on to how they spend your money... don't pay your taxes.  Do you sense the fear now?  Oh I sense the fear.  How fearful all these protestors must have been with their half-assed hypocritical protests.  They fear an unregulated government and an unregulated economy yet they are asking for things that take away regulations.  Things that would actually have regulation to spend their money.  Fear and hypocrisy is how you describe these "tea parties".  You want to make a difference.  Don't pay your taxes.  That's how you protest something like this.  But I know none of them have the courage to do it.

The ammount of money paid in taxes is exactly the same as the government's spending ... You can't have a tax cut while spending is maintained/increased (unless the government is running a surplus) because the taxes are only delayed, and you will eventually repay the money (with interest) through increased taxes or increased inflation. Now, I know the "Progressive" thing to do is to increase the taxes on the "Wealthy" in order to cover this spending, but the "Wealthy" are already paying their fair share and any further disincentive for them to continue doing business in the United States will only translate into them moving their businesses to other countries.

Certainly, some would argue that the United States can easily just produce new "Green" jobs that all these politicians seem to think are so easy to create. Recently it was announced that Spain's attempt to create "Green" jobs resulted in the economy losing 2.2 jobs for every job they created, and the program only cost $775,000 for every permanent "Green" Job created.