NYT Article on the Tea Party Movement

• Footwedge

  gibby08 wrote: Had this "movement" started before January 20th,2009...I would have ZERO problem with them
  
  
  I never thought I would see the day when Americans would be advocating and armed revolt againist their own government!! That was tried once before in the history of our nation...and you see how well that worked out.
  
  An armed "revolt" would be crushed in about 5 minutes

  Like DDCrew explained above, tea parties have been going on since 2007. It was the Ron Paul weekly meetup groups. They did not start in 2009.
• 2quik4u

  

  gibby08 wrote: Had this "movement" started before January 20th,2009...I would have ZERO problem with them
  
  
  I never thought I would see the day when Americans would be advocating and armed revolt againist their own government!! That was tried once before in the history of our nation...and you see how well that worked out.
  
  An armed "revolt" would be crushed in about 5 minutes

  I think it lasted a little longer then 5 minutes
• Footwedge

  BoatShoes wrote:
  
  The debt really isn't AT record levels as a percentage of GDP and that's what really counts because GDP is our ability as a nation to pay it off. We could pay off our debt in one year and still have more income left over as a nation than the country 2nd to us in GDP, Japan. Hell China's GDP is only 4.3 Trillion and they have a BILLION people to spread it out amongst.

  How do you pay off 11,5 trillion in one year when the GDP will be less than 13 trillion this year?
  
  Real fuzzy math....
  
  GDP is the aggregate of transactions, not the aggregate of profits....huge, huge, huge, huge difference.
  
  BS...there is no fuggin way. A much better alternative is a 30 cents on the dollar repudiation of the debt.
  
  For those that bought T-bonds...fuck em. They invested in a crappy organization that runs off of a counterfeit printing press.
  
  And China can go suck the big one too...for the same reason.
• gibby08

  

  I'm speaking in modern terms quick...
  
  
  In regards to the "movement" starting in '07..why didn't we here a god damn thing about them until January 21st,2009
  
  And don't give me the "MSM" bullshit. If this was as true a "bipartisan" effort as you claim....they would have tried a helluva lot harder to get coverage before January '09
• 2quik4u

  

  gibby08 wrote: I'm speaking in modern terms quick...
  
  
  In regards to the "movement" starting in '07..why didn't we here a god damn thing about them until January 21st,2009
  
  And don't give me the "MSM" bullshit. If this was as true a "bipartisan" effort as you claim....they would have tried a helluva lot harder to get coverage before January '09

  everyone denied them, Ron Paul wasn't even allowed to be part of the Republican primaries debate on fox
• 2quik4u

  

  BoatShoes wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: ^ All I can say is your view of what we are right now is very optimistic. We keep jacking up our national debt at record levels and levy more taxes on business then we will struggle to even be a shell of our former selves.
  
  And Justice Marshall's view of the Constitution is a good one, hence the reason we have the amendment process. But we haven't followed the Constitution in a LONG time.
  
  edit: was for the post above eers'

  The debt really isn't AT record levels as a percentage of GDP and that's what really counts because GDP is our ability as a nation to pay it off. We could pay off our debt in one year and still have more income left over as a nation than the country 2nd to us in GDP, Japan. Hell China's GDP is only 4.3 Trillion and they have a BILLION people to spread it out amongst.
  
  Most American's live more comfortably than Henry VIII. If we were really serious about it...we could tighten our belts and pay it off very quickly. But hey, that's not what's important...what's important is increasing the wealth of 2% of Americans and getting the masses to do the nasty political work for them by arguing for "smaller government, Freedom, Don't tread on me, darpa darrr, strict constructionisstt...DARbbb DArr, Socialist, hmr Darp."
  
  And, the thing about taxes on businesses being "crushing"; this is a little true in that the U.S. has a very, very low mean tax rate for individuals but a decently high one on businesses. Evil Socialist/Marxist/Anti-Capitalism states like Denmark, Finland and the UK all of mean corporate tax rates below 30% whereas the U.S.'s is more like Germany's around 40%.
  
  But ya know, one way to reduce this burden has been proposed with the tax credit for businesses that hire. AND, the stimulus bill frontloaded depreciation deductions on businesses capital expenditures even more. These can signfiicantly reduce the corporate tax burden....But, alas, both opposed by the Republican party....
  
  (It's important to note that the Tax credit for hiring employees...instead of just offering a tax cut up front will do more to stimulate hiring because the business has to hire to get the cut...instead of getting the cut and waiting til things turn around to start hiring...which can have bad economic facts if everyone does this...which, acting rationally, it's easy to see why they might). If a business wants to lower its tax burden they call a tax planner and she says, "hire somebody because you'll get a double tax benefit for the same dollars because you'll get a tax credit dollar for dollar and a deduction for an ordinary business expense."
  
  Can you believe it? Republicans arguing against a double tax benefit for the same dollars! The ultimate stick em to the feds! Oh, if only a guy with an R next to his name had thought of it!
  
  Back to the different tax burdens of other countries...
  
  The difference is that all of those countries have mean individual tax rates above 30% with Germany's as high as above 50%. The AVERAGE above 50%!
  
  It should also be noted that of those countries, besides the U.S., the most economically powerful is Germany, the world's top exporter with a trade surplus of 165 billion dollars; fourth in the world in GDP.
  
  The country also has the highest individual and corporate tax rates (when you combine the percentages) of any nation in the world....it has the highest average corporate taxes and it's average individual income tax is second only to Belgium.
  
  And all of the other countries I mentioned rank highly in terms of economic freedom as well.
  
  It really is amazing, when we look at the tax burdens of other countries, and people will act like Obama is somehow the doppleganger of some conglomeration of Mao-Engels-Marx-Satan because he wants to raise...get this...
  
  ONE...rate bracket 4.6% percentage points. THE AVERAGE TAX in the Country that builds and exports more crap than us (therefore, people are still going to work and actually putting shit together out of raw material instead of swiping some shit made in Vietnam through a checkout line) is OVER 50%!
  
  * Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Germany recently cut some taxes to stimulate economic activity...which yes, guess what it DOES work; just like increased spending does and it made more sense for Germany to cut taxes rather than increase spending (which might not for us...at least in the individual sphere)...but the mean tax rates are still far greater than our own.
  
  The bottom line is that...the debt is cause for alarm and it's on an unsustainable path...but, it's relatively easy to fix. I mean hell, Paul Ryan proposed away to fix it with out a single damn tax raise!

  If it was so easy to pay off the debt, then why does the government let the interest grow on it every year???????
  
  
  Also how do you pay for the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities???????????????
• BoatShoes

  Footwedge wrote: Boatshoes....you cite the National Debt as a percent of of the GDP during the 40's. Any cause and effect there?. What was going on at that time? A very high percentage of that debt was used to finance the war. When the war ended, the US pretty much quit living off the country credit card.
  
  But your point does serve a great purpose. There is a very heavy cost in financing wars. IMO, we are not at war today. We started one in Iraq...and we responded to a brutal terrorist attack by occupying a shithole for almost 9 years now in another.

  Sure I realize that WWII was the reason why Debt was 120% of GDP...but the point is, even at a time in our history when we had more debt than national income per year, we still managed to pay it down to where gross debt was around 40% of GDP in the 80s. I just mentioned to suggest that the fact that the debt is 80% of GDP now isn't the end of the world.
  
  If things stay the same and the debt goes to 720% of GDP, then we have a problem; and the reality is this is a problem because that's where this is headed. ...but the tax raises to support our welfare state which most of America seems to like, SS and Medicare, we're going to have to raise the taxes like other Welfare States do.
  
  I mean Hell, at least Ron Paul has stated "government shouldn't be in the medical business" and with this statement I'm sure he believes that includes Medicare.
  
  If we Repeal Medicare, sunset it out, there doesn't have to be a tax raise. But a lot of those Tea Partiers, if I had to bet, might start being friendlier toward big daddy uncle sam when they have to pay them premiums necessary for private shareholders to take their inevitable losses arising from the illnesses that come with old age.
• Footwedge

  ^^^boat.....I'm in your corner on a lot of what you've said on this thread. But I'm not in your corner at all regarding righting the sinking economic ship. It ain't happening. It's mathematically impossible. The debt is headed to a nice round number....called infinity.
  
  After WWII, we were the beneficiaries of having a country still in one piece...unlike the European countries. We were the bastion of manufacturing strength, with our exports far exceeding our imports. We did not outsource anything. We Americans rolled up our sleeves and went to work.
  
  The tax brackets were extroardinarily high, and only a token few complained. We had people in government that disdained frivolous spending and racking up debt. We paid it down because the economy was cooking, and Americans for the most part, lived within their means.
  
  All of that has changed. 180 degree changed.
  
  In 40 short years, we have gone from being the biggest creditor nation...to the biggest debtor nation (talking about net export/import here..i.e. balace of trade.)
• Footwedge

  2Quick...I think the unfunded liabiulities is only 55 trillion...not 100 trillion. That should make you sleep a lot better, I know .
  
  I read an article the other day....a guy was saying..."ya know a trillion here and a trillion there....pretty soon we'll be talking about some real money". I LOL'd big time at that one.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes wrote:If things stay the same and the debt goes to 720% of GDP, then we have a problem; and the reality is this is a problem because that's where this is headed. ...but the tax raises to support our welfare state which most of America seems to like, SS and Medicare, we're going to have to raise the taxes like other Welfare States do.
  
  I mean Hell, at least Ron Paul has stated "government shouldn't be in the medical business" and with this statement I'm sure he believes that includes Medicare.
  
  If we Repeal Medicare, sunset it out, there doesn't have to be a tax raise. But a lot of those Tea Partiers, if I had to bet, might start being friendlier toward big daddy uncle sam when they have to pay them premiums necessary for private shareholders to take their inevitable losses arising from the illnesses that come with old age.

  I've said this before and I'll say it again....
  
  I've been paying into MANDATED Social Security and Medicare taxes since I was 15 years old. I didn't create the federal laws that FORCED me to pay into the system, but BY GOD those "benefits" had better be there when I and and millions of others decide to retire 10 years from now or these Tea Parties are going to seem like wussified white-gloved tea & crumpets gatherings.
  
  I loathe the "welfare state" myself and agree that the Feds have no business involving itself in my health care, but SS and Medicare are a bit different
  
  In my mind welfare means FREE government handout's. I paid into SS and Medicare for the past 35 years whether I wanted to or not. The Feds were WRONG in creating these so-called "entitlements" in the first place, but since it's now the law of the land and I have been forced to invest in it, it's hardly "welfare."
  
  Bottom-line: It's MY FRIGGIN MONEY.
  
  See the difference??
• dwccrew

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: Term limits maybe, like the President has. You would have no lifers then at least.

  
  Maybe, but then you just have the rotating door of weak politicians who are pawns of the party. Which is basically all they are now.
  
  Rebellion may be the only true answer.
  
  Like Jefferson said, "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"
  
  How do you ensure government fears it's citizenry?

  I disagree. A rebellion is not the answer. Look at countries that have rebellions every so often, they are in constant turmoil.
  
  I think the best results would occur with term limits. Politicians would be LESS likely to further their agenda. Lifetime politicians have no real need to worry, they can continue to push their agenda and make money off passing legislation in their own best interests.
  
  I feel with term limits, this would be less likely, but lobbyists would also have to be removed from DC to ensure this.
  

  gibby08 wrote: Had this "movement" started before January 20th,2009...I would have ZERO problem with them
  
  
  I never thought I would see the day when Americans would be advocating and armed revolt againist their own government!! That was tried once before in the history of our nation...and you see how well that worked out.
  
  An armed "revolt" would be crushed in about 5 minutes

  I don't advocate an armed revolt against the government, but I don't believe this is our government anymore.
  

  gibby08 wrote: I'm speaking in modern terms quick...
  
  
  In regards to the "movement" starting in '07..why didn't we here a god damn thing about them until January 21st,2009
  
  And don't give me the "MSM" bullshit. If this was as true a "bipartisan" effort as you claim....they would have tried a helluva lot harder to get coverage before January '09

  Because Fox News wasn't reporting on it. This is why those of us that have participated in the Tea Party Movement when it began in 2007 have been stating it has been hijacked by Fox News and its correspondents.
  
  Dr. Paul's message is now hidden amongst the rhetoric that has been thrown into the movement by Glen Beck and those of his ilk.
• bigmanbt

  You say, "you never thought you'd see the day where people want to rebel against their government". Well guess what, that's the most American idea we have. We are the United States because of rebellion and revolution in the name of freedom. A movement in the name of freedom is always a good thing.
  
  And if there was a revolution, it surely would last more than 5 minutes. It's just like the fighting we are doing now in the Middle East, how can you tell the "desenters" from the "cooperators"? And can you imagine the backlash if the federal government ordered troops to fire upon American citizens. That will only further enhance the problem.
• 2quik4u

  

  Footwedge wrote: 2Quick...I think the unfunded liabiulities is only 55 trillion...not 100 trillion. That should make you sleep a lot better, I know .
  
  I read an article the other day....a guy was saying..."ya know a trillion here and a trillion there....pretty soon we'll be talking about some real money". I LOL'd big time at that one.

  well to be exact it is 107 trillion
• gibby08

  

  crew....Then I have no problem with you and your fellow tea-party members that were protesting before January 20th,2009
  
  
  Those of you who didn't start until January 21st,2009....you all make me sick
• Writerbuckeye

  

  LOL at people who have bought into the leftist bullshit that anyone who is in the Tea Party movement is a racist. Even if those folks didn't join until after Obama began down his path to make our country "better" with his proposals.
  
  I just read a piece today where they compared percent of spending of GDP under various presidents since FDR, and Obama is proposing programs that would outspend even old FDR himself (who had WW II to deal with) and has DOUBLED the percent of spending that Bush did. In the meantime, he has made Reagan and every other president look like a bunch of pikers.
  
  So take your racist crap and stuff it. There are very real economic reasons why this movement has grown much stronger BECAUSE of Obama.
• Footwedge

  2quik4u wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: 2Quick...I think the unfunded liabiulities is only 55 trillion...not 100 trillion. That should make you sleep a lot better, I know .
  
  I read an article the other day....a guy was saying..."ya know a trillion here and a trillion there....pretty soon we'll be talking about some real money". I LOL'd big time at that one.

  well to be exact it is 107 trillion

  There is no exact number on unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities cannot be accurately depicted or calculated without knowing what the gross revenues will be.
  
  You can source a link showing 107 trillion, and I can source one that shows 55 trillion. Others can source other figures and still others say that the unfunded liabilities are actually zero.....in that they have not been entered onto the books yet.
• Belly35

  

  Right is right
  
  
  http://www.lloydmarcus.com/?page_id=556
• Belly35

  

  Only racism at the Tea Parties is the left
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
• Belly35

  

  Love this guy right is right and Lloyd Marcus is right
  
  
• eersandbeers

  dwccrew wrote:
  
  I disagree. A rebellion is not the answer. Look at countries that have rebellions every so often, they are in constant turmoil.
  
  I think the best results would occur with term limits. Politicians would be LESS likely to further their agenda. Lifetime politicians have no real need to worry, they can continue to push their agenda and make money off passing legislation in their own best interests.
  
  I feel with term limits, this would be less likely, but lobbyists would also have to be removed from DC to ensure this.

  
  At some point rebellion is the answer. It is the natural tendency for government to continue to grow, and the only way it will shrink is through assertive force of the citizenry.
  
  Jefferson knew this, and history tells us this.
  
  What I find strange is that it is some sort of taboo to speak about rebellion and revolution these days. Even though without revolution and rebellion there would be no United States. An action so important they ensured the right to rebel in the Declaration of Independence.
• 2quik4u

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  2quik4u wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: 2Quick...I think the unfunded liabiulities is only 55 trillion...not 100 trillion. That should make you sleep a lot better, I know .
  
  I read an article the other day....a guy was saying..."ya know a trillion here and a trillion there....pretty soon we'll be talking about some real money". I LOL'd big time at that one.

  well to be exact it is 107 trillion

  There is no exact number on unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities cannot be accurately depicted or calculated without knowing what the gross revenues will be.
  
  You can source a link showing 107 trillion, and I can source one that shows 55 trillion. Others can source other figures and still others say that the unfunded liabilities are actually zero.....in that they have not been entered onto the books yet.

  http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
• believer

  

  gibby08 wrote: crew....Then I have no problem with you and your fellow tea-party members that were protesting before January 20th,2009
  
  Those of you who didn't start until January 21st,2009....you all make me sick

  Classic ploy straight out of the Leftist Playbook Chapter 1: When all else fails, play the race card.
  
  LMAO
• BoatShoes

  Gibby 08 is killing me. All this arguing I do on here to get these entrenched right ringers to even just, for one second, re-evaluate their deeply held conservative positions and this guy undermines it all. Jeez.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye wrote: LOL at people who have bought into the leftist bullshit that anyone who is in the Tea Party movement is a racist. Even if those folks didn't join until after Obama began down his path to make our country "better" with his proposals.
  
  I just read a piece today where they compared percent of spending of GDP under various presidents since FDR, and Obama is proposing programs that would outspend even old FDR himself (who had WW II to deal with) and has DOUBLED the percent of spending that Bush did. In the meantime, he has made Reagan and every other president look like a bunch of pikers.
  
  So take your racist crap and stuff it. There are very real economic reasons why this movement has grown much stronger BECAUSE of Obama.

  I don't think racism has anything to do with the original teabaggers either. Were there some racists? Probably. But the message was about debts and taxes...
• Belly35

  

  Black Man Speak to You Without a Teleprompter
  
  Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/12/tea-party-speaker-i-thought-you-would-want-hear-black-man-speak-you-w#ixzz0fvku7SE6
  
  
  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/12/tea-party-speaker-i-thought-you-would-want-hear-black-man-speak-you-w