moonbattery.gif


« Obama Demands Christian Symbol Be Covered | Main | New Developments at DHS »


April 17, 2009

Liberal Bureaucrat Calls Tea Parties Shameful and Despicable

Did the massive turnout for the Tea Parties Wednesday make you all the more proud of America, a country that is obviously not going down without a fight? Probably not, if you're a liberal Congresscreep like Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). She released the following official statement:

The "tea parties" being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs. It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt. Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.

That about covers the brazenly mendacious left-wing talking points regarding the Tea Parties.

Speaking of "despicable" and "shameful," Teh Resistance Blog points out that Schakowsky has voted to fund gender studies programs and ACORN types with earmarks — i.e., pork money stolen from you and your children. Her husband steals on a smaller scale, having been imprisoned for a check-kiting scheme.

The Founding Fathers devised an ingenious system designed to stave off the verminous Jan Schakowskys of the world. But ultimately, it's up to each generation to keep liberty alive for the next. Schakowsky wouldn't be hissing like a cat with its tail on fire if she didn't suspect we're up to the task.

jan-schakowsky.jpg
Doing to the word "intelligence" what they did to the word "liberal."

On a tip from Rob Banks.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 17, 2009 9:59 AM

Comments

I wonder if she realizes her canned response is the type of thing these 'public' assemblies are fed up with.

Posted by: IOpian at April 17, 2009 10:16 AM

She is on the House INTELLIGENCE Committe? God, we are screwed!!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2009 10:17 AM

Yes, the parties were despicable. Police were attacked, fires started, riot police called out, numbers of protesters were inflated by the media to make the 'movement' look much more than it was.

Wait, those happened when liberals bussed in thugs for their 'spontaneous' demonstrations during previous administrations. I doubt the Lib from IL even saw any of the parties, she just read her script, said script was likely written a week ago.

Posted by: Viking04 at April 17, 2009 10:34 AM

If she thought this was despicable, wait for the next event when there are even more people gathering and marching.

I encourage her to continue to antagonize the People. All we will do employ more of our natural rights and power.

Clint Eastwood said it best, “MAKE MY DAY!”

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Franklin's Locke at April 17, 2009 11:11 AM

Someone once said some wise words:

"The best way to make an enemy of a man is by telling him he doesn't count."

Posted by: Karin at April 17, 2009 11:15 AM

Wow, Ms. Skankowsky is one fugly woman.

Posted by: baslimthecripple at April 17, 2009 11:15 AM

We need to throw these bums out of house. 2010 and 2012 it might be the last chance to save this country

Posted by: Bob at April 17, 2009 11:18 AM

My Jan, you're slipping. You need to "bone up" on your democrat talking points. You forgot to say "racist" in your tirade. How's hubby btw? You bring him fried chicken on Sundays when you visit?

Posted by: Rick at April 17, 2009 11:23 AM

I'm not saying this will happen, but what if in the end the economic analysis says Obama's plan had a significant impact and saved the economy from going into a major recession, and actually made it easier for us to pay off our debts due to a better economy than we'd have without the stimulus.

Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?

Posted by: Brandon at April 17, 2009 11:27 AM

Something that stood out to me in the many reports, blogs, comments that have echoed something my daughter said. "IT WAS FUN! (The people were so nice, I've never seen so many American flags except on the 4th of July, etc.")

Reminds me of a scene in an old 60s/70s movie. The characters had been to a war protest, complete with clashes with police. They were excited, undressing and discussing how thrilling it had been.

Maybe conservatives will find (not that throwing things, breaking & burning things, running from the cops, etc. turns them on but) that they like getting together in large groups of average Americans. The guy on RedEye said it was like a picnic without the potato salad.

If it's fun, it will continue and grow. The people in charge will get better. (They already had sign in sheets to il addresses to keep in touch and other "community organizer" type efforts.)

Liberals have been "enjoying" protests for decades, and their protests have been effective.

I think it could work for the right, possibly even better. Time will tell.

Posted by: bertie at April 17, 2009 11:28 AM

"I'm not saying this will happen, but what if in the end the economic analysis says Obama's plan had a significant impact and saved the economy from going into a major recession, and actually made it easier for us to pay off our debts due to a better economy than we'd have without the stimulus."

If that could actually be proven, sure. I suspect that the best justification we'll be hearing for this stimulus will be some variation of, "Sure, things suck now, but imagine if we DIDN'T do it!" followed by a screening of The Road Warrior.

"Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?"

Yes, it would change my mind. But it would also make me wonder why this same kind of thing has been a total DISASTER for every other country and government that tried it, and not for Obama and friends.

Posted by: dimes at April 17, 2009 11:36 AM

Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?

Is that a serious question? No joke, I would register as a Democrat immediately. Disagreeing with reality is not the sign of a serious person. I am proud of you, however, for admitting that what you just proposed is "crazy."

No serious person believes we can atronomically increase our spending and printing of money, triple our debt, and cut taxes for "95% of the population" and do anything other than send us into a viscious tailspin.

Posted by: cowlove at April 17, 2009 11:39 AM

The one phrase missing from the left's respond is 'cut government spending'. She talks about taxes, the President talked about taxes. This movement might do well to angle the rhetoric more towards spending which is the real problem and higher taxes are the result.

Also, notice she qualifies the statement about no higher taxes this year...this year. The T-Day people can see farther into the future than she can.

Posted by: IOpian at April 17, 2009 11:56 AM

Maybe she should see the stats I am accumulating:

SO far I have found about a number of 540,000 who attended tea parties. Iwonder how many are in her district?
http://anti-contrarian.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-many-people-attended-tea-parties.html

Posted by: TJ at April 17, 2009 12:32 PM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EPA_CLIMATE?SITE=AP

^--just great

Posted by: furballz at April 17, 2009 12:38 PM

"She is on the House INTELLIGENCE Committe? God, we are screwed!!"

House Intelligence Committee. Do we have a Truth in Labeling" issue here? (My fingers wanted to type "Truth in Libeling")

Or is it "Truth in Advertising"?

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at April 17, 2009 12:39 PM

Are liberals ever capable of forming a genuinely original thought, as opposed to merely parroting the made-up canned responses they read on Moveon, Kos, and HuffPo?

Posted by: J at April 17, 2009 12:39 PM

Can you imagine going behind closed doors and trying to explain some fine point of intelligence from a foreign source to this stupid wench. It is amazing that more of our operatives don't consider suicide a viable option (what the hell--our country has!)

Posted by: SnowSnake at April 17, 2009 12:59 PM

Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year.

Tobacco taxes have been raised.

I guess smokers aren't people and gas stations, convenience stores, and smoke shops aren't businesses

Posted by: WRPAC at April 17, 2009 1:21 PM

I'm not saying this will happen, but what if in the end the economic analysis says Obama's plan had a significant impact and saved the economy from going into a major recession, and actually made it easier for us to pay off our debts due to a better economy than we'd have without the stimulus.

Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?

A fair question, and reasonably put, for which you are to be commended.

Speaking personally, yes, it would absolutely change my mind. Thirty-five years ago, showing up for grad school in Berkeley an ardent lefty, I saw a city that had actually implemented leftist ideas, realized how bad they were in practice, and within a few months became the lovable right-wing curmudgeon you see today. So my mind could be changed by evidence then, and I think could still be today.

The problem here is that we have no control experiment, no way to know what would have happened if Obama had implemented his plan. We’ll have one point, through which we can draw any line we like. On average we have recessions every seven years, and on average they last just under a year. This one was overdue, and has already lasted a bit longer than the average. So, based on history, the likelihood is that if Obama had done nothing whatever, the economy would be better next year anyway. Obama’s plan is kind of like taking a cold remedy that promises your cold will be gone within a week.

But let me turn the point around: if the economy doesn’t improve markedly in the next year, which on historical running it should, then that probably can be attributed to Obama, because it will be a historical anomaly. If that happens, would that change your mind in any way?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year.

Would this be a bad time to point out that this year’s tax rates are already set? What she said is true, but invites a misleading conclusion: that Democrats have foreborne raising this year’s taxes. Tax rates aren’t set retrospectively, so the present Congress cannot increase, decrease, or do anything else to taxes for this year. The operative phrase in her mendacious statement is “this year.” Next year – look out.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 1:48 PM

She is on the House INTELLIGENCE Committee?

I actually find this heartening. It shows someone in Congress has a sense of humor.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 1:53 PM

Well put, Jay.

That's the subtle beauty of a lot of these Leftist / Socialist schemes: They are win / win with the right spin.

If the ecomomy improves later in the year (right on schedule), they take all the credit. Granted, all the extra spending will slow things down, but - they have the control and the money, and they'll just say, "see, it's working, but it'll take time.....re-elect us in 2010 and let us finish the job".

If things DON'T improve, they say, "See, we told you so, things were worse than we thought after eight years of BusHitler and Shotgun Dick, and our extreme fabulous Porkulous Spending Extravaganza didn't go far enogh......re-elect us in 2010 and let us finish the job".


The same is true of the Global Climate Change scam - if we implement all kinds of bizzare "cap-and-trade" systems (religious indulgence would be a better description)and declare exhaled carbon dioxide plant food and cow flatulence to be a pollutant, they'll take credit for "saving the planet" when the "Planetary Crisis" that never existed in the first place is declared under control by the media.

OR - they have the media keep reporting that there's still a crisis, and they grab MORE power.

The Loopy, Loony, Lemming-Like Leftist Losers may be stupid, but they aren't crazy....er, wait - they may be crazy but they're not stupid...er, ok, I give up - you know what I mean.....

Posted by: TonyD95B at April 17, 2009 2:10 PM

Where the hell were you when are liberties were being taken away?

You didn't seem to mind when liberals were being attacked. But now you want to whine?

FU!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2009 2:26 PM

You didn't seem to mind when liberals were being attacked.

When were liberals being attacked?

Cite a specific sourced example.

Posted by: J at April 17, 2009 2:33 PM

Once again, liberal drivel.
So a projected $10 trillion debt and right now, almost every state kicking up every possible old tax, fomenting new taxes and even taxing the tax process somehow suggests to this liberal dumwad that objection is despicable?

Here's what's funny: The worm actually pens a statement overtly demonstrating that the truly stupid inevitably think that everyone else is stupid.

Posted by: Fiberal at April 17, 2009 2:42 PM

As we digest the ridicule, scorn, and contempt that's been heaved on us because of these tea parties, let's remember the immortal words of Gandhi:

"First they ignore us,
Then they ridicule us,
Then they fight us,
Then we win."

*****

Posted by: mega at April 17, 2009 2:47 PM

Try reading Coulter's book "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism".

Or how about the following:
“I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress.” - Sean Hannity

“We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.” - Ann Coulter

“Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it…No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?” - Glenn Beck

Hillary Clinton’s “campaign will be one long hate crime against white people.” - Michael Savage

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” - Rush Limbaugh

Now, it's your turn. And you made all those nice laws giving the President more power than he should have. Oh, and the wire tapping - yeah, thanks for that because now we can keep an eye on YOU! It's a good thing you didn't get rid of the filibuster because that's all you got left.

LOSERS!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2009 2:51 PM

You didn't seem to mind when liberals were being attacked.

I wouldn't mind, but I ain't seen it yet.

That gives me an idea for another event - The Annual Liberal Slap. Participants will mount Segways, and ride through San Francisco to see who can slap the most liberals in passing. The winner will be awarded a free subscription to The New York Times, a birdcage, and a canary.

Posted by: Rob Banks at April 17, 2009 2:59 PM

Does she have Chairman O "tea bag" her?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2009 3:02 PM

Nony Mouse...

Ok, here goes.

Treason is a great book. Love it.

The penalty for treason can include death. Lindh is a traitor. Other liberals would think twice about committing treason if Lindh is put in rightful place, which is in front of a firing squad. I don't see anything wrong with Ann's statement.

Pretty good description of Hillary's campaign, as she vainly courted the black vote.

The Hannity, Beck, & Limbaugh quotes look a little dicey to me. Please cite date, source info... Links would be nice. Or I could try it your way.

"I'm going to, uh, tax the shit out of you. And sell your children into slavery in China. Unless your on welfare. Then you're getting a free Rolex. Whoopeee!!" - Barack Obama

See how easy that was? I can just type in any old damn thing I want.

I seem to remember that the votes from Democrats weren't exactly against the kind of laws you're jabbering about. Seems to my memory that these were largely bipartisan efforts, unlike the shitstorm of money flying out of Congress right now. You own that one all by yer lonesome, lefties.

In the interest of response, here's a real quote:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255
Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith
Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in
Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth
Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Posted by: hiram at April 17, 2009 3:20 PM

Anonypussy is just another liberal hypocrite that is very scared. Liberals are vermin!! keep on liberal scum and you will make us against them. I pray for that day!

Posted by: Watching at April 17, 2009 3:27 PM

"I'm going to, uh, tax the shit out of you. And sell your children into slavery in China. Unless your on welfare. Then you're getting a free Rolex. Whoopeee!!" - Barack Obama

Thank you for that

Posted by: WRPAC at April 17, 2009 3:31 PM

"I'm going to, uh, tax the shit out of you. And sell your children into slavery in China. Unless your on welfare. Then you're getting a free Rolex. Whoopeee!!" - Barack Obama

I laughed, I cried, I said "WELL DONE!"

Posted by: Merrihands at April 17, 2009 3:39 PM

You didn't seem to mind when liberals were being attacked.

Liberals were being attacked and I missed out on it? Damn!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 3:43 PM

Brandon,
In response to your post,"I'm not saying this will happen, but what if in the end the economic analysis says Obama's plan had a significant impact and saved the economy from going into a major recession, and actually made it easier for us to pay off our debts due to a better economy than we'd have without the stimulus.

Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?"

I have no doubt the economy will recover and I have no doubt that the media will anoint His "O"lliness as it's savior. That has been the plan since the media started talking the economy down before the election and is why they have been talking it up since the generational theft bill passed. It's pretty obvious to thinking people that FDR did more long lasting damage to the US than the empire of Japan did, but just look at who wrote the history of the "New Deal" and shaped the public's perception.

So, no, economic recovery will never, ever, change my mind about socialism. Too high a price was paid for our liberty to sell it so cheaply.

Regards,

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 4:27 PM

cuck that funt

Posted by: man of few words at April 17, 2009 4:30 PM

hiram, well-played sir.

Posted by: cowlove at April 17, 2009 5:20 PM

"The "tea parties" being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel"

True.

"are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs"

True

"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt"

False. That's their God given right in America.

"Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year"

Ultimately false. Possibly (but doubtful) true for this year but the above average wage earners should expect an increase during the Obama term.

"Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians"

No doubt.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 17, 2009 5:53 PM

Andy,
Please explain to the crowd how 95% of Americans get a tax cut with only about 50% actually pay income taxes? Also, explain how a change in witholding (which has to be paid back next year) is a tax cut at all?

What is misleading, sir, is to re-define the actions of others to suite your preconceived notions. The protest wasn't just about taxes, spending and increasing debt were spotlighted more by the participants than taxes, even though their opponents do not admit it.

This person was elected to represent a district, not just he people in that district who voted for her. Her condescending and hateful rhetoric aimed at so many Americans makes her unfit to hold any elected office IMHO

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 6:04 PM

Posted by: TED at April 17, 2009 6:07 PM

I saw a tax decrease in my paycheck. So either you sheeple are working or you aren't paying attention.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2009 6:10 PM

I saw a tax decrease in my paycheck. So either you sheeple are working or you aren't paying attention.

No, you didn't. Tax rates do not change within a year. What you say, if anything, was probably a maxing out of your Social Security contribution. That's capped, and sometime around this time of year most people have paid it off.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 6:14 PM

So, the inevitable has happened, and the Republicans can't handle it. Teabagging, and bringing out the worst of out of our country's past to the forefront of hot topics. So, what is it like to being on the losing side?Acting like babies after the first 90 days is doing nothing but make you look like Norm Coleman, er! Sore losers. Again, spend your time coming up with a plan, or shut up. You have nothing more than racist comments and tired rhetoric since you don't like the black President. What do you have, Storm Front? A budget with no numbers? McCarthy-esque investigations? Defending failure? A movement of Hanity's 300,000? BTW, that is not a movement, the left achieved that 4X's worth in one city in one day. Being w/o a plan is not a reason to go back to the human muppet Newt, that's called living in the past. Keep in mind the Democratic/liberal voters in 2000 went back to their lives after the election, many didn't resurface until well after 9/11. You guys have been out of power for 90 days, pace your rage!

Posted by: Felix the Cat at April 17, 2009 6:16 PM

True.

Nuh-uh!

True.

Double nuh-uh!

False. That's their God given right in America.

Well done.

Ultimately false. Possibly (but doubtful) true for this year but the above average wage earners should expect an increase during the Obama term.

As others have pointed, tax rates are not applied retroactively, so saying that we won't see increases this year is a tautological statement, and thus, entirely true. Those Democrats are sneaky aren't they. ;)

I'm sorry to be the first to tell you, though, that income taxes are not the only taxes we pay as citizens. If you think we're not going to be paying for all this money and debt we're throwing around on the order of trillions through massive tax increases, you're willfully and woefully ignorant.

No doubt.

Yes, we know the tinfoil hat brigade has trouble comprehending a true grass roots effort, but that's not really our problem, is it?

Posted by: cowlove at April 17, 2009 6:19 PM

Anon,
What you saw was a retroactive change in the withholding rate, not the tax rate. Your taxes you owe remain un changed, you will simply have to pay more (or get a smaller refund) next April.

Sorry, reality can be a baaaaad trip.

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 6:20 PM

Andy, the correct answers are:

1. False.

2. False. The Obama plan calls for tax cuts and job creation, but whether it can do so is another question. Spending like a drunken sailor and cutting taxes for 95% of the population are incompatible with each other, yes?

3. Agreed.

4. Disagree. Tax rates for 2009 are already fixed. Nothing can/will happen for this year. To claim credit for not raising taxes this year is like taking credit for making the sun rise in the east tomorrow morning. Already a done deal.

5. Nonsense, and/or misleading. Republicans are trying to get in front of the parade, as is Fox News. But people who work hard, and live within their means, are pissed about the inevitably higher taxes they see coming to support layabouts and the imprudent.

It makes liberals/socialists/leftists/ whatevers feel good to think that "corporate interests," Republican party apparatchiks, and Fox News are behind all this, but it's not true. I attended a tea party, and the Republicans got a lot of flak too. Our entire political class needs a good beating. Democrats need two beatings.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 6:24 PM

Posted by: Felix the Cat at April 17, 2009 6:16 PM

And this, friends, is your brain on drugs.

I'll attempt to translate it for you, at great personal risk to my IQ.

"You guys totally lost the election. I hate hearing what you have to say, almost as much as I hate gay people. That reminds me, you're total queers teabagging each other. Sick queers. For real, Republicans lost the election. 4 whole percentage points! Boy, you all sure lost. RACISTS! Stop doing things that I disagree with AAARRRRGGGGH IT MAKES ME SO ANGRY! Ha you totally lost the election. The Tea Parties were so organized by Fox News! The Tea Parties were so UNORGANIZED geez I once saw a group of people I agree with and it was like over 4 billion people, at once, and I agreed with them, yeah. The election? You lost it, sure did. We lost and we were cool, even when we were busy being total asshats, so stop making trouble. You guys lost the election! Seriously, stop with the protests and stuff, pretty please, I'm totally begging you."

Posted by: cowlove at April 17, 2009 6:31 PM

Felex (Dzerzhinsky perhaps?),
You obviously didn't notice that W's outlandish spending was also attacked during these protests. The plan is to make our elected officials understand that we do not want the country foreced into more debt to pay off politiicans fat cat donors on Wall Street and in Detroit.

Pleae give references to racist comments you have read on this forum, ever. Maybe the Republicans should do budgets with made up numbers the way the Democrats do. Maybe we should have McArthy esque investigations of the governor of Alaska's family, or steroids in baseball, this is the calbier of highly important investigations the Democrats and their media lackeys do.

Defending failure? Yes, you are. You don't need three months to know that socialism is a failure, you just need to examine the history of the last century (so who exactly, is living in the past?)

The liberals went back to their lives???? Try a simple experiment. Do a google search for the words "Bush + Hate" for any one month period since 2,000, then substitute the name of any other public figure and compare the number of hits.

We guys have far more power than you think, we also have the right to exercise it.

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 6:33 PM

Hillary Says...


More leftist hypocricy!?

Posted by: TED at April 17, 2009 6:33 PM

Jay, JustAl, et,at., allow me to go through this again.


"The "tea parties" being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel"

True. I heard "false" but no explanation. To deny that Sean Hannity and Glen Beck as well as much of FOX anchorage didn't promote this is absolute denial. Seriously. I can provide countless links. This is a given. Granted, CNN has overstepped many times but to say that FOX didn't this time defies rational thinking. Accordingly, true.


"are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs"

The exact figure is yet to be seen. The tax credit of about $400-$800 being repaid next year is still unclear. The tax savings opportunities in the stimulus run deep and if applied, could result in savings for many Americans. I'll concede and give this a "false". Regardless, it's a tax benefit and NOT a tax increase by any stretch. By the way, where the hell were you guys in the "spend like drunken sailors" of the Bush years? Seriously.

"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt"

False. That's their God given right in America.--- I think we're in agreement here.

"Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year"

Ultimately false. Possibly (but doubtful) true for this year but the above average wage earners should expect an increase during the Obama term.
--As said, doubtful. In other words, I cant foresee it this year but it will come.

"Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians"

No doubt. You guys are grasping. Poorly too.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 17, 2009 7:16 PM

" By the way, where the hell were you guys in the "spend like drunken sailors" of the Bush years? Seriously."

I was pointing out to everyone I knew and many on the internet that despite the media's labeling of W as a conservative that he was nothing of the sort and no better than liberals like Ted Kennedy he sucked up to. That is where I was (and am). Where were you? Despite his spending, Bush actually did give a tax cut to 100% of Americans who paid taxes, did you support him for that? Or did you point out that his excessive spending was wrong (and so now must agree that Obama's even more excessive spending is even more wrong)??

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 7:28 PM

Teabagging, and bringing out the worst of out of our country's past to the forefront of hot topics.

The worst of our country’s past? WTF are you talking about? This country was founded on resistance to taxation. As for your “teabagging” reference, I defer to a liberal’s obviously greater knowledge of homosexual practices. I had to Google the term the first time I encountered it.

You have nothing more than racist comments and tired rhetoric since you don't like the black President.

Again, I defer to your greater knowledge of the topic of tired rhetoric. What racist comments are you talking about, specifically? We don’t like the President’s policies, and the President is black, but that’s not why we don’t like his policies. We don’t like his policies because he’s left-handed.

What do you have, Storm Front? A budget with no numbers? McCarthy-esque investigations? Defending failure? A movement of Hanity's 300,000?

What the hell are you talking about? Dial back your hate. We disagree with you. That’s all.

Keep in mind the Democratic/liberal voters in 2000 went back to their lives after the election

Good point. They didn’t spend eight years squawking about the illegitimacy of the President’s election, or blaming him for every ill (real or imagined) on earth, accusing him of enriching his cronies, publicly comparing American troops to Nazis, comparing Bush unfavorably with Hitler, and publicly hoping for Bush’s assassination. No sir. They just sucked it up like good Americans, fully aware that while they may not have agreed with George Bush, they knew he was doing what he thought was best for America. We salute Democrats’ patriotism, and only hope to live up to it.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 7:34 PM

Ok, Al, touche. What I saw from the majority of reports was a bunch of white people ripping apart our President, who has been in a far greater amount of criticism in much less time than Bush was. Some the signs were offensive, if not downright racist. As far as this site and racial comments, do the archiving, I don't have the time to go over posts from the last 60 days. Up until 9/11, I will w/o argument say, most liberals held a chip on their shoulders, but we dealt with it at least for 80% of the time. After that horrific day, we were skeptical, after that the gloves were off. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake, and costed the country billions, and for what? For Al, good on you, I am proud of American citizens for getting up and going out to vent their disgust in mass, but 300,000 is not mass. In addition, for the behavior of many (I mean many of your ilk) to have attacked liberals and progressives for the last 8 years the way did is horrifying. As someone who has done work with wounded Vets and and homelessness over the last few years, it was offensive. We were called Un-American, Un-Patriotic, treasonous and traitors. This is the difference now, I am doubting your disgust because the Republican Party has no voice right now. President Obama is doing some things now that I am quite uncomfortable with, for instance the wiretaps, but in most of your eyes..."if I am doing nothing wrong..." Give me a break. I have said it before, and I will say it again, many at this site are well educated and well informed, others simply have a problem with the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. Where were you over the last 8 years?

Posted by: Felix the Cat at April 17, 2009 7:39 PM

JustAl, Bush actually DID NOT give a tax break to 100% of Americans who paid taxes. That's a proven fact. The very few that were omitted did happen to fall in the bottom of wage earners. Additionally, while these tax cuts were doled out, $million dollar earners got a tax break of about 50K while the average 50K earner got a break of about $20 bucks. That isn't a break, it's an insult.

It's funny to hear you guys go on about how you chastised the Bush and Republicans for their sinful ways that ousted them from power. I've read blogs like this for years and I challenge you or anyone here to point me to a Moonbattery archive that supports that. It didn't happen. He was the "man", the "real thing" and the rest of us were "moonbats". You guys lost. Get the hell over it. Grow the f_ up.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 17, 2009 7:45 PM

True. I heard "false" but no explanation. To deny that Sean Hannity and Glen Beck as well as much of FOX anchorage didn't promote this is absolute denial. Seriously. I can provide countless links. This is a given. Granted, CNN has overstepped many times but to say that FOX didn't this time defies rational thinking. Accordingly, true.

Nonsense. Promoting it and causing it are two different things. You’re inviting us to conclude that Fox generated the movement out of whole cloth. That’s simply not true. The movement taps into the anger that grownups feel toward having to work their asses off to pay layabouts to ...well...layabout. The trigger was Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC. It has nothing to do with Fox. I haven’t watched television in a month (which is why I’m canceling my cable), have no idea what Fox did or did not do, and I attended a tea party, and would do so again tomorrow, given the chance.

Think about it. The people attending tea parties aren’t college students, welfare recipients, or other parasites. They’re grownups. They have jobs, families, mortgages – responsibilities. And they took time out of their busy lives to protest, most of them for the first time in their lives. What could a news channel possibly do or say to motivate such people to drop everything? I wouldn’t have attended a tea party (and barely could manage to do so, given my own schedule) unless I was concerned that the government is adopting financial policies that would horrify me to adopt for my family – namely, living far beyond our means. Does that make sense? Can you understand that?

Regardless, it's a tax benefit and NOT a tax increase by any stretch.

So you get taxed $1000 and “repaid” $400-800. Woohoo! Where does the $400-800 come from? Not a tax increase...yet. Here’s a poser: if we were running a deficit before, and now the government is going to quadruple it – as they are – where is the money going to come from? How can that possibly not result in a tax increase?

By the way, where the hell were you guys in the "spend like drunken sailors" of the Bush years? Seriously.

Actually, we were bitching about that too. For my part, I give Bush some slack – but not a lot – for running up a deficit in a war. I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas, not in an absolute sense, but in the sense of being better than the alternatives (i.e., doing nothing, and waiting to get attacked again). But quadrupling the deficit in a year, when it’s not absolutely unavoidable (as in a war) – that’s where you lose me.

Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians

Made to look by...whom? It is a grassroots uprising, and that’s clearly what terrifies leftists. It wasn’t generated by corporate interests, or Republicans. They’re trying desperately to get in front of it, and harness it to their own ends. Here in California, Schwarzenegger received massive criticism for caving to Dem spending proposals (I sympathize with him, actually; our legislature is heavily Democratic, and spends money like crazy). Think about this: suppose it isn’t an orchestrated campaign, as leftist ones apparently are, since leftists presume all campaigns are such. What are the implications? What if the movement really is grassroots?

If you’re under 50, as I suspect you are, bear in mind who’s going to be paying for all this: you. You will be working the rest of your life to pay this off. I protested because I don’t want my kids – or you – saddled with massive debt for all their working lives.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 8:05 PM

Talk about a dried up old skank

Posted by: Ramonna at April 17, 2009 8:10 PM

No doubt. You guys are grasping. Poorly too.

Yeah, totally floundering. It's nearly as sad as you, reduced to wandering around on right-wing websites, trying to tell protestors that their highly successful Tea Parties were ultimately failures. Your reasons?

1. Obama is cutting taxes by allowing us to keep an extra 8 whole dollars a week of our money, which does not result in a net decrease in our tax liability next year. This is not an insult, but Bush tax cuts that allowed us to keep a mere $20 were an insult.

2. The stimulus will save us all money on our taxes. You can't get into that too deeply, because you don't really know what you're talking about, but we should just shut up and listen.

3. Obama is awesome because he said he won't increase taxes this year. You believe him. I'm sure it's similar to the way you believe that jumping off of a 50 story building will result in death.

4. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and you don't care if we complained about it or not. Incidentally, Obama spending like a drunken sailor is what we need right now.

5. Fox news gave these Tea Parties press. Those dirty rats.

It's funny to hear you guys go on about how you chastised the Bush and Republicans for their sinful ways that ousted them from power. I've read blogs like this for years and I challenge you or anyone here to point me to a Moonbattery archive that supports that.

I'll meet that challenge. Here are the terms that I just made up: winner gets to refer to the loser as 'pinhead loser.' Sorry for your loss, pinhead loser.

You guys lost. Get the hell over it. Grow the f_ up.

Yeah yeah, believe me I get it. You've been lurking around right-wing sites for years, and only just now are you so inclined to enlighten us with your elegant wisdom outlined above. Of course it has nothing to do with the primal fear you're feeling when faced with the wildly successful Tea Party movement.

Whatever, pinhead loser.

Posted by: cowlove at April 17, 2009 8:12 PM

What I saw from the majority of reports was a bunch of white people ripping apart our President, who has been in a far greater amount of criticism in much less time than Bush was.

Whoa, not sure where to start. The tea party I attended had several thousand people of all ages and ethnicities, but never mind that. What have you got against white people? You’re obviously grossly racist.

And to say Obama received more criticism than Bush is laughable. The only President to receive more vitriolic criticism than Bush was Lincoln. How many times was he compared with Hitler, or a chimpanzee? Anyone who says perhaps Obama is not perfect in every respect is considered a scurrilous racist (per your earlier accusation of racism).

Some the signs were offensive, if not downright racist.

Such as? Put up or shut up. Or do you think any criticism of the President is racist?

(I mean many of your ilk) to have attacked liberals and progressives for the last 8 years the way did is horrifying.

Don’t be such a pussy. Leftists happily impute the worst motives imaginable to Americans, accuse us of all sorts of malfeasance, and call us Nazis and racists on a daily basis, without justification, simply because we disagree with them. We live with it. Man up.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 17, 2009 8:16 PM

Andy,
I did not participate here during the Bush years (I only found this site recently), and have no way to trace my comments on Bush at the Guardian's website.

So, since you thought Bush's spending was wrong you also thing Obma's is even more wrong since he is spending more, right?

Felix,
There is certainly a lot of offensiveness around. When many (I mean many of your ilk) accuse our troops of unspeakable and unproven crimes was horrifying. As someone who's son and nephews combined served five tours in Iraq it was offensive. And yes, I agree, many have a problem with the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, and yes, I am one of them.

Posted by: JustAl at April 17, 2009 8:18 PM

The HOUSE INTELLEGENCE COMMITY? what a joke theres absolutly no intellegence in those liberal doofuses

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 17, 2009 8:19 PM

a bunch of white people

What do you mean white people?

We're Caucasian, you bigoted fool.

Stop the hate!

Posted by: SK at April 17, 2009 8:33 PM

This thread is a rather pristine microcosm of how conservative-oriented Americans, who basically want to be free and just left the F alone, get sucked into endless self-recursive, ad hominem, Mobius strip arguments with the Left about who's racist and whether what we're doing to Obama has something to do with Bush, and if we're haters or why we're actually not, or whatever.

Sadly, we have not yet figured out how to deal with the collectivist, statist onslaught.

Posted by: mega at April 17, 2009 9:07 PM

"...this year" The socialist c*nt said "no increased taxes for 95% of the people "...this year" What happens next year, socialist c*nt? And the dozens of years down the road from that?

The 5% that the Socialists DO tax THIS year pay the wages of the 95% who will be taxed higher NEXT year - 30% of which will not be working because the top 5% will no longer be able to afford them!

Liberals are such dumbasses. I can't believe they remember to breath.

Oh, and FYI - FOX news doesn't pay me a penny or recruit me in any way. Can ACORN say that about YOU and Obama, you socialist c*nt?

Posted by: Jimbo at April 17, 2009 10:28 PM

I accept this site why because I learn more information from this site

Posted by: Correspondence courses at April 17, 2009 11:07 PM

Implying that anti-tax and spend protesters are Stormfront members because the President is black, is a solid example of what a leftist considers post-racial bipartisanship. Good work Felix.

Posted by: mandible claw at April 17, 2009 11:34 PM

Of course all critisisms of the President are racist. And we're all idiots who should just shut up.

Remember, don't defend the indefensable. Just attack the attackers.

Posted by: dimes at April 18, 2009 1:11 AM

Follow the money. The people would who really gain from tax cuts are the often the ones ginning up the hostility, (example- Rupert Murdock) or propagandizing from thinktanks. The more wealth, the more they are threatened. Those congressmen who seek to cut taxes on wealthy, usually gain much themselves also. Bush himself made out quite well with his tax cuts as did Cheney. Of course the trick of getting the little people on the side of the rich and powerful, even though they are not your friend, is as old as the human race. It is time to talk about earning wealth vs extracting wealth. There are people who earn ... there are people who are opportunists, parasites. Two completely different types of human beings. Jesus, who was great MAN... had plenty to say about it...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 18, 2009 4:06 AM

"I'm not saying this will happen, but what if in the end the economic analysis says Obama's plan had a significant impact and saved the economy from going into a major recession, and actually made it easier for us to pay off our debts due to a better economy than we'd have without the stimulus.

Sure, it might be a crazy idea, but if it does work would it change your mind in any way?"
If, hypothetically, it was regarded by future analysts as having done a lot of good, then yes, I will admit Obama made the right call on that. However, from the way things are going now, that scenario looks VERY unlikely.


"What I saw from the majority of reports was a bunch of white people ripping apart our President,"
Funny, at the Orlando tea party I went to, I saw a nice mixture of different races and ethnic groups.

" who has been in a far greater amount of criticism in much less time than Bush was."
COUGHCOUGHbulls^^tCOUGH.
Even if you are just referring to the time between Bush's election and 9/11, the left was still criticizing him then way more than we have criticized Obama ("ELECTION FRAUD!").

"Some the signs were offensive, if not downright racist."
Again, that's funny. None of the signs I saw at the rally I attended were even remotely racist in nature, and I've yet to see a picture from any other tea party showing a racist sign. btw, even if there were (And, again, I have not seen even one, and I've seen footage from dozens of the rallies), an important consideration to make is that ACORN, Huffington Post, and other liberal groups had hired "Citizen journalists" and other moles to infiltrate the tea parties and try to either disrupt them or make them look bad (i.e. by carrying a racist sign and pretending to be a regular tea party member). Their efforts, of course, tended to be epic failures.
Compare that to all the liberal anti- war protests which featured blatantly racist and/ or anti- Semitic signs. take a visit to the zombietime site to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

"For Al, good on you, I am proud of American citizens for getting up and going out to vent their disgust in mass, but 300,000 is not mass."
Actually, estimates have put the total tea party attendance at at LEAST 500,000, and they're not even done counting.
"In addition, for the behavior of many (I mean many of your ilk) to have attacked liberals and progressives for the last 8 years the way did is horrifying."
Oh, please. Pot, meet kettle. You guys at protests and elsewhere have attacked conservatives with 30 times the venom we showed towards liberals.


"We were called Un-American, Un-Patriotic, treasonous and traitors."
Well, liberals WERE the ones stomping on, defecating on, and burning the American flag at their protests. They WERE the ones calling the US a "Terrorist state," and portraying our troops as sadistic, genocidal Nazis. That doesn't sound very patriotic to me.

Posted by: Adam at April 18, 2009 4:46 AM

Of course, it is all about the right wing power structure, who want to change the tax code. The leaders of the left, as demonstrated by the Obama cabinet choices, never worry about changing the tax code. They simply 'forget' to pay their taxes until caught. All those 'brilliant' people, unable to understand what mindless Rush-Bush robots manage on an annual basis, it boggles the mind.

Posted by: Viking04 at April 18, 2009 4:54 AM

Jesus, who was great MAN... had plenty to say about it...

Jesus said He was the Son of God. Therefore, He is either:

1. A lunatic.
2. A liar.
3. The Son of God.

No in betweens, sorry.

Posted by: cowlove at April 18, 2009 5:23 AM

I've never had a single lefty ever explain how Dear Leader is going to pay off his massive, eye-exploding deficits without massive tax increases on the middle class. Even if he raised the marginal rates on those evil, hated, resented small business owners and professionals making $200K a year to 100%, he still doesn't come close to paying off the massive new government programs and entitlements he's pushing.

The propaganda about how "95% of taxpayers are getting a (teeny weeny) 'tax cut'" is propaganda. Our anonymous trolls are either lying or too stupid to do the math.

Posted by: V the K at April 18, 2009 6:23 AM

Sadly, we have not yet figured out how to deal with the collectivist, statist onslaught.

You think so mega? To me, it's vital encouragement. It's affirmation that the Tea Parties were, in fact, wildly successful. Why else would we be inundated with losers who don't have an original thought amongst them. It's not even worth refuting anymore, it's been done so well.

Next week, some hippy will come up with a new talking point, and it will trickle down to our troll-bots, and I will eat it up as food for my soul.

These idiots don't even understand that they agree with us. When they say, "what about Bush's massive spending," they imply that they think it was wrong. But now, they're so blinded by racist, partisan politics, that they couldn't dream of holding Obama to task for the same things they hated in Bush.

The next step will be when they realize how wrong they've been, and it will be game over for our elected pigs.

Posted by: cowlove at April 18, 2009 6:35 AM

And she probibly said the same thing GEORGE III said about the BOSTON TEAPARTY just your typical liberal

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 18, 2009 7:20 AM

Follow the money. The people would who really gain from tax cuts are the often the ones ginning up the hostility, (example- Rupert Murdock) or propagandizing from thinktanks. The more wealth, the more they are threatened.

First, no one is ginning up “hostility” in some orchestrated campaign. Some people are trying to get in front of the parade so they can look like they’re leading it, but they’re not (no Republican politicians were even allowed to speak at the tea party I attended). The resistance to Obama’s spending is real. Look at the reaction to Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC. Totally unplanned outpouring of agreement.

But let’s analyze your premise. The truly wealthy – Soros, Gates, Buffett, Kerry, Kennedy, the Pritzkers, and yes, Murdoch, for example – don’t care about taxes. They already have more money than they could ever possibly spend.

Also bear in mind that taxes fall on income, not wealth. A billionaire with no investments wouldn’t pay a dime in taxes – no income. For most of us, our major asset is our earning ability, not our accumulated wealth. Taxes hit us hard, because we can’t avoid them (unless we’re Democrats, in which case we simply don’t pay them until we get nominated for a Cabinet position). Someone making $100 K/yr pays about 25% of that in taxes. The wealthy don’t pay 25% of their wealth in taxes every year.

Look at it this way: do any of the people above have life insurance? Of course not – why bother? You and I have life insurance to provide for our families if we die, because our earning power is the only thing standing between our families and disaster.

But let’s do follow the money, as you suggest. Who are the people who gain from raising taxes? Who are the people who are ginning up hostility to tea parties, and why are they doing it? Seriously. Think about this.

I’ll answer my own question: politicians who want to extract money from us to buy votes from others, thereby perpetuating their power and aggrandizing themselves. Make sense?

Of course the trick of getting the little people on the side of the rich and powerful, even though they are not your friend, is as old as the human race.

Yes, indeed, politicians – including ones you may presently admire – know all about this. If you think the Kennedys are your friend, show up at the Kennedy compound. They’ll set the dogs on you. Try dropping in on Barbra Streisand at her Malibu digs. She was pissed off that aerial photographs were taken of her estate in a coastal survey.

It is time to talk about earning wealth vs extracting wealth.

Exactly. We agree entirely. We who earn wealth don’t want it extracted from us. Keep thinking this way and you’ll be at the next tea party!

There are people who earn ... there are people who are opportunists, parasites

I fully agree. There are indeed parasites who suck the blood of those who earn. Let’s name a few. Soros, who funds many leftist causes and organizations (e.g., MoveOn), takes pride of place. He manipulated the currencies of, e.g., the UK and Thailand, in the latter case impoverishing an already poorish country, simply to enrich himself (Google this), and now expresses his concern for the poor. (Why he lives, when lightning is so cheap, is a mystery.) He’s a parasite, no two ways about it. Politicians generally are another group of parasites. Welfare recipients are another.

I think you’re on your way to coming around. Keep an open mind, and consider carefully my points above, and I think with time you’ll realize you’ve been sold a bill of goods. The same arguments and perspectives you made cut two ways, and apply with at least equal if not greater force in the opposite direction. The people who are proposing to extract wealth are on the left side of the aisle, and want to use the government to do it.

Don’t like people who extract unearned wealth? Neither do we.

Want to go to bat for people who earn their living? So do we.

Don’t like parasites sucking the blood of the productive? Neither do we.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 18, 2009 10:27 AM

Nice link cowlove. That was a real basher wasn't it? I thought that thrashing might even end up with some fascist comments or maybe a revolt.

On another note cowlove, you seem to impute opinions to me that I don't necessarily have. Or, at least, you can't possibly know if I have because I haven't expressed them publicly. As to my "wondering" of right wing web sites, I try to take in opinions of all sides. I read WAPO and NYTimes as well as Washington Times and NY Post. I check out Huffington as well as Redstate. I watch FOX as well as CNN. I honestly try to be open minded yet I will admit (as obviously shown) that my thinking leans left.

I'm not thrilled with Obama and yes, I'm concerned with the debt that we're building. The tea parties seem to be consistent with the right wing strategy we've seen for a long time. Other than helping the rich and the powerful, they have no strategy. The 109th Congress spent their years catering to Bush in shifting the wealth to the elite few and deregulating bank rules (which happened to have been those that put them in power). The 110th Congress, after being ousted from the minority, promptly shut down the government with the most filibusters of any Congress in history. Now that they've suffered another setback in the 111th, they are still the party of "no" while offering absolutely nothing. Boehner leads in oppositin to the Dems budget yet shows up with blank paper; nothing to offer. These tea parties ignores the fact that the Bush administration left the economy in pieces on the ground. You can argue that all you like but serious work needs to be done. Again, I'm not happy with the stimulus but I am glad that some attempts are being made to salvage the destruction that's been done over the last 8 years. These tea parties do nothing for our country or for the economy. They're simply a bitch fest sponsored and promoted by folks that will financially gain from it implemented by their blind followers.

JustAl, to answer your question; "So, since you thought Bush's spending was wrong you also think Obma's is even more wrong since he is spending more, right?"---------- I'm not sure how you can deduce that spending is "wrong" in general. How much have we spent on the war? Was that wrong? (I think the entire Iraq war was wrong but just making a point) Is it wrong to rebuild a collapsed but needed bridge? Once again, picking up the pieces from the failed Bush years will require patience, money, and time, not a bunch of fanatics that don't even understand what or why they're protesting.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 18, 2009 10:43 AM

It appears that, today in America, there are those who would have sided with the British during The Revolutionary War as they continue to ridicule the Constitution as a document of and for the people.

Schakowsky, therefore, represent the worst in America. She is nothing but a political stooge who represents her own interest and not of that of the people.

It is obvious that she has never read the Constitution because, in more than one Amendment, it acknowledges such actions by the people when the government no longer represents them.

Posted by: pocomoco at April 18, 2009 11:12 AM

The tea parties seem to be consistent with the right wing strategy we've seen for a long time. Other than helping the rich and the powerful, they have no strategy.

The rich and powerful (Soros, Peter Lewis, Kennedy, Kerry, Pritzker, Buffett, Gates, all of Hollywood, Jewish businessmen) are largely liberals. Republicans for the most part are small businessmen.

The 109th Congress spent their years catering to Bush in shifting the wealth to the elite few and deregulating bank rules (which happened to have been those that put them in power).

Elite few? How do you figure? Cutting taxes benefits everyone who pays taxes. And the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 – during the Clinton Administration – with bipartisan support.

Now that they've suffered another setback in the 111th, they are still the party of "no" while offering absolutely nothing. Boehner leads in oppositin to the Dems budget yet shows up with blank paper; nothing to offer.

There’s really nothing to be done, in fact. A recession is like a cold. It will run its course naturally, pretty much regardless of what we do. Recessions can only be prolonged – through ill-advised policies – but not shortened. All of the poor economic decisions, which result in poor allocation of resources, have to be unwound and liquidated, and then the economy will revive. Japan failed to do this in the 90s. Instead, they limped along without the unwinding and liquidating, and got themselves a Lost Decade as a result.

I am glad that some attempts are being made to salvage the destruction that's been done over the last 8 years.

There’s been no destruction. The economy is fine. We’re having a recession, that’s all. We have them every seven years, on average. They’re inevitable, as is their passing – unless one panics and implements poor policies that prevent them running their course.

These tea parties do nothing for our country or for the economy.

Disagree, but that’s a matter of opinion. What do left-wing demonstrations do for our country or for the economy?

They're simply a bitch fest sponsored and promoted by folks that will financially gain from it implemented by their blind followers.

They’re not sponsored by anyone. People turning up for them are grownups. They’re not college students, welfare recipients, professional agitators, or any other kind of parasite. They have jobs, families, mortgages – in short, responsibilities. And yet they took time out of their busy lives to be heard about something they think is wrong. That’s got to tell you something. And as for “bitch fests,” this country was founded on a bitch fest.

Is it wrong to rebuild a collapsed but needed bridge?

I actually read the entire stimulus bill (it’s boring, but I recommend you do the same), and I assure you it’s chock-a-block with pointless worthless rubbish (e.g., building a Frisbee golf course in one city, for example. True story.).

not a bunch of fanatics that don't even understand what or why they're protesting.

You’re way off base here. People know exactly they’re protesting. It’s simple. If you go to Best Buy and buy half a dozen plasma TVs on your MasterCard, everything is fine...until the bill comes in. That’s essentially what Pelosi/Reid have done. Taxes will have to go way up to pay for all this. Money is essentially a promise to work at some time in the future. By spending so much now, we’re obligating ourselves to work like rats for decades, just to pay for those plasma TVs.

And as you’re probably under 50, realize that you – and my kids - will be paying for this bill for the rest of your working life. I guarantee it. I’ll be retired, and as such part of your burden, but you’ll be working half the year for the government. They’ll take every dime of that stimulus bill out of your hide. Think about it. You will have a worse life – harder work, less to show for it – because you will be taxed and taxed and taxed to pay for all this.

Let that thought soak in.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 18, 2009 11:58 AM

Speaking of taxes, I just saw this after finishing my post. Enjoy.

Op-ed on CNN : Why Your Taxes May Double, by David M. Walker (President & CEO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation; Former Comptroller General of the United States and Head of the Government Accountability Office).

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 18, 2009 12:02 PM

I have noticed that all the jackass liberal Obomites that like to troll here are so wrapped up in hypocracy and in denial that they come across as a bunch of kool aid drinking liars...they are the sheeple for the Antichrist OBAMA. Liberalism is a mental illness.

Posted by: Watching at April 18, 2009 2:39 PM

"...our President, who has been in a far greater amount of criticism in much less time than Bush was."

Willful ignorance of reality.

Pay close attention to the last sentence, SFB.

Posted by: Henry at April 18, 2009 3:03 PM

The rich and powerful (Soros, Peter Lewis, Kennedy, Kerry, Pritzker, Buffett, Gates, all of Hollywood, Jewish businessmen) are largely liberals.

Jay, we are currently reviewing this post at my Zionist World Domination secret meeting to decide whether it merits a response, but most of us are too busy collecting unearned wealth on the backs of others' labor to bother.

Posted by: mega at April 18, 2009 5:11 PM

Jay, you make valid points in most cases and seem to be an intelligent blogger. Your assessment of the current economy however diminishes your credibility. Stating that the "economy is fine" and dismissing it as if it were a seasonable storm demonstrates either a disturbing denial or gross ignorance of what we're dealing with.

You seem content that cutting taxes for the most wealthy will generate more revenue. That's mathematically incorrect. If that were true, why haven't we seen these trickle down revenues in the prosperous Exxon era, from pharmaceutical cos, and others. It didn't happen.

The tax relief for the top 5% was an absolute scam. These taxes are soon to expire and that's what has promoted these pied piper tea parties,,for their benefit. And the thing is, people will likely be hit again when those tax breaks expire. The reason it was a scam is because it was a known fact that there would be no trickle down and that eventually the lower guys would pick up the tab. Do you remember in the early 70s when coffee was a dime a cup? Well, I don't recall the reason but coffee beans sky rocketed and stay high for an extended time (6 months to a year perhaps). The Mom and Pop diners along with everyone else were forced to raise their prices to $.50 a cup. So, as time passed, coffee beans returned to their original prices. But guess what? The dime cup of coffee was forever gone. It was simply additional profits and there was no reason for these cafes to give it away. The same thing happened with the breaks for the rich. Savings were never passed on because it was simply more revenue for them. Now, that it has put us in a crises (yeah, I know, everyday is a holiday and Sunday comes twice a week where you live and even if you think the economy's dandy, the Dems opposed these breaks from the start), Democrats will allow their tax breaks to expire. But businesses don't really pay taxes per se. They simply mark up or charge more to offset. So once again, the working sap gets stuck by the Republicans who knew full well that it would simply make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and end up blowing up in the Dems faces should they take control. Now that the Reps are a dying breed and have no voice, they trump up their rhetoric and nonsense by misleading people into tea bagging. Do you call this governance?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 18, 2009 5:32 PM

My point, mega, was that a lot of the very wealthy (Soros, Lewis, Pritzker, Ron Burkle) are Jewish, and extremely liberal. I meant to include Burkle as a specific example, but forgot to. There's no denying that Jews, as a group, are 1) economically successful, and 2) liberal. (Schakowsky herself is a case in point.) They constitute a rich and powerful lobby with the power to influence things the way they want them to go, and that way is generally pretty liberal. To say the rich and powerful favor conservative policies is nonsense. Fair enough?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 18, 2009 5:35 PM

Listening to the old hens clucking can become monotonous and boring HYUK,HYUK,HYUK SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Posted by: Flu-Bird at April 18, 2009 5:46 PM

Teeeeeee Wat

Posted by: grayjohn at April 18, 2009 6:17 PM

Stating that the "economy is fine" and dismissing it as if it were a seasonable storm demonstrates either a disturbing denial or gross ignorance of what we're dealing with.

Look, I’m a geezer. I’ve lived through any number of these storms. Every recession seems catastrophic at the time (it’s kinda like stomach flu in that respect; when you’re hugging the toilet puking, you can’t imagine anything worse, but a day or two later, it’s over). In 1980, interest rates were pushed up to 20ish percent by Volcker, to wring inflation out of the economy. The economy crashed and burned, but he succeeded in his goal. This recession is bad, but it too shall pass.

You seem content that cutting taxes for the most wealthy will generate more revenue.

Pardon me, but you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said anything of the kind. Furthermore, my point was not directed at revenue (for the government). (I don’t want the government to collect more revenue.)

My point was directed at the economy, on which taxes are a brake. Taxes cause businesses to suffer. If businesses suffer, they don’t hire. If businesses don’t hire, people are out of work. If people are out of work, they don’t have money. If they don’t have money, they don’t spend. If they don’t spend, businesses suffer.

The tax relief for the top 5% was an absolute scam.

I don’t get the “top 5%” aspect. Cutting taxes benefits ...taxpayers (in the short run; in the long run, it benefits everyone). Taxes are a necessary evil. If not, why not raise them even higher? Double ‘em! Why not? Because it kills economic activity, that’s why.

But guess what? The dime cup of coffee was forever gone. It was simply additional profits and there was no reason for these cafes to give it away.

OK, fair enough. Now apply the same principle to the government and taxes.

Put another way, why isn’t coffee $50/cup, despite Starbucks best efforts to drive it there? Because people don’t think a cup of coffee is worth $50, so Starbucks can’t charge that much and stay in business.

Now look at the government. Starbucks can’t force us to pay $50 for a cup of coffee, but the government can force us to pay it whatever the government decides it wants. If we don’t pay, we either a) will be embarrassed when we’re appointed to a Cabinet position (for 0.0000001% of us), or get prosecuted by the IRS and put in prison (for the rest of us). Can you see the problem?

The same thing happened with the breaks for the rich. Savings were never passed on because it was simply more revenue for them.

What did they do with that revenue? Did they bury it in a coffee can in their backyards? If so, your point is valid. But if they even deposited it in a bank, banks could use it as part of their fractional reserve, thereby freeing up money to loan to expand or start businesses, or finance other economic activity, and thereby helping the economy to grow. Put it another way: why did we have to bail out banks? Because if they are insolvent, there’s no grease to help the gears of the economy to function.

Look at the venture capital industry. Where do startups get capital? Pension funds, insurance companies, universities, and ...wealthy individuals (called “angels” when they invest personally and directly in startups). Think Microsoft. Think Google. Think eBay. Think Amgen. Think Genentech. Think of the employment and economic growth derived from capital, i.e., deferred consumption. Pace Marx, capital – deferred consumption - is good. Living hand to mouth – i.e., not deferring any consumption, either through choice or need – leads to a miserable existence, with no prospects for improvement. Ask anyone in a Third World country. In Sudan, Bill Gates would have been plowing a field, trying to stave off starvation. By deferring consumption – creating capital – we can afford to let talented individuals stand down from field plowing and apply themselves to endeavors that, in time, make everyone’s life better.

But businesses don't really pay taxes per se. They simply mark up or charge more to offset. So once again, the working sap gets stuck by the Republicans who knew full well that it would simply make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and end up blowing up in the Dems faces should they take control.

I am truly baffled by this. It sounds like a good argument for not raising taxes: because doing so sticks the working sap. That’s been exactly my point, and I speak as one. So...how do Republicans stick the working sap by cutting taxes? I truly do not follow your reasoning. Could you please elaborate?

Now that the Reps are a dying breed and have no voice, they trump up their rhetoric and nonsense by misleading people into tea [censored].

Couple points. First, Republicans did not start the tea party movement. They’re trying to harness it to their own ends, but they didn’t start it. Tea parties are angry with both parties, to varying extents, for wasting the money with which we entrusted them. The bottom line of tea parties: governments, like families, must live within their means. Spending money you don’t have is madness, for either a government or a family. The only difference is that a government takes a lot longer to bankrupt itself than a family. Right now the U.S. government is like Wile E. Coyote after he’s run off a cliff, but hasn’t yet realized what’s about to happen. And that scares the hell out of me, and others.

(Btw, ponder this: what happens if China refuses to finance American debt (as they recently threatened to do)? If the Chinese decide that our debts are so massive that we’ll have to inflate our currency to pay them off, we’ll be on the Argentina plan: a country that used to be – and should be – wealthy, but is broke. Is that the future we want for our country?)

Second, Republicans aren’t a dying breed. They’re simply on the outs now. Twenty years ago, after the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, I thought that socialism was dead. And yet here we are. Dems have sown the seeds of their own downfall with this stimulus bill. You seem intelligent yourself, and I predict you’ll have second thoughts about all of this within two years’ time, when you see how it plays out. One of the few advantages of geezerhood is having seen everything before.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 18, 2009 6:45 PM

Jan Schakowsky should thank God that she is an elected official because if she had to earn a living off of her brains or looks, she would starve.

Posted by: Oiao at April 19, 2009 11:33 AM

For starters Jay, thank you for your civil and constructive rebuttals. You and I fundamentally disagree on several issues but it's refreshing to debate in a rational tone.

In a perfect world, a government could reduce wasteful or unneeded spending and accordingly, reduce the tax burden on the people it represents. As we both know, this ain't a perfect world. Granted, Dems are known historically as the "tax and spend" party. The past few years have brought the Reps to a new level as the "borrow and spend" party. The truth is, Bush and the 109th Congress broke most every cardinal rule of conservatism. Just about every bill that they passed catered to the interest of their major campaign contributors at the expense of the tax payers. At the same time, pork barrel spending went thru the roof with bridges to nowhere. Here in Owensboro KY, we received $40 million for a downtown River Park Center. That pork was pretty damn sweet to us but it was all about Mitch McConnell securing KY votes. We didn't need it but it sure was sweet and it did help Mitch barely squeak by with his win. My point is that Republicans failed to cut spending. As a matter of fact, it was if they were on a shopping spree gone wild. My main gripe is that at the very same time, they were giving huge taxes for the wealthy and tossing minute coins to the workers. They even made unprecedented tax cuts during a time of war in which they weren't even budgeting for. At the same time, we were borrowing $2 billion a day from china to offset our trade deficit.

I adamantly disagree with your light dismissal of the state of the economy. It's interesting that even then Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was begging for the $700,000,000,000 bank bailout but he wanted it with no strings or a blank check.
It was the Dems who stepped in and demanded accountability. You may not agree with the need for the stimulus package and quite honestly, I don't like every aspect of it either. But I do think it's a lot better than the way Reps have abused our trust during the Bush years.

Back to the main point, after considering the binge that Reps were on and the fact that taxes have not been raised nor are they planned on being raised on 95% of the people, what exactly is it that these Hannity/Beck puppets teaparting about?

Posted by: andy42302 at April 19, 2009 12:37 PM

Nice link cowlove. That was a real basher wasn't it? I thought that thrashing might even end up with some fascist comments or maybe a revolt.

Look, Jay has done an excellent job with you, as usual. It's a little sad to see your last comment essentially reiterating every argument you've had so far, even in the face of reasoned and intelligent responses to those points.

At any rate, the only thing I really take issue with is your above comment, which is clearly moving the goalposts. The fact is, you don't get to mention Bush anymore. You offered up a challenge and lost it. Now, if you had said, "point me to a Moonbattery archive where Bush is called a fascist and you all spew invective at him mercilessly," that would be different. You didn't.

Posted by: cowlove at April 20, 2009 5:53 AM

Cowlove, my argument was that the same people engaging in Tea Parties and blogging here never critical of the borrow and spend tactics of the Bush years. The link you gave me was akin Grandma's feather spankings or perhaps being flogged with a wet noodle.

Posted by: andy42302 at April 20, 2009 2:31 PM

The link you gave me was akin Grandma's feather spankings or perhaps being flogged with a wet noodle.

Did you read the link?? It was clearly "critical of the borrow and spend tactics of the Bush years."

Get over it. You asked for a link and got it. Next?

Posted by: cowlove at April 21, 2009 10:08 AM