Mad as a Hatter.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

(PS- Bill Maher had a good rant on this topic last Friday.)

Comments

[ladybast.livejournal.com]

I had to explain to a few people that the one I'm organizing is not an actual tea party or social mixer. People are ignorant, you say? No...

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're stupid (http://www.mattbors.com/2009/03/fight-power-newt.html), aren't you?

The “tea party” protests nationwide are being coordinated by the conservative public relations firm Freedom Works, which is run by former Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). The tea parties are also being supported by Newt Gingrich, through his organization American Solutions For Winning the Future.

These "tea parties" are ironic on a few levels. They are mostly made up of people who constantly defended Bush as he asserted powers previously known only to kings and dictators. And they are funded and promoted by that same political party.

The only way this would be comparable to the original Boston Tea Party would be if Sam Adams was being funded by The Crown.

[ladybast.livejournal.com]

It's cute because you haven't the slightest clue what this is really about.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Elucidate me, then.

[ladybast.livejournal.com]

This has nothing to do with impeaching Obama or anything even remotely to do with being anti-Obama. This is a nonpartisan event. It is to protest the wasteful and reckless spending being pushed through, to protest the fact that people passed the largest spending bill in history without even reading it. It's to protest the fact that Government is very much to blame for the economic mess we're in and throwing obscene amounts of taxpayer money at the problem will not solve it.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"This is a nonpartisan event."

My impression of American attitude towards politics is that very little about it is non-partisan, hence it wouldn't surprise me if groups that are formally non-partisan still end up being politically biased in practice.

I'm not American mind... that's just my impression.

[torasama.livejournal.com]

You've hit the nail on the head.

The "nonpartisan" label, more often than not, has quite little to do with getting both sides to agree and very much to do with a backdoor when the idea/event/whatever is attacked/threatened/questioned/what have you. Thus we spend half a page of commentary trying to figure out whether or not it is bipartisan, rather than debating the actual issue at hand. It's misdirection pure and simple.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Good, then.

But why was there no inkling of them when TARP went through? Or the tax rebate fracas? Or the several ginormous supplemental spending bills for Iraq? Why are these tea parties suddenly springing up in the last month or two, and at least some of them being funded by those two vocal Republicans? Hmm?

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I think lafinjack is right: "They are mostly made up of people who constantly defended Bush as he asserted powers previously known only to kings and dictators. And they are funded and promoted by that same political party.... The only way this would be comparable to the original Boston Tea Party would be if Sam Adams was being funded by The Crown."

This is basically how I feel too.

So-called conservatives stood by for eight years and watched the Bush/GOP wrecking crew go nuts on the Constitution, our foreign policy, our economic stability, our environment, and dozens of other things, as much as they feign outrage at some of that now.

Now when Obama comes in and makes some minor changes-- and yes it's insane that people feel letting the upper income tax rates go back up from 36% to 39% constitutes "socialism" somehow, and that it's crazy for a government bailing out the auto and banking sectors to ask for some concessions in return-- they are acting like the country is under attack and it's time to form militias before we are all thrown into the FEMA concentration camps that exist in Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity's, and Michelle Malkin's fevered imaginations. You are relatively young, so I will remind you that this type of crazy conspiracy nonsense happened when Clinton took office too (fear of "black helicopters", Unabombers and Michigan Militias ready to take back America, etc). It's extra insane under Obama now because we are facing very unique and unsettling economic depression that is causing people to become unsettled.

Are all of Obama's policies and plans perfect? No, but I-- like most Americans-- remain cautiously optimistic that the long-term gains will help us. Still, the point here is that is insane for us to be lectured on how to solve this from the (now-minority) party whose leadership lead us to this mess to begin with. The last time America faced a depression, a Democrat pulled us out; it's not surprising that people are hoping for a similar outcome this time.

[ladybast.livejournal.com]

I don't view a trillion dollars right off the bat as minor nor hopeful, but hey, I respect your right to call it as you see it.

I maintain that this is a nonpartisan event that the GOP is not in the foreground unless they are planning their own local tea party but even in that case, it comes from the top down: nonpartisan. This monumental debt we've been saddled with affects us all, the tea party is for us all.

Also, LOL, I'm relatively young? Please to be aware you are only three years older than I am.

Nice comment otherwise, grandpa. :P

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

This is a grossly partisan event based on the fact that the amount being spent didn't matter until it was a Democrat-heavy government.

I really didn't see anyone concerned to the point of slacktivist revolution during the first bill signing, let alone other things like the cost of the Iraq war, etc etc etc.

But suddenly it's an affront to democracy and all that is just in the world for a bill that will spend money to create jobs.

[ladybast.livejournal.com]

Right. And heh at slacktivist revolution. There's no point in this.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

From what I've seen of the tea parties so far, it comes off as nothing more than slacktivism.

It's just kitsch — it's calling upon something historic yet no real logical connection to what is currently happening. No one is being forced to, for example, buy GM cars now that the government bailed the company out. And the sales tax hasn't been seen as being a way to leverage local government officials in a way that reminds them of who pays them versus who they should work for, so why should that viewpoint be made now?

Plus, the other issue was that a non-local company was profiting with a non-local government from these taxes. This time, the government being argued against is local, and on top of that these are local companies being supported.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

I don't view a trillion dollars right off the bat as minor nor hopeful

You people are acting as if Obama, years ago when he decided to run for President, thought "I'm gonna go in there right away and spend $1-2 trillion dollars right away! What fun! Yay!". Obama's interest when he first announced his candidacy was in foreign policy... but the economy crashed in the last 2-3 years under the former leadership, and he was forced to tackle it in a big way... it's ultimately why he was elected too. He didn't create this mess, these bailouts-- etc-- he didn't want it, but he has this mess, and he's been forced to try and resolve it. He's just doing what many agree is necessary to try and turn things around, and yes that does mean spending right now.

In fact, many economists, particularly the smart ones who saw this crisis coming (foresight is an underrated quality), feel the real problem with his spending was that it wasn't large or targeted enough (1 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsJHUXLO9mpVYTD4HEsQBK_-mbHQ), 2 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/paul-krugman-stimulus-too_n_167721.html), 3 (http://mediamatters.org/items/200903060025), 4 (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/03/stimulus-expert-zandi-package-falls-short/), etc). History has shown that economic recession/depression is exactly the wrong time for government to cut spending and lower taxes; that can (and should) be done in good times instead.

We have problems that need solving (lack of health care availability and affordability, lack of jobs and/or a living wage, climate change, etc) and we can't solve them on our own, magic markets can't solve them, we have governments specifically to solve these things (hence why no one minds the government handling our police and fire departments, military needs, trash pickup, education, and etc etc again). My only concern is, are we getting results?

I maintain that this is a nonpartisan event

You can maintain whatever you wish, but I have seen tons of video of these tea party events (video from news reports, raw video on YouTube), and all I am seeing is far-right conservatives and Republicans... the Palin/Fox News wing of the party, and the occasional Ron Paul libertarian/conspiracy types. You appear to be a very strong conservative, and that just proves my point. Not seeing too many liberals or independents in those crowds is all I'm saying. I never said these were officially sponsored GOP events, but it's very obvious which party's voter base is doing all of these things.

Also, LOL, I'm relatively young? Please to be aware you are only three years older than I am.

I know that. I was in my teens in the Clinton years, and so you were too, which is why I asked you to remember that all this insanity we're seeing now happened back then too (again... lots of rants, fear of "black helicopters", Unabombers and Michigan Militias ready to take back America, etc). It seems a pattern now in recent history-- Republicans come in and muck up the economy, a Democrat is elected based on his promise to fix said mess, he enacts some historically minor changes-- seriously, Clinton and Obama and other top Dems are Barry F'ing Goldwater compared to someone like Dwight Eisenhower-- and conservatives freak out, the Democrat actually gets some things done, and so people love him anyway despite all the freaking out on the right.

I'll close by stating that I'm adding debt to my credit card right now because work has been really slow, and I need now to charge my grocery purchases (etc) whereas before I paid in cash. Do I have more debt now that I will eventually pay off when things turn around? Yes. Am I starving to death in the meantime? No. Just sayin'.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

History has shown?

You mean like in the recession of 1981 when Reagan cut taxes across the board and launched a 25 year period of unprecedented growth?

You know, the same with Kennedy, W, Mellon and the Gingrich cuts in 1997. Growth increased after those cuts. Tax receipts went up after those cuts.

As for the "leaders" who "caused this"...they're still in charge in Congress.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I don't view a trillion dollars right off the bat as minor nor hopeful...

It's interesting that that's one of the talking points currently floating around, as is "the majority of the money isn't even being spent in 2009 or 2010". I'm not saying that's the dichotomy in your head, just observing in general.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

PS- Examples of the right-wing crazy I mentioned... here (http://washingtonindependent.com/37360/scenes-from-the-real-america) and here (http://wonkette.com/407630/what-a-teabag-anthrax-attack-looks-like).

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

What you don't get is that most Americans are sane don't think in the ways you do.

Most Americans are not worried about ruined by the government... they're worried about being "ruined" by lack of health-care, jobs, a living wage if they're lucky enough to have said job, lay offs, downsizing, crumbling schools, crowded roads, tainted food, housing needs, climate change, cost of living increases, their personal debt levels, etc etc etc.

Right now people want results. And polls show that most Americans-- particularly the independent voters-- remain cautiously optimistic that we're on a better track toward that than we were a year ago.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Because things are better now than they were a year ago!

Oh, wait....

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Because things are better now than they were ten years ago!

Fixed that irony for you.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Because things are better now than they were a year ago!

You need to read what I wrote: "polls show that most Americans-- particularly the independent voters-- remain cautiously optimistic that we're on a better track toward that than we were a year ago."

And with some good reason (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/090406/040609_recovery.html?.&.pf=banking-budgeting).

MATH IS HARD

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

What is worse today versus a year ago?

Now, who was in charge a year ago up to nine months after that?

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

PS-

http://politics4geekz.blogspot.com/2008/04/big-government.html

[xforge.livejournal.com]

You need a little extra lighter fluid for that hair-on-fire look? I keep a supply here at the house.

[i.livejournal.com]

heard that before. wasn't true then either.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

If only we governed through a tangentopoli like all fair systems!

[weswilson]

oh jesus... not that island of garbage crap again...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4132

Re: from your link--

[weswilson]

Nobody is saying that there isn't garbage in the ocean. What is bullshit is the "Twice as big as Texas" solid landmass of offal. There is no such thing.

Re: from your link--

[katyknight.livejournal.com]

It's still pretty bad, though. (http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

Re: from your link--

[weswilson]

Despite Charles Moore's description, the eastern garbage patch cannot be characterised as a continuous visible field of densely floating marine debris. The process of disintegration means that the plastic particulate in much of the affected region may be too small to be seen. Researchers must estimate the overall extent and density of plastic pollution in the EGP by taking samples. In a 2001 study, researchers (including Moore) found that in certain areas of the patch, concentrations of plastic reached one million particles per square mile.[8] The study found concentrations of plastics at 3.34 pieces with a mean mass of 5.1 milligrams per square meter. In many areas of the affected region, the overall concentration of plastics was greater than the concentration of zooplankton by a factor of seven. Samples collected at deeper points in the water column found much lower levels of plastic debris (primarily monofilament fishing line), confirming earlier observations that most plastic waste concentrates in the upper parts of the water column.

Wikipedia, I know... but well cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Bill misrepresents why people are upset about the G20. Its more to send a message to the elite. I guess even this is more accurate:

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

doubly funny as its a take off of the arch poster witch won the election for arch conservtive and captlists, margret sodding thatcher, aginst labour.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

my love for this cartoon is only increased by the inclusion of the Cardinals fan in the lower right hand corner at the end. :D

[cursethedark.livejournal.com]

Glad to know someone else thougth the same thing.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/outlook.pdf

The 2007 deficit was 1.2 percent of GDP, well
below the 40-year average of 2.4 percent of
GDP. Four years ago, the President announced
in his 2005 Budget that by 2009 he would cut
the deficit in half from its projected peak. The
President achieved his goal three years ahead
of schedule, in 2006, when the deficit fell from a projected peak of 4.5 percent of GDP, or $521 billion,
to 1.9 percent of GDP, or $248 billion. Last year, the President announced a new goal of balancing
the budget. The policies in this Budget continue the effort to reach that goal.
15
16 THE NATION’S FISCAL OUTLOOK
The 2008 deficit is projected to be $410 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP, and the 2009 deficit is
projected to be $407 billion, or 2.7 percent of GDP. The primary reason for increasing deficits in the
near term is the President’s economic growth package and an expected slowing of receipt growth,
due to an expected reduction in corporate tax receipts from recent high levels. Another reason for
increases in the projected near-term deficits is increasing defense and emergency spending.
The Budget reflects the full cost of the GlobalWar on Terror for 2008. Actual funding needs for 2009
and beyond will be determined by security conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will continue to be
evaluated. In addition, the Budget reflects a one-year extension of Alternative Minimum Tax relief
for the 2008 tax year and an allowance for the cost of an economic growth plan. The Budget proposes
to allow Americans to invest in voluntary personal retirement accounts beginning in 2013 and makes
permanent the President’s tax relief. Taken together, the President’s policies are expected to lead
to fiscal improvements, with a deficit of $160 billion, or 1.0 percent of GDP, in 2010 and surpluses
of $48 billion and $29 billion, or 0.3 percent and 0.2 percent of GDP, projected for 2012 and 2013,
respectively.

But the "previous leadership" was worser!!!!1! Uh...YES WE CAN!!!!11!!!

Suckers.