Tea Parties

[colchar]

What the heck is with these protests?

[TillyGalore]

What the heck is with these protests?

Are you going PPB on us? We might have to ban you if you are. ;)

[colchar]

What the heck is with these protests?

Are you going PPB on us? We might have to ban you if you are. ;)

And I thought we were free to discuss anything we wanted to here - I had no idea the mods were out to censor us like they do over at TSTMNBN!

[TillyGalore]

What the heck is with these protests?

Are you going PPB on us? We might have to ban you if you are. ;)

And I thought we were free to discuss anything we wanted to here - I had no idea the mods were out to censor us like they do over at TSTMNBN!

;)

[BlueDevilJay]

I found the Tea Parties to be a very good idea, to inform the government that there are a few people left out here who won't be taxed to death to pay for things we shouldn't be. BHO's budget/spending in less than 100 days has already put anything GWB did to shame. I didn't get to attend the one in Charlotte as I wanted to, but wish I could have. Hilarious how CNN tried to make it out to be a bunch of fringe kooks, yet any other rally/protest they cover with empathetic interest. CNN is on their way out, and they know it. Anything for viewership I suppose.

[TillyGalore]

This is a pre-emptive post. I know that both colchar and bluedeviljay are on opposite sides of the political fence. Please remember to keep this civil. We are adults, let's continue to act like adults.

[rockymtn devil]

I found the Tea Parties to be a very good idea, to inform the government that there are a few people left out here who won't be taxed to death to pay for things we shouldn't be. BHO's budget/spending in less than 100 days has already put anything GWB did to shame. I didn't get to attend the one in Charlotte as I wanted to, but wish I could have. Hilarious how CNN tried to make it out to be a bunch of fringe kooks, yet any other rally/protest they cover with empathetic interest. CNN is on their way out, and they know it. Anything for viewership I suppose.

I'll wade into this and I promise to be civil. I also promise not to make this a trend and any further posts on this topic will be done via PM.

1. I should state upfront that I view the "tea bagging" to be disingenuous as advertised. It wasn't about taxes or spending. It was about Republicans not liking Democrats. That's fine, but don't take a partisan political event and try to dress it up as a principled protest. Where was the outrage from these people from 2001-2009? How did it reach a boiling point once it was a D calling the shots? You can try and sanitize this by claiming that what the President has done puts President Bush to shame, but I don't buy that. President Obama has taken steps--supported by many economist much smarter than you, me, and Neil Cavuto--to alleviate a bad situation. The spending is, therefore, a necessary evil. What's the alternative? Tax cuts don't inject money into the economy in dire situations (they inject money into bank accounts). Certainly the Bush tax cuts did nothing to prevent this, why should we believe they'll get us out? It had to be spending and the federal government is the only entity large enough to inject enough money into the marketplace (even David Brooks admits this).

2. You may be right about CNN's coverage (I don't watch it, so I'll take your word), but, of course, the opposite can be said of Fox News' coverage. Back in 2002-2003, Fox News minimized the very large anti-war protests, giving them little coverage and, to use your language, painting the protesters as "fringe kooks" (individually, those protests were much larger than the "tea bagging"). When it was an idea that Roger Ailes agreed with, it became an event that Fox News trumpeted. And, as expected, their coverage was less than sincere. In Sacramento, Neil Cavuto announced on air that the crowd had to be somewhere between 10-15K. Why is this interesting? Because mere minutes before he said that on air, an off-air conversation (caught on tape) with his producer discussed how they both agreed that there were about 5K people at the event. How did it double/triple in a matter of minutes?

3. What I don't get is what that these people are protesting. No one's taxes have yet been raised. The only discussion of increased taxes has been to allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset, therefore increasing marginal tax rates for the top bracket to levels seen under Clinton/Bush I/Reagan. That's a far cry from Trotsky. This goes back to my first point. The people "tea bagging" are either misinformed or disingenuous--and these are not mutually exclusive categories. If you want to protest an increase in marginal tax rates for the wealthiest few, by all means, do so. But admit that what's you're doing. Otherwise you're protesting something that hasn't even been discussed by the President.

4. Much of the rhetoric--and the signs--were based on the false premise that the "capitalist vs. socialist" discussion plays out on zero-sum terms. Because of that, it's difficult to take the "tea baggers" seriously.

5. Who chose to use the phrase "tea bagging"? Clearly the planners are unaware of the less than appropriate meaning of that phrase. Reggie Love must have been laughing...

[colchar]

This is a pre-emptive post. I know that both colchar and bluedeviljay are on opposite sides of the political fence. Please remember to keep this civil. We are adults, let's continue to act like adults.

Actually, I'm a conservative (well the Canadian version which would likely make me a Democrat in the US). I just find it funny that some Americans think Obama is a socialist when he's anything but.

[colchar]

I also promise not to make this a trend and any further posts on this topic will be done via PM.

There is no need for that. So long as we remain civil and don't attack each other I have no problem with political discussions.

[Miles]

Actually, I'm a conservative (well the Canadian version which would likely make me a Democrat in the US). I just find it funny that some Americans think Obama is a socialist when he's anything but.

How is he anything but a socialist?

[colchar]

1. I should state upfront that I view the "tea bagging" to be disingenuous as advertised. It wasn't about taxes or spending. It was about Republicans not liking Democrats. That's fine, but don't take a partisan political event and try to dress it up as a principled protest. Where was the outrage from these people from 2001-2009? How did it reach a boiling point once it was a D calling the shots? You can try and sanitize this by claiming that what the President has done puts President Bush to shame, but I don't buy that. President Obama has taken steps--supported by many economist much smarter than you, me, and Neil Cavuto--to alleviate a bad situation. The spending is, therefore, a necessary evil. What's the alternative? Tax cuts don't inject money into the economy in dire situations (they inject money into bank accounts). Certainly the Bush tax cuts did nothing to prevent this, why should we believe they'll get us out? It had to be spending and the federal government is the only entity large enough to inject enough money into the marketplace (even David Brooks admits this).

Do you think the spending will be enough? My worry is that many financial institutions will continue to deny credit in a misguided attempt to ensure profits. Credit and spending seems to be needed to stimulate the economy. Perhaps more regulation of the banks is necessary. That would have prevented this whole situation in the first place and might also help us out of this (if the banks could be forced, as part and parcel of getting bailout money, to offer credit, etc.).

[colchar]

Actually, I'm a conservative (well the Canadian version which would likely make me a Democrat in the US). I just find it funny that some Americans think Obama is a socialist when he's anything but.

How is he anything but a socialist?

Does he advocate state or worker ownership of the means of production? Does he advocate the state setting prices for goods and services?

[Miles]

Does he advocate state or worker ownership of the means of production? Does he advocate the state setting prices for goods and services?

That doesn't quite answer my question, but I'll entertain you.

I believe one could make an argument that any president that can force out CEOs might, at the very least, lean a little more towards the socialist side. An even stronger argument could be made that any president that endorses state subsidies, or refuses to put a stop to them, is most definitely advocating state ownership of the means of production while also setting the prices for goods and services.

[bjornolf]

If they're buying up the banks and the mortgages, aren't they starting to set prices by definition?

[colchar]

I believe one could make an argument that any president that can force out CEOs might, at the very least, lean a little more towards the socialist side.

I disagree. He didn't demand that a CEO be let go. What he did was say that, if you want money from us, then that person must go. He didn't initiate things, he merely set a stipulation on a loan which is perfectly reasonable. If you borrow $100 from me I do not think it unreasonable for me to stipulate that you can't spend it on crack.

An even stronger argument could be made that any president that endorses state subsidies, or refuses to put a stop to them, is most definitely advocating state ownership of the means of production while also setting the prices for goods and services.

But these are sometimes necessary. If the state didn't subsidize some of these companies (ie. automakers) then the economic fallout would be huge. It is far better for the common good for these companies to be subsidized. Do you really think that, if the economy wasn't in the worst shape it has been in in decades, he would be advocating these policies? I would argue that he is merely reacting to a situation that was not of his own (or his party's) making.

[colchar]

If they're buying up the banks and the mortgages, aren't they starting to set prices by definition?

But they aren't doing it because they want to - they are doing it because they have to. There is a big difference.

[Miles]

I believe one could make an argument that any president that can force out CEOs might, at the very least, lean a little more towards the socialist side.

I disagree. He didn't demand that a CEO be let go. What he did was say that, if you want money from us, then that person must go. He didn't initiate things, he merely set a stipulation on a loan which is perfectly reasonable. If you borrow $100 from me I do not think it unreasonable for me to stipulate that you can't spend it on crack.

I share your opinion that it is reasonable to set conditions of loan. But how does that preclude Obama from being a socialist? President Obama does not represent a private entity issuing a loan, he is a democratically elected official that is playing a huge part in the means of production for GM. This, in my opinion, sets a dangerous precedent.

An even stronger argument could be made that any president that endorses state subsidies, or refuses to put a stop to them, is most definitely advocating state ownership of the means of production while also setting the prices for goods and services.

But these are sometimes necessary. If the state didn't subsidize some of these companies (ie. automakers) then the economic fallout would be huge. It is far better for the common good for these companies to be subsidized. Do you really think that, if the economy wasn't in the worst shape it has been in in decades, he would be advocating these policies? I would argue that he is merely reacting to a situation that was not of his own (or his party's) making.

This is pure conjecture. There is no objective evidence that proves subsidies are far better for the common good of these companies. Regardless, it's not an issue of whether or not subsidies are a good idea or bad idea. The issue is whether or not we agree that subsidies are an implementation of socialist theory.

[Miles]

p.s. I would like to add, in reference to your post that started this conversation, that I do also think it's funny when people refer to him as a socialist because it seems like they're using it as an insult. And I should say that I don't believe the socialist label is exclusive to President Obama. I'm having a hard time remembering a modern American president that didn't implement "solutions" based upon socialist theory.

[colchar]

I share your opinion that it is reasonable to set conditions of loan. But how does that preclude Obama from being a socialist? President Obama does not represent a private entity issuing a loan, he is a democratically elected official that is playing a huge part in the means of production for GM. This, in my opinion, sets a dangerous precedent.

But do you really think he would've asked for the removal of a CEO except under the extraordinary circumstances we presently find ourselves in? If he is merely reacting to a situation I don't think it is reasonable to assume that his actions in that situation define his style of government.

This is pure conjecture. There is no objective evidence that proves subsidies are far better for the common good of these companies. Regardless, it's not an issue of whether or not subsidies are a good idea or bad idea. The issue is whether or not we agree that subsidies are an implementation of socialist theory.

I would argue that common sense dictates that subsidies are for the common good - not just for the long term viability of these companies but for society as a whole (lost jobs, greater economic downturn, etc.). And while subsidies may be an implementation of socialist theory I think they are only taking place due to the extraordinary circumstances in which we now find ourselves. As I said above, I don't think his reactions to a specific situation define his style of government.

And even if his policies are an implementation of socialist theory, I do not see how that is all bad. Canada's banks are far more heavily regulated than those in the US or UK and many would argue that that is an example of socialism (I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that). But that regulation has worked well for us. While we are being hit by the recession too, we are not being hit nearly as badly as are the US and UK, And, far more importantly, not one of our banks has had to ask for a single cent in bailout money. Not a penny. The system in the US and UK has obviously failed but ours, which is more socialist, hasn't. How is that a bad thing? Maybe if there had been more socialist theory implemented in the US and UK (the UK is far more socialist than the US but in areas other than banking and monetary policy) we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

This has been an interesting discussion - I've got to get ready to head out to work but I look forward to reading your responses tomorrow.

[captmojo]

Damn. I purposely stayed out of DBR's PPB for a reason.
The American economic system has bankruptcy laws as a fallback. The government should have kept their money to begin with. Thus, government can't lay claim to dictate to private business in this matter. Should loans be made, rules should be set forth prior to the fact. No changing of the rules in the middle of the game to be allowed. If a company goes under, so be it. There are a multitude of bystanders and second stringers waiting to take the loser's place, thereby filling any void left by said loser and would dive at the chance.

What has occurred here is spending from the feds that must be repaid at some point. Some point, unfortunately, appears to be a generation too far in the future. The anger you see, by some down here, is an unknown amount of debt, to be paid for an unknown length of time, to an unknown creditor. Also, there is an uncertain expectancy of future expenditures that have been campaigned for in the last elections, costs still uncertain. Government here, has grown far too large and regulating than many desire to see it. Right or wrong, these "Tea Parties" have a right to gather and dissent.

This brings about the tax issue, and the current amount being paid by some individuals and corporations.
The corporations in this country don't pay taxes, they simply collect them. Any rise in rates is compensated by the rise in costs to next in the ownership chain, topping out with the end consumer. If this is what is known as a tax cut, guess again. Conversely, one could argue that it is just inflationary. It may be said that a rate increase on only the wealthy, would not have an effect on the middle class and poor, but if the previously stated passed along price increases are a fact of life, then there is a direct effect. Is it not? If circumstances follow that further increases to the government coffers are necessary...where does it end???????????

The next revolution in the USA just may be a tax revolt.
I return now, to the lowly state of complete avoidance of the subject.