Attend a Tea Party on April 15th, US Citizens

[Visum]

I thought I would post on this national movement regarding high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility.
A letter I received:


Dear____________,

On April 15, Tax Day, those of us who believe in free markets and limited government have an enormous opportunity.
This opportunity is the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.
American Solutions is proud to be a part of a coalition of grassroots groups that are helping to organize and promote Tea Parties all across the country. In fact, we've confirmed over 500 events in all 50 states and we're still growing.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans of all political stripes will be hitting the streets to protest high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility.
To find a Tea Party in your area go to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Our goal must be to put a stop to the excessive debt, spending, and centralization of power by cynical politicians, and to put forth a clear and decisive alternative.
We've put together a Toolkit for Tea Parties that you can print out and take with you.
You can download it right here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It includes, among other items, our 12 American Solutions for Jobs & Prosperity, which is a clear and decisive alternative to the big government, big bureaucracy, big spending policies of President Obama.
Thank you, and we hope you will join us for a Tea Party.
Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee. Not printed at government expense. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Henry]

I'd love to go teabagging, provided its with some very attractive conservative ladies.


Conservatives are acting like crybabies over this keynesian stimulus while simultaneously kvetching about the state of the economy. Taxes returning to the levels they were at before the Bush tax cut for the top income brackets is hardly anything to get histrionic about.

[TheLastMohican]

Well, it's original...

[Tocsin]

Hundreds of thousands of Americans of all political stripes will be hitting the streets to protest high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility.

This despite the fact that top tax rates are less than half of what they were throughout the 1940s to the 1960s.

Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._of_top_rat es)

Our goal must be to put a stop to the excessive debt, spending, and centralization of power by cynical politicians, and to put forth a clear and decisive alternative.

Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions


Excessive debt? Spending? Centralization of power by cynical politicians?

Gee... I wonder why Newt didn't porpose anything like this anytime during the previous eight years of the Bush administration?

Couldn't be that the only time for a Republican to protest Executive branch policies is when a Democrat is in the White House, could it?

What a joke. :laugh:

It's called sour grapes, Newt, and now He and all Republicans can used them to make their infamous "fine whines."

I'm no Obama suporter (but I am a Kucinich supporter), but this is nothing more than blatant partisan BS, and nothing more.

If McCain had been elected, and had done the exact same thing as Obama, Newt would be cheering on the sidelines.

This has got got nothing to do with policies - its just right wing "if you're not with us, you're our enemy" attack politics... as usual.





Tocsin added to this post, 10 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Hey! Where's my invite?

I think it might be in Henry's previous post, if he's using "teabagging" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in its semi-popular "urban slang" form.

[Tristan]

Excessive debt? Spending? Centralization of power by cynical politicians?

Gee... I wonder why Newt didn't porpose anything like this anytime during the previous eight years of the Bush administration?

He did this in a book he wrote in 2005 (Amazon (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). Newt also formed his anti-debt organization in 2007.

To me, the tea parties suggest that there is impassioned dislike of Keynesian policies among people that normally do not go out and protest things. Most people have jobs and lives, so they don't take up causes like this.

[eternaltriangle]

I'd love to go teabagging, provided its with some very attractive conservative ladies.


Conservatives are acting like crybabies over this keynesian stimulus while simultaneously kvetching about the state of the economy. Taxes returning to the levels they were at before the Bush tax cut for the top income brackets is hardly anything to get histrionic about.

Your argument ignores the massive deficit, which will surely result in future tax increases (a deficit that did not need to be as large as it is, but was packed with ideologically motivated spending). Moreover, taxes as a % of GDP - the governments take - has been growing since 2004, and presently is at the same level it was before the Reagan tax cut.

I actually do think taxes need to be higher (I would prefer consumption taxes, not taxes on productivity), but America also needs to control its government spending problem.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 3 minutes and 19 seconds later...


Excessive debt? Spending? Centralization of power by cynical politicians?


It is true that Bush was a lousy fiscal conservative, but it is also pretty clear that Obama is an order of magnitude less fiscally conservative. In 2007 the deficit was down to 162 billion - near 1% of GDP and almost under control. Obama is running deficits in excess of a trillion dollars, and plans to "lower" the deficit in five years to over 500 billion dollars - higher than any of the Bush deficits.

Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary... or would if I had the right to vote.

[Visum]

I actually would attend one if I was currently in the US. Whether it is whining or not, one would have first hand witness as to its credibility. Either way, get involved in politics.

[Henry]

Your argument ignores the massive deficit, which will surely result in future tax increases (a deficit that did not need to be as large as it is, but was packed with ideologically motivated spending). Moreover, taxes as a % of GDP - the governments take - has been growing since 2004, and presently is at the same level it was before the Reagan tax cut.

I actually do think taxes need to be higher (I would prefer consumption taxes, not taxes on productivity), but America also needs to control its government spending problem.


Long term I agree with you, but for the next 1-2 years I think government needs to spend very liberally to prevent this recession from turning into a depression. I'm not sure whether the current administration intends to keep these rates of spending up in the future, or if they just claiming to do so in order to make the stimulus work. In either case, I don't think that now is a great time for addressing long term budge issues.

If output is less than its natural long-run rate, then spending=output. Y=C+I+G+NX. Private consumption is falling. Investment is plummeting. That leaves us with monetary policy to address net exports, and government spending to address plummeting overall demand.

[ElstonGunn]

Hundreds of thousands of Americans of all political stripes will be hitting the streets to protest high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility.

Fiscal irresponsibility? In 1980, the US was the largest creditor nation in history. By 1990, it was the largest debtor nation. Must have been all those democratic presidencies in the '80s with their soft defense policies and free welfare for lazy people funded by tax hikes on the ultra-rich that caused that, I guess.

[Visum]

Fiscal irresponsibility? In 1980, the US was the largest creditor nation in history. By 1990, it was the largest debtor nation. Must have been all those democratic presidencies in the '80s with their soft defense policies and free welfare for lazy people funded by tax hikes on the ultra-rich that caused that, I guess.

So, you agree or disagree we have high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility? Regardless of how, or where it came from I do.

[Henry]

So, you agree or disagree we have high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility? Regardless of how, or where it came from I do.

We have very low taxes relative to the rest of the developed world.

Spending liberally in times of serious downturn isn't bad fiscal policy; government can "lean against the wind" and smooth out some of the peaks of unemployment and inflation. Spending liberally in good times (eg 1985-1991 and 2001-2007) is very bad polciy.

[ElstonGunn]

So, you agree or disagree we have high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility? Regardless of how, or where it came from I do.

High taxes? No. From what I understand, we have one of the lowest tax rates around. Of course, you can use statistics to prove anything, especially wen the subject is as complex as comparing tax systems of countries to each other without taking a hard look at what taxpayers get for the taxes they pay, not to mention the differences in purchasing power, and all those kinds of things.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. GDP
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Yeah probably, but that's a vague term. The US is more fiscally responsible than Zimbabwe, right? How can you measure fiscal responsibility when there are so many factors, some of which require several years to show any effects, at which point, it can become unclear which cause led to which effect?

[Visum]

Henry and ElstonGunn- I agree we are talking about opinions. One reason we have low taxes is because we are not a Socialist country, though we are getting close! I still would prefer lower taxes, no bail out for idiots and thieves, and I want 100% of the money I paid into Social Security instead of the 87% they are now telling me. Or, I want the option to opt out of it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), without having to be a part of some stupid religion that is against saving for a rainy day. Not only is the 87% uncertain, it is almost a sure thing that the little resources I do receive will be inflated into beer money. Maybe you are both satisfied with this? I believe this is some of the fiscal irresponsibility, and I want change now. I do not believe this is a one party issue and that Newt is going to save me.

[ElstonGunn]

One reason we have low taxes is because we are not a Socialist country, though we are getting close!

You say it like it's a bad thing. ;)

In what way are we getting close to public ownership of the means of production involving methods of compensation based on the Labor Theory of Value? The whole knee-jerk reaction about "nationalizing the banks" seems more like conservatorism than nationalization (i.e., it's temporary), but it's a confusing and arcane legal area that I've only taken a quick and amateur look at.

[INTJRyan]

Next up, conservatives protest Marxism by burning his books in a "Hot Karl" protest. Conservatives will also show their support for immigration reform by participating in a "Dirty Sanchez" rally.

[Tristan]

High taxes? No. From what I understand, we have one of the lowest tax rates around. Of course, you can use statistics to prove anything, especially wen the subject is as complex as comparing tax systems of countries to each other without taking a hard look at what taxpayers get for the taxes they pay, not to mention the differences in purchasing power, and all those kinds of things.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. GDP
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Yeah probably, but that's a vague term. The US is more fiscally responsible than Zimbabwe, right? How can you measure fiscal responsibility when there are so many factors, some of which require several years to show any effects, at which point, it can become unclear which cause led to which effect?

Clearly, you can live pretty much anywhere if you're dense enough to want higher taxes. But if you want lower taxes, the United States is one of only a handful of decent countries in which to work.

I tend to like growth rather than safety nets, because growth is its own safety net. I suspect that our relatively low taxes are pretty much the only thing within the whole public sector that contributes reliably to our immigration and GDP growth rates. If you look at public spending and realize how misdirected and ineffective it is, I see precious few ways it contributes to growth. The countries listed on wiki as having tax rates about 30% have good safety nets, but only a couple of them are growing.

The best definition of responsibility, in this case, is just having future outlays = future tax revenue. As long as the US experiences *growth,* it will be able to pay off even the massive, inter-generational debt that is accruing this year.

Bush should have spent less than he did. Obama needs to spend less than he is. There, that sounds nice and even-handed.

/rant about growth

Conservatives will also show their support for immigration reform by participating in a "Dirty Sanchez" rally.
LMAO

[ElstonGunn]

I tend to like growth rather than safety nets, because growth is its own safety net.

In what way, and for whom? (Honest, non-rhetorical question.)

Hong Kong and Singapore both have low tax rates, but attributing their good economies to that seems like missing the point to me. Serbia and Cyprus also have low tax rates, but they're much less stable societies. Likewise, I would think that the US and France are both strong economies because they're stable, not because of their tax rates.

[Tristan]

[I tend to like growth rather than safety nets, because growth is its own safety net.]

In what way, and for whom? (Honest, non-rhetorical question.)

Certainly a fair question. I'll try to give you my basic take on it.

-----
In a growing economy, labor is valuable and capital is cheap.
The lowliest can get jobs. Stocks, certificates representing a claim on ongoing labor, rise, and bonds, land rents, and other rock-solid assets can't compete with them.

In a steady economy, capital is valuable and labor is cheap.
Jobs are protected, so it's damn near impossible to get one. Bonds and cash, and all such certificates representing a claim on capital, rise while stocks flounder.
-----

In essence, the proles can thrive in a growing economy, but only the bourgeoisie, the people who can lean on previously-existing assets, can thrive in a steady economy. Growth is fundamentally good for everyone. To create general welfare, the government fights those fundamentals. It creates a safety net by plundering the economy's capacity to grow. Statists argue that people "fall through the cracks" in capitalism, and this would be a valid point except that the government is not perfect either. In fact, government is so bad, that human history is practically written in terms of its abuses.

[Henry]

Your argument ignores the massive deficit, which will surely result in future tax increases (a deficit that did not need to be as large as it is, but was packed with ideologically motivated spending).

If you don't interrupt deflationary cycles, you get the Great Depression. Besides government spending, there's just not a lot that can get an economy moving again. And guess what happens to revenue in deflationary cycles? And the real burden of that debt in the event of a deflation?

Also, the debt is at a paltry 65% of GDP and is financed at a 1-2% real rate of return. Something to consider? Yes. Anything to worry about? Not when there's 8.5% unemployment and probably 15% underemployment+unemployment.

[qwerty123]

I'll be at the one in Concord, NH and then in Manchester, NH.

[Grimstad]

Great sentiment but where have they been for the last 8 years?
They wait till now to protest the Bush taxes?
I wonder how many who's taxes actually increase will be out there on the fron lines?
One really good thing about this is watching the media try and say teabagging with a straight face.





Grimstad added to this post, 91 minutes and 4 seconds later...

I'd love to go teabagging, provided its with some very attractive conservative ladies.

I have to admit, that is something that pubs seem to do better. Lovely ladies

[ElstonGunn]

In essence, the proles can thrive in a growing economy, but only the bourgeoisie, the people who can lean on previously-existing assets, can thrive in a steady economy. Growth is fundamentally good for everyone.

But wasn't the economy growing quite a bit during the Industrial Revolution? That wasn't a particularly good time for labor, although that was also before there was much in the way of safety or compensation regulations.

Too much growth can also cause bubbles, which will eventually burst, at which point its built-in safety net bursts as well. It's like having employer-funded healthcare. That's all well and good when you're working, but if you lose your job, you lose both your source of income and your health insurance. Likewise, if the economic growth continues, then that's one thing, but in a cyclic economy, once the growth is disrupted, the safety net goes with it.

[Tristan]

But wasn't the economy growing quite a bit during the Industrial Revolution? That wasn't a particularly good time for labor, although that was also before there was much in the way of safety or compensation regulations. During the Industrial Revolution labor was barred from organizing. They were required, by law, to eat the shit sandwich. Every "regulation" was stacked against the worker. There is nothing laissez-faire about that. The IR is the archetypal example of how abusive government intervention can get.

Too much growth can also cause bubbles, which will eventually burst, at which point its built-in safety net bursts as well. It's like having employer-funded healthcare. That's all well and good when you're working, but if you lose your job, you lose both your source of income and your health insurance. Likewise, if the economic growth continues, then that's one thing, but in a cyclic economy, once the growth is disrupted, the safety net goes with it.Where goes the economy, there goes the government. Government only creates a safety net for you if you have political power to foist, and there is someone to loot the assets from. The former means that powerful men benefit the most from big government (they clearly do); the latter means that government is vulnerable to economic bubbles. This very thread provides evidence for this. With nowhere else to turn, government is presently looting non-existent, future wealth to pay off powerful banks. No one but the government itself labors under the illusion that such a strategy is viable, so even conservative, dullbob squares are staging protests.

Government's efficacy at providing universal this-and-that, and its approval rating, has gone down in pace with the rise of its budget. While the market might not be perfect at providing full employment and steady benefits, it reaches further towards that goal than government does.

[Lucid]

What's hilarious about it is that most of the people who are protesting make less than a quarter million annually. So their taxes have actually been cut. They are what, exactly? Protesting on behalf of the people whose taxes will be raised by 3% because they make OVER a quarter million annually? Do they understand the issues here?

Is this a protest of taxes or bailouts? If it's for bailouts that's one thing, if it's for taxes... I'm confused. Of course, it seems that they are too.

And like many others have said, SOMEONE needs to step in and put money into the system. At the moment, the government is the only entity both willing and able to do so. I disagree with a LOT of what's been going on with the TARP programs, but I think these people protesting are poorly informed to say the least.

Also, I am disappointed by the fact that so far no tea bagging has occured. And didn't they steal the whole 'tea party' idea from the Libertarians?

[eternaltriangle]

If you don't interrupt deflationary cycles, you get the Great Depression. Besides government spending, there's just not a lot that can get an economy moving again. And guess what happens to revenue in deflationary cycles? And the real burden of that debt in the event of a deflation?

Also, the debt is at a paltry 65% of GDP and is financed at a 1-2% real rate of return. Something to consider? Yes. Anything to worry about? Not when there's 8.5% unemployment and probably 15% underemployment+unemployment.

I agree with a stimulus, the problem is the specific stimulus being proposed. Obama could have had a stimulus with tax cuts and infrastructure spending. Instead a lot of the stimulus involves more government spending on healthcare, the environment and other social programs. The issue is that this spending will never be reduced (it is almost impossible to cut spending on core government programs). That is a problem given that we already face an impending disaster due to entitlement programs like social security and medicare (or medicaid - the one for old people). Other necessary spending, like education, intrudes into the state sphere of government (and we all know how effective that is), and at any rate, is not provide large numbers of jobs. You need jobs that can employ anybody (like construction) rather than expansions that largely employ new teachers (and dept. of education bureaucrats).

The advantage of infrastructure spending is that it provides a quick hit to the economy, and then goes away once the project is complete. Moreover, infrastructure spending would directly create jobs, and benefit from the current labour shortage. If you are going to use fiscal policy, infrastructure spending is absolutely the best possible tool.

Now, as to the tax cuts, yes, the top marginal rate used to be really high in like 1950. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare the globalized present with the autarchic 50's, however. There was nothing like the capital mobility that exists presently back then. There were no alternative places where one could invest when it came to production of high tech products. That is not the case today, however. This recession was caused in part by the fact that housing looked like a more promising investment than say, high tech industries. We are reaching the end of the productivity boom from the IT expansion. That means that it is all the more necessary to ensure that innovation and entrepreneurship is well-rewarded.

I am not actually against tax increases (tackling the debt/deficit is a real problem), but they should be broad-based tax increases (like higher consumption taxes), rather than taxes on the most productive members and activities within society.

PS: and yes the deficit is more than a long-term problem. The Keynesian logic of stimulus ASSUMES a balanced budget as a starting point. If you launch into a stimulus from a starting point of a structural deficit, people will not spend additional money. They will assume that in the long-run taxes will have to increase to bring down the deficit, and will save up for that point. The Bush and Reagan tax cuts were much more limited in their effects than the Kennedy one because they induced a larger structural deficit. Obama's stimulus goes completely off the deep end in that regard.

Anyways, how effective is the Obama plan? What are we getting in exchange for trillions of additional debt? If you look at his administration's own projections (not the federal bureaucracies, but his teams projections), even then we are only speeding up an inevitable recovery by about a year or two. When you consider that the CBO projects lower long-term economic growth, and that this new deficit spending will crowd out private investment by driving up (private) interest rates (before we even consider the spending implications of the rise of China as a superpower competitor or entitlement costs from social security) I would rather go through a tough year or two with a pared down, disciplined and focused economic recovery package (perhaps similar to Canada's).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The other thing is that I have heard very little about the regulatory steps this administration is going to take to prevent future housing bubbles and credit crunches. Again there is an obvious model in Canada (no bank failures since BEFORE the Great Depression). So long as there is no clarity on that front, a recovery will not happen (or will be shortlived).

[LaoTzu]

The Tea-Party idea was actually begun by others before the GOP decided it was a great way to appear 'populist' and garner more votes. This new incarnation is merely political posturing, as well as a way of destroying those who thought of it first; by joining them, and shouting them down.


It's bullshit now.... unfortunately.

Heard some interesting debate on it on Thom Hartmann (link?maynotwork... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.))
Green 960 AM has free podcasts anyhow (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and I would suggest the 'Alex Jones' hour that was on today :)

[Lucid]

The Tea-Party idea was actually begun by others before the GOP decided it was a great way to appear 'populist' and garner more votes. This new incarnation is merely political posturing, as well as a way of destroying those who thought of it first; by joining them, and shouting them down.


It's bullshit now.... unfortunately.

Yep. It was the Libertarians first. Supporters of Ron Paul who are now, apparently, pissed off that their grass roots movement was astroturf'd.

[CaffeineHeretic]

The tea parties on April 15th were by and large an embarrassment and a ridiculous outpouring of right-wing faux anger. I have no problem with people opposing fiscal irresponsibility. I have no problem with people demanding accountability.

I have problems with people who chanted "Yay Bush" for the last eight years while the man and Congress ran up the biggest deficits in history, then suddenly changed their tune once the pendulum swung over to the Democrats. Hypocrites, all of em. Here comes some alliteration for ya.

People who place party before principles make me puke.

So for all you teabaggers who suddenly found your fiscally responsible voice after Jan 20th, 2009; you're part of the problem. To the rest of you who were protesting this crap back in 2003, more power to you and much respect.


CaffeineHeretic <-- Registered republican, lifelong conservative, and has been screaming for a balanced budget and tax reform since before he could vote, back in the days of Reagan.