Look again at the picture, what you've got is a bunch of people who are pissed that their economic betters are getting taxed a bit harder than George W Bush wanted. Honestly, it isn't much of an exaggeration to cal this the slaves protesting for the masters. This, of course, assumes that the tea party label means what its historical meaning held, taxation - neglecting the part about "without representation."
If you take it as having something to do with government spending, it is peculiar that BushCo's deficits didn't matter, even neglecting the missing Iraq and Afghanistan war costs. These people squeal about spending their grandkids money now and didn't mind running wars on the cuff or GWB's tax cut induced deficits. The poll numbers on the economy and confidence in the President mirror the BushCo approval rates, 23% disapprove and 63% approve. Evidently if you liked BushCo you like tea parties.
The plethora of Socialist signs is particularly funny in concert with the anti-bailout sentiments. Honestly, the administration is bending over backwards to preserve private enterprises rather than nationalize banks or see the smaller stock investors and businesses get taken out by auto industry bankruptcy.
OK, let's be blunt, these are idiots. The unifying principle is Barack Obama and since their "issues" have spit to do with the policies you start running into the two things that are evident - Democrat and Black. Well, there is also Fox News consumers...
3 comments:
That's a very good way to put it. Dig around for a bit and you'll find the guy with the "No representation without taxation" sign. Idiots.
You need to remember that people you care about fall into the category of what you call "idiots"... yes, I was at the TEA party at the Michigan state capital yesterday. Yes, I don't appreciate the mentality that if you are in debt, you should spend more to get yourself out of debt (that doeesn't seem to work at MY house). Yes, I don't appreciate the "redistribution" of the money we have worked hard to earn and save over the years, to those who have spent irresponsibly. How anyone can think that only people who make more than $250,000 per year are going to pay for this is beyond me. OH, WAIT>> Obama said it, so it MUST be true....
Be careful how you phrase things... and be careful that you don't contribute to the "hate-mongering."
Geez....
The slaves protesting for their masters. I'd never thought of it in those terms but... 'tis true.
As for "the mentality that if you are in debt, you should spend more to get yourself out of debt" Kathy mentions... Here's my recollection of recent history.
President Clinton made serious headway to balancing the federal budget and paying down the federal debt. Then along comes President Bush and rams a tax cut through which reversed both trends. In other words - spending more to get yourself out of debt.
It's strange but when Democrats protested that reversal of the positive gains Clinton had achieved, the chorus from Republicans was all about how "deficit spending" is a good thing and that liberals just don't understand economics.
Here's some solid historical facts for the skeptics:
1. The federal tax rate across the board, and especially for the most wealthy citizens, was much, MUCH higher during America's economic "Golden Age" from the late 1940s through the 1960s.
2. Then conservatives started to make headway with their "greed is good" anti-tax philosophy. Tax rates across the board began to go down and have continued to do so ever since.
3. The result? Boom and Bust cycles undheard of during our economic Golden Age of properity and wealth.
4. The simple fact of the matter is that the tax rate Obama proposes for those earning more than $250k is LESS than it was when our nation was rising up to be the wealthiest on the planet without peer during the Golden Age.
Post a Comment