Fox News attempts to prop up the rediculous Tea Bag movement which it has been flailing at the media for the last few months.

Awesome credibility backfire in the link below.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003260027

With people like Victoria Jackson behind their "cause" I can only say, good luck! She calls Obama a communist and then says Glenn Beck has taught her well, but I had to stop listening because her voice is like a thousand shards of glass being blown directly into my ear canal.

I loved one of the reader's comments, that Doocy looks like a dog trying to understand algebra.

I dare say, much of this anti-Omaba backlash is barely repressed racism. I think a large percentage of our country just can't deal with having a black man as president, so they accuse him of all manner of things—Muslim, Socialist, Communist, etc.

I think a lot of this goes back to politics being a team sport.

It doesnt matter what they are doing with health care. If the republicans didnt do it, then tea baggers will NOT support it. It's all about "My team isnt winning" and that is the end of it. People arent thinking about good policy, they are thinking about us vs them.

Tee hee. "Tea baggers."


If only they knew....

Isn't the tea bag party an effort to address over taxation? Don't you think we have a real problem in the US with over taxation? When less than 50% of the people in this country pay any income tax at all it is amazing that this same group of people is allowed the power to influence how much the paying half pays.

Now I don't think Obama is a communist, and I haven't heard him repeat Stalin's call for the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, but I do have the impression that much modern politics has forgotten the basis of the debate between socialism and capitalism.
As I recall, the slogan for the Boston Tea Party in the American War of Independence was 'no taxation without representation'. Chris is pointing out that there is now a real issue regarding 'representation without taxation', that people who do not pay tax have equal voting power as people who do pay tax, and this suggests a possible risk to the economy, that decisions can be made by a majority regardless of the capacity to pay for them. There is a famous quote about this issue:

Quote:A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

I like your quote Robert.

I don’t think there is a problem with over-taxation in the US. The real problem is the utter distain many of those on the right wing, such as the current “tea bag” nutters, have for government, and by extension, the rights of one’s community. Although forever shouting about government expenditures, it has in fact been Republican administrations that have outspent everyone in recent years. Reagan spent like a drunken sailor, initiating the current tradition of large annual deficits. The Bush Jr administration outdid all comers, spending massively while at the same time slashing taxes for the wealthy. After all the spending frenzies the neo-cons then sit back and say: “See, I told you so. The public sector just can’t manage its finances. Let’s privatize everything.” Meaning: lets hand out some juicy contracts to some of our backers.

The myth is avidly promoted by the moneyed class that most or all resources that go to government are wasted, so best to cut taxes as much as possible. This is in the interest of the very wealthy, because most public programs benefit the middle class or the poor much more than they do the well off. If you can afford to pay $30,000 for a medical procedure, then there is not much point in supporting taxes for Medicare, at least not according to the values of the tea bag crowd. If you are in the middle class or less fortunate, there is every point, because paying into a broadly based insurance scheme is the only way said procedure is going to be paid for.

Unfortunately the uber-rich have hijacked much of the political debate over many of these issues, and also sadly gained influence over the intellectually apathetic, a sizeable portion of the electorate today.

The original Boston Tea Party has gotten credit for being much more than it ever actually was.

It was a half-baked act of petty vandalism which percipitated public outrage.

They didnt go into that intending to make a stand for America. They didnt go in as patriots, striking back at an oppressive regime. They tried to pawn off their vandalism by dressing up as native americans.

it wasn't a principled stand against oppression. It was drunk and disorderly conduct.

This is another moment in time which has been washed over by our historians to look like just another heroic moment in american history, when it was a far cry from it.

The modern tea-baggers are a fabrication of Fox "News". Hanity, Beck and other odious talking heads roused their devotee's from their fear-laden couches and lay-z-boys to go out and rabble it up as best they could. They were given inordinate amounts of coverage and talking points from Fox "News" staff.

My initial concern over the "Tea Party" movement is the effect it was having on meaningful Health Care reform. The "Tea Baggers" just wanted to extend the force of the "party of NO!" I can only vouch for the quality of people in my life that identify themselves as "Tea Party" sympathizers. My experience is they know little of the issues they spout off about, highly emotional, have no answers to current problems, and have been baffooned by the very rich who took down our country to believe that the real enemy is the working poor and middle class against the (nonexistent or small group) "non" working middle class or poor that they feel are trying to get a free ride through their taxes. I see no outrage by this group against the wealthy that took down our country and bought out congress for exclusive representation.

I was surprised by a title of newsclip that claimed the Tea Party members were more educated and slightly wealthier than the average blow. I did not get around to reading article so cannot comment. That has not been my personal experience.

Any comments?

Monty

Something tells me you don't know much about the tax system in the United States. When a person receives a bonus check for $20,000 (for doing an outstanding job at work) and the government takes $8,000 off the top there is a problem. This is what happens in the United States. The government takes 40% of that person's "reward" for hard work. Doesn't this serve as a disincentive to work hard?

Where does the $8,000 that has been taken away get spent? In the United States we currently have a "first-time home buyer tax credit" implemented. This program was implemented by the Democratic Party, the party that believes in redistributing wealth. It expires soon. But literally millions of first-time home buyers have received and will be receiving for FREE an $8,000 tax credit.

A person that busts their ass and earns a $20,000 bonus at work is now taking that $20,000 pile of cash, removing $8,000 of it, and handing it to someone else who has not earned a penny of it. If this seems fair to you then I'm not even sure where to go with the conversation.

Like Robert Tulip said in his quote this "democracy" is slowly turning into a tyranny by the majority. The majority vote into office those politicians that will essentially steal from the earners and redistribute to the non-earners. This is the epitome of evil and the recipe for failure and disaster.

About half of the people in this country don't contribute a penny towards income taxes, yet they have the right to vote and influence what our nation does with the taxes taken from the producers. This is disgusting and wrong and the only people that support it are in that lower 50% - they are benefiting from this "redistribution" of wealth. They care not for what is fair. They want the free money and vote to make it happen.

I want to live in a society where people are charitable because their heart tells them to give. I want to live in a nation that rewards hard work and punishes bad decisions and laziness. There needs to be safety nets to extend a helping hand to those that are down, but we have moved so far left, thanks to Obama and other liberals, that the left, which produces far less than the right, is controlling how much the right has to pay and how the money that is collected is spent.

Taking from the producers and giving to those that produce less is analogous to the following....

Imagine what would happen over an extended period of time if Cheetah's no longer had to hunt for their own food. All they had to do was walk up to a lever and put their paw on it and a slab of meat would mysteriously drop from the sky. They would have instant food, a full tummy, an no real incentive to run after that gazelle fleeing at top speed.

What would happen to the strength, power, endurance, ingenuity and creativeness of the Cheetah? Common sense, and an elementary science education, tells us that evolution is thrifty, and no organism develops or maintains attributes (that take energy to develop or maintain) if not needed to survive.

We prop up the weak and lazy in the United States. Don't chime in here about how I lack sympathy or a heart because I grew up in poverty, foster homes and orphanages. I think I've seen my fair share of pain and suffering. The bottom line is, whether people have the intellectual honesty to admit it, we must reward the best, fastest, strongest, smartest, most creative...or we will lose those people and what they contribute to society.

It is disgusting that the government takes 40% of someone's bonus check leaving a 60% net. Out of that 60% net that same hard worker, who is probably a real estate owner, as opposed to a renter, will now contribute more in the way of property taxes. And then when they are left with a meager 50% of what they earned they will then spend 7% more on income sales taxes.

How could you possible think we don't have a problem with over taxation in the United States. The only way you could think that is if you aren't aware of what we really pay, or you come from a leftist mentality and you think what we get to keep out of our paychecks is not what we earned, but what the kind and caring US government "gave" to us.

Several months ago I left the Republican Party, but only because of their attempt to infuse religion into every aspect of government and life. Overall, I think the Republicans are the business people, the producers of wealth, the entrepreneurs, and the people that made the United States a great and powerful nation. I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I've yet to meet a Democrat that seems to understand capitalism and taxation. They advocate liberalism because they will benefit from a redistribution of wealth.

I have not met many Republicans that seem to understand the liberal arts and sciences. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. That's why I left and became independent. Both parties say some really ignorant stuff. Democrats will destroy the US eventually by removing the incentive to excel. Republicans will destroy the US eventually by not respecting the sciences.

Then again Obama is doing a fine job, contrary to what we have grown to expect from a liberal, and destroying the US advantage in space exploration.

I'm exhausted by the rampant ignorance of far left and far right people. I think its time to shut up and learn from each other.

The voice of reason speaks.

BTW, it used to be when you did your 1040, if you overpaid, you got the overpayment back. Last year my daughter did her taxes. She overpaid and not only got back the amount she overpaid, but several thousand dollars more. How did that happen? She got some of Chris O's money

I haven't been hanging around here much lately, but this is one excellent post. I'm glad I didn't miss it.

Regarding the Tea Partiers, there surely is a dumb-as-dirt element to it, but I think it's true that generally that's what we are being led to see. Here, David Harsanyi from the The Denver Post shows us a more moderate, reasonable side. It may be reassuring to hear that according to a recent poll, Tea Party activists are "more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory and more closely aligned philosophically with the wider electorate than any big city newsroom in America."

And, this one's for johnson: "A plurality of Tea Party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency."

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/

Harsanyi: 24-hour party people
Why the Tea Party isn't as "radical" as you think

By David Harsanyi
Posted: 04/16/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT


Yesterday, I waded into a mass of Tea Party protesters gathered at the front of Colorado's Capitol and completely forgot to brace myself for a "small-scale mimicry of Kristall- nacht" (as New York Times columnist Frank Rich once characterized these events).

As it turns out, earlier I happened to peruse a new CBS/New York Times poll detailing the attitudes of Tea Party activists, who, it turns out, are more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory and more closely aligned philosophically with the wider electorate than any big city newsroom in America.

What seemed to be the biggest news derived from the poll nationally? A plurality of Tea Party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency — proving, I suppose, that some people have the ability to be exceptionally fond of a political celebrity without elevating her to sainthood.

More significantly, the polling showed that most Tea Party activists believe the taxes they pay are "fair." The largest number of them wanted their movement to work to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or lowering taxes. Whether you concur or not with this viewpoint, it exhibits more economic sophistication than we often hear from pandering senatorial candidates.

It was news that Tea Party activists — unlike our president or most senators — send their children to public schools. (With a public monopoly in place, where else are they expected to send their children?) A majority of them also deem Social Security and Medicare worthy taxpayer burdens, putting a crimp in the left-wing mythology that the anarchist mob is about to explode.

And while Tea Party supporters are more conservative than the average voter on social issues, as well — particularly abortion, according to a separate Gallup poll — The New York Times reports that 8 in 10 Tea Party activists believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

How long have we been hearing from moderate, sensible, worldly Republican types that if only — if only — the right found God on economic issues and lost God on the social ones there would be an expansion of appeal and support? Apparently they were right.

Now, I won't allege to have observed any sweeping displays of multiculturism at the Tea Party shindig I attended (though, without question, it featured more diversity than my own cloistered, rock-ribbed, lefty neighborhood). According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, "Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large."

More specifically, the economic strata in which the Tea Party movement resides will bear the brunt of Washington's economic reorganization, namely the middle class. The majority of Americans are middle class and their concerns (the economy, job creation, etc.) more closely mirror the Tea Party than Washington's progressive agenda (the environment, entitlements, etc.).

Naturally, the hyperventilating and demonization of these crackpots who carry around copies of the Constitution and babble about the 10th Amendment will continue unabated. It is, perhaps, as much a matter of a cultural divergence as it is an ideological disagreement. Yet, once again, the evidence demonstrates that by the very definition of the word, the Tea Party is less "radical" than are the elected officials busy transforming the nation.

Or, as one sign succinctly put it: "There are no crazies here. They are all in Washington, D.C."

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to say there were "no crazies here," but I can tell you every word on the sign was spelled correctly.

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/davidharsanyi.

This discussion illustrates the rather extreme partisan confusion that besets American politics. The whole system is under some pressure from the combination of the US trying to be the world policeman while China is moving into joint economic leadership with extremely low labour costs that make US manufacturing uncompetitive. If you look at what US taxes are used for, there is about 50% on welfare programs, 20% on the military, 5% on interest and 25% on the rest - see pie chart of US budget spending by category. America's comparative advantage is its human capital and sound institutions, but it is not clear that sustaining these is a political focus.

The protest song B Movie by Gil Scott Heron complained at the time of Ronald Reagan's election that America had changed from being a producer to a consumer. The tea party movement illustrates how the extremely rich are using the fury of the producers in the American economy to mobilise the Republican base. The danger is that genuine concern can be utilised for sectional greed. (By the way, isn't it slightly rude to compare these people to scrotum suckers by calling them Tea Baggers?)

The underlying question here is the strategic vision of security and growth. Cutting welfare may divert resources from consumption to productive investment, but at the cost of social cohesion. America remains extremely rich by world standards, with income average of $46,000 per person. The old problem of private wealth and public squalor presents a risk of the rich retreating behind walls and allowing growth of crime and slums.

My opinion is that there needs to be much more honest and analytical debate about security. The USA could redirect government resources that are now unproductive, which I suspect includes a fair bit of the budgets for welfare and defence, to invest instead in global climate security and global economic security, including a focus on private sector development in poor countries. This would actually be a way to grow the US economy, build its relations with other nations, and plan for response to peak oil and global warming through innovative technology.

The US security incompetence around Hurricane Katrina was stunning. It looks idiotic to make innocent people take off their shoes at airports, but allow nature to destroy one of the nation's greatest cities through negligence and indifference.

I have to admit that I feel pretty worthless after reading all of this.

As I sit here, posting every day on BookTalk, which accounts for about 50% of what I do during any given day, I'm collecting state and federal money in order to help pay for my expenses, because I have a mental disability that generally cripples my ability to work, especially if customers or the general public is a large part of the job.

I have a college degree, I am very well read and well spoken, I write well, and as long as I have a calculator, I'm not so bad at math, but as soon as I come into contact with other people, I crack under the mental anguish and am unable to perform even the simplest task. This only feeds into my mental disorder and makes overcoming it to work even more difficult, and I have often left work in tears because I just couldn't handle it, even if it sounds like it would be the easiest job in the world to other people. I am very intelligent but very sensitive, prone to extreme anxiety and mood swings, and can have panic attacks at the drop of a hat. If you've ever worked in retail sales or even been in a WalMart for more than five minutes, you can understand how these environments combined with my mental problems could lead to a huge disaster. I had to leave my last job because even though I liked straightening the store and counting down the registers, I couldn't handle working with customers (who can be far meaner than anyone who hasn't worked in sales could imagine), and my boss and another coworker weren't treating me with much respect, so that even though I'd had the job for about 18 months (which was a record for me), by the time I decided to leave I was in tears every night and prayed for sickness every day so I wouldn't have to go to work. I didn't even work that many hours, being part time, but it just became insufferable for me and I had to leave, and because I left because of my condition I was granted unemployment, which is one of the only reasons I get by.

I know you don't want to hear sob stories, Chris, and I don't mean to be whining here, but I just feel pretty useless, after reading your post, because I'm one of the people who is getting the tax money that so many people think should go elsewhere. It's not that I don't want to work, it's actually quite the contrary. I very much want to work, because I want to do something with myself and my life, if not to be part of the working class than just to have something to do with all of the skills and intelligence I have, but because of the poor economy and the location I currently live in, finding a job that would utilize my skills without exposing me to the public is ridiculously hard. I am open to relocating if I could find a decent job, but again, so far no such offers have presented themselves. If I also didn't have the help of my parents, I wouldn't be able to make rent or have groceries every month, even with my boyfriend here to help with the expenses. This city has always been a pretty poor place for young people to make a living, and now it's even worse. I feel like a horrible leech on society everyday, but as of right now, I have no other options.

I'm pretty sure you weren't directing the claim that those who don't provide are getting things handed to them and that that is disgusting at me or anyone in my kind of situation, but, being sensitive as well as in this category, like it or not, I couldn't help but feel bad because I know that only the best and the smartest should be rewarded for their hard work, but I feel as though I could be the best, smartest, and most creative if I could just find a job that would be able to let me be a hard worker but take my disabilities into consideration, so that I work my best and produce well without melting down, and having resources available to me to help keep a meltdown from even happening.

I agree with you that many people do milk welfare (especially when you get more money per child, so that an unwed mother on welfare will get more money if she has another child, even though she's not taking care of the ones she already has), but I'm not one of them, and because I felt so bad after reading what you said, I felt obligated to explain myself. I am not intentionally mooching off the government, but I have no other choice right now, and I would definitely be against any law that would restrict people in my situation from getting the help they need. I certainly never thought I'd need this kind of help, but here I am, and I wouldn't even be doing this well without the government services that are lending me their hands now.

That being said, does anyone know of anybody who might need a copy editor, technical writer, or proofreader? I'm an awesome proofreader.