Tea Parties a fad or trend?

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Are the Tea Parties a fad or a growing trend in America?

[cybok0]

A fad.

[fallout2600]

I think its a fad for now, we may see it fire back up for the 2010 elections.

[msmith198025]

Hard to say.

My first instinct is they are a fad. However, if things do not change, I can see this happening more and more.

Did anyone happen to catch the crowd that was at the Alamo tea party when Beck was on? Pretty large turn out

[Madtown HD Junkie]

What I don't get is how anyone thinks giving the Government more power and more money is a good thing?

[msmith198025]

What I don't get is how anyone thinks giving the Government more power and more money is a good thing?

They think they will get something for nothing out of it is my guess.

[Derwin0]

The use of tea is a fad, and probably will only be used at tax time, but having the protests is a trend.

[HDRoberts]

Fad.

Crazy

Taxation without ... they guy WE wanted to represent us.:pleur:

I hope they appreciate the irony. "No more wasteful government spending! Now excuse us while we blow through millions in teabags purchased solely for this protest."

[fallout2600]

What irony? The govt didn't buy the tea!

[msmith198025]

Taxation without ... they guy WE wanted to represent us.:pleur:



You do know there were repubs and dems at these things right?

I know of several Dems that went to them around here.

[fallout2600]

Yep, is was an rally of middle class folks (Repubs, Dems, Independents, etc.) that are fed up with big govt.

[msmith198025]

Yep, is was an rally of middle class folks (Repubs, Dems, Independents, etc.) that are fed up with big govt.

It just happend to be covered more by Fox....imagine that.

[cybok0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30235184#30235184

[msmith198025]

That is pretty tasteless of Olberman. I doubt all of the viewers understood what he was saying though

[cybok0]

I thought it was funny.:)

[msmith198025]

I thought it was funny.:)

Oh, I giggled, but i still think it was tasteless for a "mainstream" media program. It was more of a comedy central flop routine.

[cybok0]

Oh, I giggled, but i still think it was tasteless for a "mainstream" media program. It was more of a comedy central flop routine.


But I thought you guys on the right didn't think MSNBC was "mainstream".;):D

[msmith198025]

But I thought you guys on the right didn't think MSNBC was "mainstream".;):D

haha....you know what I mean:D

[HDRoberts]

You do know there were repubs and dems at these things right?

I know of several Dems that went to them around here.

Just because someone is a registered as a democrat doesn't mean they voted for Obama. Just like Michael Moore is an NRA member.

Way to go on the DailyKos guy for catching what probably was a wild FTA feed from Fox, showing them lying about the crowd size.

[msmith198025]

Just because someone is a registered as a democrat doesn't mean they voted for Obama. Just like Michael Moore is an NRA member.

Way to go on the DailyKos guy for catching what probably was a wild FTA feed from Fox, showing them lying about the crowd size.

I mentioned this before, but the crowds I saw at the Beck feed and Cavuto were considerable. Granted not all gatherings were this large, but there were SEVERAL thousand at these. It was not as small as some are making it out to be, and probably not as large either in many cases.

There were also considerable gatherings at one time or another during the day at many state capitals. I know Scott and Digi had some pics up on a sat guys thread of some of the people.

[HDRoberts]

I mentioned this before, but the crowds I saw at the Beck feed and Cavuto were considerable. Granted not all gatherings were this large, but there were SEVERAL thousand at these. It was not as small as some are making it out to be, and probably not as large either in many cases.

There were also considerable gatherings at one time or another during the day at many state capitals. I know Scott and Digi had some pics up on a sat guys thread of some of the people.

Yeah, there were around 5k at the one Cavuto was at. But he decided to say it was 10-15k. That was a lie.

[msmith198025]

Yeah, there were around 5k at the one Cavuto was at. But he decided to say it was 10-15k. That was a lie.

I personally did not hear him say that, and I have not seen the official numbers either. I just know that the crowd was fairly large

[HDRoberts]

I personally did not hear him say that, and I have not seen the official numbers either. I just know that the crowd was fairly large

See Cybok's video earlier in the thread.

He asks how many are there and is told 5,000.

He gets on the air and says they were expecting that, but have over twice that.

[stevenl]

The war protests are useless... But these teabagging things wow they are needed.....

Was this a FOX sponsored event? I mean for crying out loud could of they promoted it any more? I dont recall msnbc or cnn doing this much stuff for the war protests...

[cybok0]

The war protests are useless... But these teabagging things wow they are needed.....

Was this a FOX sponsored event? I mean for crying out loud could of they promoted it any more? I dont recall msnbc or cnn doing this much stuff for the war protests...


I wounder if they got Lipton or Salada to sponsor this event.:augentreher::free-happy-smileys-

[msmith198025]

See Cybok's video earlier in the thread.

He asks how many are there and is told 5,000.

He gets on the air and says they were expecting that, but have over twice that.

I will look back at it. I missed that part

[cybok0]

I will look back at it. I missed that part

Yeah, it showed what type of a hypocrite this guy is, plus if Fox news knew and let him, well that is worse than what Olberman did.

[msmith198025]

Yeah, it showed what type of a hypocrite this guy is, plus if Fox news knew and let him, well that is worse than what Olberman did.

I am sure it was an MSNBC voiceover dub. Come one guys you know how they are!!!!!!!!:free-happy-smileys-

Seriously, I will look at it in a few.
Thanks for pointing it out

[cybok0]

I am sure it was an MSNBC voiceover dub. Come one guys you know how they are!!!!!!!!:free-happy-smileys-



LOL.:free-happy-smileys-

[Bear Paws]

The war protests are useless... But these teabagging things wow they are needed.....

Was this a FOX sponsored event? I mean for crying out loud could of they promoted it any more? I dont recall msnbc or cnn doing this much stuff for the war protests...
You don't??
Like Dennis Miller said... I"ll help the helpless but the clueless are on their own.. Sorry...
Not even like the election of a president by the media? Or does that not count?

[stevenl]

You don't??
Like Dennis Miller said... I"ll help the helpless but the clueless are on their own.. Sorry...
Not even like the election of a president by the media? Or does that not count?

No I dont. id love the see the video of Keith Olberman sitting next to that waco lady in front of Bushs ranch doing his show.. Oh wait he didnt! And neither did anyone from CNN or any other news channel. But yet FOX here they are right in the middle of the "grass roots" frey that just happend to be started by major networks and big players..

What election of a president by the media? If the media chooses the president we should of had al gore the last 8 years right? Or at least Kerry in 04? America chose this president because he was the better of two evils.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

No I dont. id love the see the video of Keith Olberman sitting next to that waco lady in front of Bushs ranch doing his show.. Oh wait he didnt! And neither did anyone from CNN or any other news channel. But yet FOX here they are right in the middle of the "grass roots" frey that just happend to be started by major networks and big players..

What election of a president by the media? If the media chooses the president we should of had al gore the last 8 years right? Or at least Kerry in 04? America chose this president because he was the better of two evils.

Olberwoman sits by himself in a studio and open his mouth...wacky enough for me! The guy is a stark raving mad leftist with OReilly derangement syndrome

[fallout2600]

Olberwoman should have never left ESPN's Sportcenter.

[fallout2600]

What you didn't see on CNN, starts at about the 2 minute mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2tg8gxCDU

[msmith198025]

Lol, wonder why they did not want to show that on the live feed?

[fallout2600]

fox ratings surge on protest coverage
8-11 pm et

foxnews 3,390,000
msnbc 1,210,000
cnn 1,070,000
cnn headline 909,000


foxnews o'reilly 3,980,000
foxnews hannity 3,239,000
foxnews greta 2,947,000
foxnews beck 2,740,000
foxnews baier 2,401,000
foxnews shep 2,185,000
msnbc olbermann 1,499,000
cnnhn grace 1,336,000
cnn king 1,292,000
msnbc maddow 1,149,000
cnn cooper 1,021,000

[HDRoberts]

If ratings determined to political mood of the country, the next president and vice resident would be Ryan Seacrest and Simon Cowell.

As Nixon said, there is a silent majority.

[fallout2600]

No doubt!

Just goes to show that if CNN had covered it, they would have had an audience watching...

[stevenl]

Its funny a protest about "wasteful spending" but yet buying 1 million teabags is not wasteful..

[msmith198025]

Its funny a protest about "wasteful spending" but yet buying 1 million teabags is not wasteful..

And the point is lost yet again..

[stevenl]

This about sums it up.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

[cybok0]

This about sums it up.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests


:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[HDRoberts]

And the point is lost yet again..

Why don't you see our point? You protest wasteful spending, but then buy millions of tea bags, but don't have millions of people drinking tea. Therefore, it's wasteful spending.

[cybok0]

Why don't you see our point? You protest wasteful spending, but then buy millions of tea bags, but don't have millions of people drinking tea. Therefore, it's wasteful spending.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[fallout2600]

Why don't you see our point? You protest wasteful spending, but then buy millions of tea bags, but don't have millions of people drinking tea. Therefore, it's wasteful spending.

But at least the citizen is choosing to waste their own money, not the govt. That was the point of the Tea Parties.

[Bear Paws]

Why don't you see our point? You protest wasteful spending, but then buy millions of tea bags, but don't have millions of people drinking tea. Therefore, it's wasteful spending. Its my money.. I can do what ever I want with it.. well I used to be able to once... anyway.
When your money is being wasted then call me.. I'm waiting...... Hello... hello.. Hmmmm..maybe the phone is broken..I was certain you had good reason to call...

Are we going to be regulating one tea bag per person per day now? Wasn't something like that tried in 1773? Hmmmm.

[HDRoberts]

You know Bear Paws, your post reminded me of a thread a few weeks ageo.

I find the opinion of fallout2600's opinion of this fascinating. When he is complaining about excessive government spending on things he disagrees with, he is all for these protests.

But just a few weeks ago, when us progressives were demanding AIG exects return their excessive bonuses, I was hit with thins comment

Here the deal, its not "your" money. Once you paid your taxes, that money became the govt's money. By calling it "your" money, the govt increases their populace mob-rule to increase their power.
http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2338#post2338

Seems many of you conservatives agreed, either directly or by silence. We had no place in trying to stop those bonuses because it was no longer our money.

But Obama wants to spend money on some social programs, WHOA, THAT'S MY MONEY.

Interesting.

[fallout2600]

HDRoberts, Not sure of the reaching point you're making, but I still stand by what I said and the Tea Parties stand for the same thing. Reduce taxes to keep the money in YOUR POCKET instead of the govt's pocket where they can do whatever they want with it, like giving AIG execs bonuses. You seem to contradict yourself by saying the Tea Parties aren't in your own personal favor.

[stevenl]

Make up your mind the tea parties are either anti-taxes or anti-spending or both. You cant keep jumping between the two.

[fallout2600]

They are both. If you watched any of the speeches, then you would know that.

[HDRoberts]

HDRoberts, Not sure of the reaching point you're making, but I still stand by what I said and the Tea Parties stand for the same thing. Reduce taxes to keep the money in YOUR POCKET instead of the govt's pocket where they can do whatever they want with it, like giving AIG execs bonuses. You seem to contradict yourself by saying the Tea Parties aren't in your own personal favor.

If that is your position, it should not be both. The government got our money, so now, according to you, they can do what they want with it. Yet there you are, complaining about Obama's spending.

Want to complain about spending, you have to realize the money they are spending is ours.

[stevenl]

Really all I hear is them arguing about "You dont understand its not about taxes its about spending" then the next person saying "Its about taxation without representation" then the next person saying "taxes are to high obama is a facist" Aside from the last one the other quotes I used came from speakers at these events.

And if it is both as you say, Why do you care where its spent? Its not your money right?

[Carl]

You know Bear Paws, your post reminded me of a thread a few weeks ageo.

I find the opinion of fallout2600's opinion of this fascinating. When he is complaining about excessive government spending on things he disagrees with, he is all for these protests.

But just a few weeks ago, when us progressives were demanding AIG exects return their excessive bonuses, I was hit with thins comment

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2338#post2338

Seems many of you conservatives agreed, either directly or by silence. We had no place in trying to stop those bonuses because it was no longer our money.

But Obama wants to spend money on some social programs, WHOA, THAT'S MY MONEY.

Interesting.

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[fallout2600]

More taxes implies more spending. How do you both not see that?

That being said, my money, their money, who cares how we properly term whose money it is. Regardless, it is confiscated wealth from you to the govt. I'm confused on bringing up a semantics debate over this...this is petty...the issue is wealth confiscation. :augentreher:

[msmith198025]

Why don't you see our point? You protest wasteful spending, but then buy millions of tea bags, but don't have millions of people drinking tea. Therefore, it's wasteful spending.

I just see it as a spin. Yeah, they bought alot of teabags. They bought it with THEIR money. Not money that the taxpayers pay in, and not money that commits us (in many peoples opinions) to much higher taxes down the road, and for MANY years.
Unless those teabags added to the federal debt in someway, I am not making the connection

[msmith198025]

And if it is both as you say, Why do you care where its spent? Its not your money right?

The thing is steven, they are not spending their money. They are spending our money that we have not paid yet, and by doing so, they commit each and every one of us to a much larger tax burden at some future point.

[fallout2600]

I just see it as a spin. Yeah, they bought alot of teabags. They bought it with THEIR money. Not money that the taxpayers pay in, and not money that commits us (in many peoples opinions) to much higher taxes down the road, and for MANY years.
Unless those teabags added to the federal debt in someway, I am not making the connection

Finally a voice of reason! :clapclap:

[msmith198025]

Finally a voice of reason! :clapclap:

I just do not see why it is so hard to understand what they are protesting and why.

I mean I know people have different opinions on how things should be done, but spend more than you take in and what do we expect to happen? Our taxes to go down?

[stevenl]

More taxes implies more spending. How do you both not see that?

That being said, my money, their money, who cares how we properly term whose money it is. Regardless, it is confiscated wealth from you to the govt. I'm confused on bringing up a semantics debate over this...this is petty...the issue is wealth confiscation. :augentreher:

Just admit you were wrong youll be fine we forgive you. It is YOUR money the government is taking and spending. Realize that.

And more taxes does not mean more spending. Regardless of more taxes the government will spend spend spend. We need to stop the spending. Then worry about lowering the taxes.

[fallout2600]

I just do not see why it is so hard to understand what they are protesting and why.

I mean I know people have different opinions on how things should be done, but spend more than you take in and what do we expect to happen? Our taxes to go down?

To them, the Tea Parties were an attack on Obama b/c of some of the signs the protesters had on display. What they fail to realize is the issues the Tea Parties were protesting go back all the way to the creation of the Federal Reserve. The people at the Tea Parties are mad at all Repubs and Dems that have allowed the govt to grow to this size. It wasn't an attack on just Obama! To be honest, the fact that Fox News was the main network covering it was a bad thing because now the Tea Parties are viewed by progressives as a neo-con movement, when that is exactly the last thing it was. The primary creator of these parties was RON PAUL. The same guy that Fox News wouldn't even allow on a debate! The same guy that is ANTI-WAR!! The Tea Party protesters attracted people from all political ideologies that agree about one thing: big govt is destroying America's wealth.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Really all I hear is them arguing about "You dont understand its not about taxes its about spending" then the next person saying "Its about taxation without representation" then the next person saying "taxes are to high obama is a facist" Aside from the last one the other quotes I used came from speakers at these events.

And if it is both as you say, Why do you care where its spent? Its not your money right?

Your right....
Taxes are too high, spending is too high, and Obama is a fascist....:)

[Bear Paws]

You know Bear Paws, your post reminded me of a thread a few weeks ageo.

I find the opinion of fallout2600's opinion of this fascinating. When he is complaining about excessive government spending on things he disagrees with, he is all for these protests.

But just a few weeks ago, when us progressives were demanding AIG exects return their excessive bonuses, I was hit with thins comment

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2338#post2338

Seems many of you conservatives agreed, either directly or by silence. We had no place in trying to stop those bonuses because it was no longer our money.

But Obama wants to spend money on some social programs, WHOA, THAT'S MY MONEY.

Interesting. It was never our money. It was their compensation by contract that they and AIG entered into. I'm certain you've heard all the arguments on this. Suffice to say that you progressives either got suckered into the class warfare game or have been snookered for years by the progressive ideology.

Most of those AIG employees worked for $1.00 and a contract written in 2008 to be paid in March 2009 for $X. I too have no problem living up to the contract that Barney, Gietner and the White House signed off on and agreed to.. The time to renegotiate the contract was before the bail out..not after it was approved and then to deflect blame of the real culprits. You have no problem with the UAW demanding GM to live up to their contracts after the bail out.. Even if it bankrupts GM. You typically want to be selective and have it both ways. If AIG had gone bankrupt as they should have been allowed to as Lemhan then the compensation money would not have been at issue. They never would have got it.

You call yourselves progressives... You do understand that the Progressive party was for years a official "front" organization and political party of the communist party. Henry Wallace FDR's Vice president run for president was funded by Moscow in 1948.

However, the Progressives also generated a great deal of controversy, due to the widespread belief that they were secretly controlled by Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than the United States. Wallace himself denied being a Communist, but he repeatedly refused to disavow their support, and at one point was quoted as saying that the "Communists are the closest thing to the early Christian martyrs". Wallace was also hurt when Westbrook Pegler, a prominent conservative newspaper columnist, revealed that Wallace as Vice-President had written coded letters discussing prominent politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to his Russian New Age spiritual guru, Nicholas Roerich.

Further more;http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-herman121802.asp
But the real backbone of his Progressive Citizens of America was the American Communist party. Its chairman was a secret Communist; John Abt, its general counsel, was a Soviet spy who was part of the same Communist cell as Alger Hiss (Hiss himself worked for Wallace when he had been secretary of agriculture). The campaign's platform committee was headed by another secret Communist, Lee Pressman. Every aspect of the official platform faithfully reflected the Stalinist party line.

THe Communist party never completely took its tentacles out but rather transferred them to unions ( a less objectionable venue) that then became the spearhead for the Progressive movement. The roots of your party is Communism going back to Wilson.

[stevenl]

Oh shesh more the commies are coming stuff.. Bear the 60s and 70s are over and they werent really that bad.

[fallout2600]

And more taxes does not mean more spending. Regardless of more taxes the government will spend spend spend. We need to stop the spending. Then worry about lowering the taxes.

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

And more taxes does not mean more spending.
It sure the hell does when your budget has that big of a deficit.

We need to stop spending? and you voted for Obama? :free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[Bear Paws]

Really all I hear is them arguing about "You dont understand its not about taxes its about spending" then the next person saying "Its about taxation without representation" then the next person saying "taxes are to high obama is a facist" Aside from the last one the other quotes I used came from speakers at these events.

And if it is both as you say, Why do you care where its spent? Its not your money right? We all have our own pet peeve. But the bottom line comes down to the one common denominator. Too much government spending too much money. It has to be paid back and printing money isn't going to do it. Only more taxes on top of the to many taxes now will pay it back..Whose money do you think is tax money?? You bitched about Bush's 800 billion debt as if it was out of your pocket but the now 13 trillion isn't??

[stevenl]

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

And more taxes does not mean more spending.
It sure the hell does when your budget has that big of a deficit.

We need to stop spending? and you voted for Obama? :free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-


What the heck are you ranting about? How does more taxes = more spending?

We do need to stop spending. The previous REPUBLICAN congress and Administration broke every spending record imaginable. So why would I want them to stay in power? So we put in a new party and looks like they want to continue the policy. So we may have to get rid of them to. But well see how it turns out.. Ill give him more then 80 days before I judge him :augentreher:

[fallout2600]

What the heck are you ranting about? How does more taxes = more spending?

Any new tax is money that govt intends to spend. If they spend it before they have the money (as they are doing now), then they are going to raise taxes in the future to pay for it. Each implies the other. Regardless the size of govt is now beyond the scope of the Constitution. That should scare any law abiding, tax paying citizen. Obama is planning more of the same and trying to reinflate the bubble. What happens the next time the bubble burst and your 401k drops 70%-80% instead of 30%-50%??

[Bear Paws]

Oh shesh more the commies are coming stuff.. Bear the 60s and 70s are over and they werent really that bad. I keep telling you guys. If its Communism or Socialism you want then go where they have it already. It beautiful there, I'm sure..Go try it before you buy it.. I saw it. I just didn't like it so I didn't buy it.. . You don't have my permission to change my country in to something I don't want. But you have my permission to go somewhere else where it already is to try it out first. I might let you back when your tails are between your legs.

[HDRoberts]

It was never our money. It was their compensation by contract that they and AIG entered into. I'm certain you've heard all the arguments on this. Suffice to say that you progressives either got suckered into the class warfare game or have been snookered for years by the progressive ideology.

Most of those AIG employees worked for $1.00 and a contract written in 2008 to be paid in March 2009 for $X. I too have no problem living up to the contract that Barney, Gietner and the White House signed off on and agreed to.. The time to renegotiate the contract was before the bail out..not after it was approved and then to deflect blame of the real culprits. You have no problem with the UAW demanding GM to live up to their contracts after the bail out.. Even if it bankrupts GM. You typically want to be selective and have it both ways. If AIG had gone bankrupt as they should have been allowed to as Lemhan then the compensation money would not have been at issue. They never would have got it.

You call yourselves progressives... You do understand that the Progressive party was for years a official "front" organization and political party of the communist party. Henry Wallace FDR's Vice president run for president was funded by Moscow in 1948.

However, the Progressives also generated a great deal of controversy, due to the widespread belief that they were secretly controlled by Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than the United States. Wallace himself denied being a Communist, but he repeatedly refused to disavow their support, and at one point was quoted as saying that the "Communists are the closest thing to the early Christian martyrs". Wallace was also hurt when Westbrook Pegler, a prominent conservative newspaper columnist, revealed that Wallace as Vice-President had written coded letters discussing prominent politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to his Russian New Age spiritual guru, Nicholas Roerich.

Further more;http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-herman121802.asp
But the real backbone of his Progressive Citizens of America was the American Communist party. Its chairman was a secret Communist; John Abt, its general counsel, was a Soviet spy who was part of the same Communist cell as Alger Hiss (Hiss himself worked for Wallace when he had been secretary of agriculture). The campaign's platform committee was headed by another secret Communist, Lee Pressman. Every aspect of the official platform faithfully reflected the Stalinist party line.

THe Communist party never completely took its tentacles out but rather transferred them to unions ( a less objectionable venue) that then became the spearhead for the Progressive movement. The roots of your party is Communism going back to Wilson.

So some communists once may have called themselves progressives, so everyone that uses the word progressive is a communist. Brilliant reasoning :augentreher:

Yeah, the politicians screwed up in not stopping the AIG mess earlier. But I can't believe people are complaining about the stimulus while defending the government paid AIG bonuses. They clearly never agreed to work for $1, as they expected to get big paydays anyway, just in a lump sum.

And by the way, I do have a problem with the UAW. Excess union wages are one thing destroying this country.

[stevenl]

We all have our own pet peeve. But the bottom line comes down to the one common denominator. Too much government spending too much money. It has to be paid back and printing money isn't going to do it. Only more taxes on top of the to many taxes now will pay it back..Whose money do you think is tax money?? You bitched about Bush's 800 billion debt as if it was out of your pocket but the now 13 trillion isn't??

Bush adding how many trillion to the debt? And I bitched. The biggest gripe was why is was being spent. Obama is spending to save the economy. Bush was spending to fight an unjust war and other wasteful projects.

Ill bitch about Obamas spending to when he starts doing it.

[msmith198025]

Bush adding how many trillion to the debt? And I bitched. The biggest gripe was why is was being spent. Obama is spending to save the economy. Bush was spending to fight an unjust war and other wasteful projects.

Ill bitch about Obamas spending to when he starts doing it.

There are no wasteful projects in the last stimulus bill?

[Bear Paws]

Any new tax is money that govt intends to spend. If they spend it before they have the money (as they are doing now), then they are going to raise taxes in the future to pay for it. Each implies the other. Regardless the size of govt is now beyond the scope of the Constitution. That should scare any law abiding, tax paying citizen. Obama is planning more of the same and trying to reinflate the bubble. What happens the next time the bubble burst and your 401k drops 70%-80% instead of 30%-50%??

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

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

[Bear Paws]

Bush adding how many trillion to the debt? And I bitched. The biggest gripe was why is was being spent. Obama is spending to save the economy. Bush was spending to fight an unjust war and other wasteful projects.

Ill bitch about Obamas spending to when he starts doing it.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink38.gif :music:
Make friends with Kool-Aid
Make Kool-Aid with friends
Make friends with Kool-Aid
For a groove that never ends
Make friends with Kool-Aid
Make Kool-Aid with friends
Make friends with Kool-Aid
For a groove that never ends...waaaah!

Make friends with Kool-Aid (Make friends with me!)
Make Kool-Aid with friends (Make friends with me!)
Make friends with Kool-Aid (Make friends!)
For a groove that never ends!
Never ends!
Never ends!
Never ends!
Never ends!

[froggigger]

Bush adding how many trillion to the debt? And I bitched. The biggest gripe was why is was being spent. Obama is spending to save the economy. Bush was spending to fight an unjust war and other wasteful projects.

Ill bitch about Obamas spending to when he starts doing it.

Government spending has never saved any economy. Mr. Keynes' theory is a fallacy, but people like Geitner had Keynesian theory drilled in them by our wonderfully objective university system. :augentreher:

[stevenl]

No? Making our national debt over 120% of GDP didnt get us out of the depression?

[fallout2600]

Government spending has never saved any economy. Mr. Keynes' theory is a fallacy, but people like Geitner had Keynesian theory drilled in them by our wonderfully objective university system. :augentreher:

SSSHHHHHH!!!! Don't use the word 'Keynesian". They will hunt you down and silence you!!! :)

[froggigger]

No? Making our national debt over 120% of GDP didnt get us out of the depression?

You tell me. If you think it did, explain how and why.

[froggigger]

SSSHHHHHH!!!! Don't use the word 'Keynesian". They will hunt you down and silence you!!! :)

I will not be silenced! Ignored maybe... :D

[msmith198025]

You tell me. If you think it did, explain how and why.

It did then, but that was many years ago. I am more interested in how it will now. And why

[froggigger]

It did then, but that was many years ago. I am more interested in how it will now. And why

The how and why then is eerily similar to the how and why of today. The problem is that Hoover and FDR prolonged the Depression with their policies. Not to mention the newly created Fed played a big part in causing the 1929 crash, just as the established Fed played a big part in causing the present one. There is a reason every downturn before 1929 ended relatively quickly while the Great Depression lasted well over a decade. The simple answer is because government tried to "fix" the Great Depression, but the market was, for the most part, allowed to run its course previously with little government intervention. The market will self-correct if left alone but you'll never convince a Keynesian of that.

[msmith198025]

I agree that self correction will work better. Let it go within the framework that we had, and it will do it. I am just saying that it DID work then, I just think things are different now. Let it work itself out now.

[stevenl]

Whats different now?

[fallout2600]

The how and why then is eerily similar to the how and why of today. The problem is that Hoover and FDR prolonged the Depression with their policies. Not to mention the newly created Fed played a big part in causing the 1929 crash, just as the established Fed played a big part in causing the present one. There is a reason every downturn before 1929 ended relatively quickly while the Great Depression lasted well over a decade. The simple answer is because government tried to "fix" the Great Depression, but the market was, for the most part, allowed to run its course previously with little government intervention. The market will self-correct if left alone but you'll never convince a Keynesian of that.

Nor will big govt pass up a chance to "fix" a problem.

[froggigger]

I agree that self correction will work better. Let it go within the framework that we had, and it will do it. I am just saying that it DID work then, I just think things are different now. Let it work itself out now.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying Hoover's and FDR's interventionist policies ended the Great Depression? Clarify, please.

[froggigger]

Nor will big govt pass up a chance to "fix" a problem.

Ain't that the truth.

[msmith198025]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying Hoover's and FDR's interventionist policies ended the Great Depression? Clarify, please.
Well, not on their own. The war effort also helped tremendously (albeit that was closer to the end.)

I simply see fundamental differences in what happend then, and what is going on now. The gov is far more involved already at this point compared to how they were then, and we are past the happy medium that we need to have (IMO). Not to mention other changes. Technological changes, the way information is moved, money is exchanged, events are reported on, ect. All of that plays a roll in todays world in a way that was not possible in the great depression.

[fallout2600]

Well, not on their own. The war effort also helped tremendously (albeit that was closer to the end.)

I simply see fundamental differences in what happend then, and what is going on now. The gov is far more involved already at this point compared to how they were then, and we are past the happy medium that we need to have (IMO). Not to mention other changes. Technological changes, the way information is moved, money is exchanged, events are reported on, ect. All of that plays a roll in todays world in a way that was not possible in the great depression.

I hear what you're saying. The end of WWI and WWII is when America's foreign policy began its rise to globalization. Through each war of containment and in the defense of cheap natural resources, American tax payers have been footing the bill. The problem is once we establish a presence in a foreign country, we never leave. The bill just keeps getting exponentially bigger. When the American tax payer couldn't foot the bill, the Federal Reserve prints more "borrowed" cash to create the illusion of a balanced budget in the near future. Now put all that on top of us globally bailing out every alliance since WWI. The system is bound to crash when we finally run out of cash and reach the point where printing more money will not fix the problem. The ultimate problem is that a constitutional govt can never create wealth on its own. The workers of a nation create the economy and drive for production which creates wealth. The only way to fix it is to return to some sort of gold standard and true free market economics. A federally regulated market will always be designed to fund globalization under the illusion of American interests.

It becomes no wonder that American have gravitated to socialism and tea parties are taking place, the cost of running the American Empire is greater than ever, so yes, the situations now are completely different than the times during the great depression.

[froggigger]

Well, not on their own. The war effort also helped tremendously (albeit that was closer to the end.)

I simply see fundamental differences in what happend then, and what is going on now. The gov is far more involved already at this point compared to how they were then, and we are past the happy medium that we need to have (IMO). Not to mention other changes. Technological changes, the way information is moved, money is exchanged, events are reported on, ect. All of that plays a roll in todays world in a way that was not possible in the great depression.

The war ended unemployment but it did not end the depression. Rolling back New Deal policies after the war finally ended it. Government and the Central Bank caused the Great Depression and also the current crisis. Government tried to "fix" the Great Depression but only prolonged it. Government is trying to "fix" the current mess and will likewise only prolong it. Sure the technology is different along with currency exchange, etc. Look at the underlying causes of both downturns, though, and the similarities are very real.

[froggigger]

I hear what you're saying. The end of WWI and WWII is when America's foreign policy began its rise to globalization. Through each war of containment and in the defense of cheap natural resources, American tax payers have been footing the bill. The problem is once we establish a presence in a foreign country, we never leave. The bill just keeps getting exponentially bigger. When the American tax payer couldn't foot the bill, the Federal Reserve prints more "borrowed" cash to create the illusion of a balanced budget in the near future. Now put all that on top of us globally bailing out every alliance since WWI. The system is bound to crash when we finally run out of cash and reach the point where printing more money will not fix the problem. The ultimate problem is that a constitutional govt can never create wealth on its own. The workers of a nation create the economy and drive for production which creates wealth. The only way to fix it is to return to some sort of gold standard and true free market economics. A federally regulated market will always be designed to fund globalization under the illusion of American interests.

It becomes no wonder that American have gravitated to socialism and tea parties are taking place, the cost of running the American Empire is greater than ever, so yes, the situations now are completely different than the times during the great depression.

'nuff said. :thumbup:

[msmith198025]

Good posts by both of you.

[msmith198025]

The war ended unemployment but it did not end the depression. Rolling back New Deal policies after the war finally ended it. Government and the Central Bank caused the Great Depression and also the current crisis. Government tried to "fix" the Great Depression but only prolonged it. Government is trying to "fix" the current mess and will likewise only prolong it. Sure the technology is different along with currency exchange, etc. Look at the underlying causes of both downturns, though, and the similarities are very real.
See, I think ending unemployment woulld do alot to end this recession. I simply do not think we are gearing towards that end. These programs proposed now do little to help small business, and those are the main share of employment in this country. In fact, those small companies seem to be paying more under the new programs when it comes to taxes. If they have to pay more, and sell less, they have to lay people off.

That said, I do not think the gov should try to fix this either. I think, as I said, the market should correct itself. It is not being allowed to however.

[froggigger]

See, I think ending unemployment woulld do alot to end this recession. I simply do not think we are gearing towards that end. These programs proposed now do little to help small business, and those are the main share of employment in this country. In fact, those small companies seem to be paying more under the new programs when it comes to taxes. If they have to pay more, and sell less, they have to lay people off.

That said, I do not think the gov should try to fix this either. I think, as I said, the market should correct itself. It is not being allowed to however.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Bear Paws]

The war ended unemployment but it did not end the depression. Rolling back New Deal policies after the war finally ended it. Government and the Central Bank caused the Great Depression and also the current crisis. Government tried to "fix" the Great Depression but only prolonged it. Government is trying to "fix" the current mess and will likewise only prolong it. Sure the technology is different along with currency exchange, etc. Look at the underlying causes of both downturns, though, and the similarities are very real.YES!:thumbup:

[Bear Paws]

I hear what you're saying. The end of WWI and WWII is when America's foreign policy began its rise to globalization. Through each war of containment and in the defense of cheap natural resources, American tax payers have been footing the bill. The problem is once we establish a presence in a foreign country, we never leave. The bill just keeps getting exponentially bigger. When the American tax payer couldn't foot the bill, the Federal Reserve prints more "borrowed" cash to create the illusion of a balanced budget in the near future. Now put all that on top of us globally bailing out every alliance since WWI. The system is bound to crash when we finally run out of cash and reach the point where printing more money will not fix the problem. The ultimate problem is that a constitutional govt can never create wealth on its own. The workers of a nation create the economy and drive for production which creates wealth. The only way to fix it is to return to some sort of gold standard and true free market economics. A federally regulated market will always be designed to fund globalization under the illusion of American interests.

It becomes no wonder that American have gravitated to socialism and tea parties are taking place, the cost of running the American Empire is greater than ever, so yes, the situations now are completely different than the times during the great depression. Big hammer and nail...Bang.:thumbup:

[Bear Paws]

See, I think ending unemployment woulld do alot to end this recession. I simply do not think we are gearing towards that end. These programs proposed now do little to help small business, and those are the main share of employment in this country. In fact, those small companies seem to be paying more under the new programs when it comes to taxes. If they have to pay more, and sell less, they have to lay people off.

That said, I do not think the gov should try to fix this either. I think, as I said, the market should correct itself. It is not being allowed to however.
There is also the millions of cases where a small business owner that is on the tax threshold will not cross it. IOW if I owned a small restaurant or grocery mart and the tax penalty was set at 250K I would just scale back.. My oppertunity to grow in the next couple of years enough to offset the penalty and make more profit is pretty grim.. Why would I invest and take on the burden of growing to only take home less than I do now. Of course the unintended consequence of that strategy is that if you rest you rust.

[msmith198025]

There is also the millions of cases where a small business owner that is on the tax threshold will not cross it. IOW if I owned a small restaurant or grocery mart and the tax penalty was set at 250K I would just scale back.. My oppertunity to grow in the next couple of years enough to offset the penalty and make more profit is pretty grim.. Why would I invest and take on the burden of growing to only take home less than I do now. Of course the unintended consequence of that strategy is that if you rest you rust.

True. This is a side that people that dont have a small business do not understand, but how could they? It is also a side that our government should totally see and understand but will not for whatever reason.

[cybok0]

There is also the millions of cases where a small business owner that is on the tax threshold will not cross it. IOW if I owned a small restaurant or grocery mart and the tax penalty was set at 250K I would just scale back.. My oppertunity to grow in the next couple of years enough to offset the penalty and make more profit is pretty grim.. Why would I invest and take on the burden of growing to only take home less than I do now. Of course the unintended consequence of that strategy is that if you rest you rust.

Where I work the owner owns two stores plus owns the property of one and leases out other businesses on the property. He is expanding the store where I work next month, adding a pharmacy and updating the network and adding more refrigerated/frozen cases. Granted my bonus was a third less this year, but he expects things to get better. We have to watch overtime and spending.

[Bear Paws]

Where I work the owner owns two stores plus owns the property of one and leases out other businesses on the property. He is expanding the store where I work next month, adding a pharmacy and updating the network and adding more refrigerated/frozen cases. Granted my bonus was a third less this year, but he expects things to get better. We have to watch overtime and spending. Thats called Capital Expenditure. Its used in some cases to lower free cash flow..In business, free cash flow (FCF) is the cash flow available for distribution among all the owners of a company.. IOW..Down adjusting operating cash flow minus interest and tax paid (if applicable like in a corporation) shelters owner earnings. Ergo; Lower Tax brackets and taxes.

Net income
+ Depreciation/Amortization
- Change in Working Capital
- Capital Expenditure
----------------------------
= Free Cash Flow

With this method it might seem odd to add back depreciation/amortization since it accounts for capital spending. The reasoning behind the adjustment, however, is that free cash flow is meant to measure money being spent right now, not transactions that happened in the past. This is useful to eat into earnings now and short term but have the potential to pay off later.

Or the simpler method;

Cash Flow From Operations (Operating Cash)
- Capital Expenditure
---------------------------
= Free Cash Flow

To add a little more to that.. Its also a good way to hedge against inflation, particularly if you expect huge inflation. It puts you into tangible (hard) assets that will inflate in $$ rather than cash that will devalue..

[Skyhi]

I knew something was fishy.....

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/04/spontaneous-uprising-corporate.html

[HDRoberts]

Hmm, who is drinking the Kool-aid now?

[froggigger]

I knew something was fishy.....

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/04/spontaneous-uprising-corporate.html

That's why you GottaLaff...

[Skyhi]

Hmm, who is drinking the Kool-aid now?

*crickets*

I'm all for cutting government waste (who isn't?), but most of the attendees at the tea parties are nothing but misguided foot-soldiers of the uber-wealthy.

[fallout2600]

I think that's not far off, this movement was started by Ron Paul during the elections and has been hi-jacked by Huckabee and his Fair Tax movement.

[HD MM]

*crickets*

I'm all for cutting government waste (who isn't?), but most of the attendees at the tea parties are nothing but misguided foot-soldiers of the uber-wealthy.

ala Joe the Plumber? :)

[markh]

There is also the millions of cases where a small business owner that is on the tax threshold will not cross it. IOW if I owned a small restaurant or grocery mart and the tax penalty was set at 250K I would just scale back.. My oppertunity to grow in the next couple of years enough to offset the penalty and make more profit is pretty grim.. Why would I invest and take on the burden of growing to only take home less than I do now. Of course the unintended consequence of that strategy is that if you rest you rust.


I hear this all the time from you guys. Why would you not earn more? The "penalty" being proposed is raising the top marginal rate to 39%. If you make $250,001.00 it's gonna cost you an extra 4 cents. They don't go back and charge you the extra 4% on all your income. That was a valid argument when the top rate was 90%, not at 39%, IMHO.

[Skyhi]

I hear this all the time from you guys. Why would you not earn more? The "penalty" being proposed is raising the top marginal rate to 39%. If you make $250,001.00 it's gonna cost you an extra 4 cents. They don't go back and charge you the extra 4% on all your income. That was a valid argument when the top rate was 90%, not at 39%, IMHO.

:thumbup: Sometimes I wonder if people understand what a marginal income tax system is.

[Skyhi]

ala Joe the Plumber? :)

Perfect example!

[HD MM]

I hear this all the time from you guys. Why would you not earn more? The "penalty" being proposed is raising the top marginal rate to 39%. If you make $250,001.00 it's gonna cost you an extra 4 cents. They don't go back and charge you the extra 4% on all your income. That was a valid argument when the top rate was 90%, not at 39%, IMHO.

Excellent explanation markh. :thumbup:

[Bear Paws]

I hear this all the time from you guys. Why would you not earn more? The "penalty" being proposed is raising the top marginal rate to 39%. If you make $250,001.00 it's gonna cost you an extra 4 cents. They don't go back and charge you the extra 4% on all your income. That was a valid argument when the top rate was 90%, not at 39%, IMHO. Ahhhh noooooo. Why was it valid at 90%... According to you that would only be 54 cents. Gee you still get to keep 46 cents.

An individual's tax bracket is the range of income for which a given marginal tax rate applies. By bracket jump without deductions (for illustration) its $10,000 for 250,001 over 249,999 because it will go back to all the income.

[Skyhi]

Ahhhh noooooo. Why was it valid at 90%... According to you that would only be 54 cents. Gee you still get to keep 46 cents.

An individual's tax bracket is the range of income for which a given marginal tax rate applies. By bracket jump without deductions (for illustration) its $10,000 for 250,001 over 249,999 because it will go back to all the income.

What?

Edit: Are you trying to say that if someone who is making $249,999 gets a $2 raise then his taxes will increase by $10,000? If that's what you're saying then you're dead wrong.

[Bear Paws]

What?

Edit: Are you trying to say that if someone who is making $249,999 gets a $2 raise then his taxes will increase by $10,000? If that's what you're saying then you're dead wrong.
No ,, error.. your right. I had my head in a dark place. He gets taxed at 10, 15, 25, 33% to 200,000 (up from 164,550) and 39.6% after. I don't want figure it again...I'll screw it up again.. :o Until the Bush tax cuts expire then who knows where the brackets will cut off.. Obama never actually said that the Marginal rate of 39.6 will begin at 250K. Maybe for a family of four..

[Skyhi]

There is also the millions of cases where a small business owner that is on the tax threshold will not cross it. IOW if I owned a small restaurant or grocery mart and the tax penalty was set at 250K I would just scale back.. My oppertunity to grow in the next couple of years enough to offset the penalty and make more profit is pretty grim.. Why would I invest and take on the burden of growing to only take home less than I do now. Of course the unintended consequence of that strategy is that if you rest you rust.

So now that you understand the marginal tax system, do you still feel this way? In this hypothetical, where the highest tax bracket is raised 4% at 250k, if you invested in your business where you used to make $249k and after investment you make $1.25 million, your taxes on the additional $1 million would be $390k instead of $350k. I don't think increasing the top bracket by 4% would cause you to opt out of an otherwise wise addition to your business....if it did, you'd be leaving lots of $$$ on the table.

[Bear Paws]

So now that you understand the marginal tax system, do you still feel this way? In this hypothetical, where the highest tax bracket is raised 4% at 250k, if you invested in your business where you used to make $249k and after investment you make $1.25 million, your taxes on the additional $1 million would be $390k instead of $350k. I don't think increasing the top bracket by 4% would cause you to opt out of an otherwise wise addition to your business....if it did, you'd be leaving lots of $$$ on the table. Always understood it. Apparently when my knee jerked it disconnected my brain temporally. I rewired my knee to my lower lip so that it doesn't happen again. Now when I engage my knee to jerk and lip to flap, my brain will hopefully stay in gear. Testing ... Jerk...flap, jerk...flap.. We 're good to go...

Your numbers are correct however your point is valid only depending on the the capital investment and if your scenario fruited in near term. . Also, not to nit pick the example, that kind of Utopian return investment by someone earning 249K would entail money laundering, illegal drugs or being a Congressmen. Come down to earth and reality for an example..

Assuming I was a small business earning 249K and of that I had 49K cash to reinvest in growth, discounting acquiring indebtedness which makes it even more onerous because of debt service, and my return was in fact a healty15% on my investment over even a year and assuming its not a capital gain triggering AMT investment, I would really think twice or three times before going forward with this hell bent punish the rich mentality of the current administration with out a battery of expensive tax consultants..

A little personal back ground..that most here already know about me..
I owned a trucking company for 40 years. At one time in the the early 80s we had up to 100 trucks and then reorganized (to oust the Teamsters) to 50 trucks till we sold it in 2006...
It was a "partnership" C-corp for the later of the 20 years up from a Partnership. Tom, my partner and I where S-corps of our own. Our wives became LLCs in 1990 as I personally did then too.. In the early years we quickly learned not to make capital investments the hard way without having a bean counter review them. The complexities where exacerbated for me and arose from my still being active duty in the military for the first 10 years of the operation and for the last 20 I personally invested in real estate, mostly with "creative financing", both creating and holding paper.
After the first couple years of $$ mistakes I (we) never did our own taxes again nor did we make any capital investment moves with out first sitting down with the accountants.

THe point I'm trying to make is that on plain paper the return and taxes your talking about is over simplified. Life and business is a lot more complex than just check book accounting principles that most use at home.

Thats the problem with our tax structure. Obama's plan only makes it more complex than his simplistic campaign rhetoric of everyone will get a tax cut (implying no taxes) and the bottom 95% will be carried by the top 5%. Nothing Obama does is as it seems. I want to see what is in his left hand while he is distracting everyone with his fancy right hand before I go leaping on the wagon to possibly destruction. I'm holding off on everything.

I may only be a truck driver and mechanic and not an accountant but even I can figure out that investing in this climate may be risking exposure to negitive return because of taxes. Apparently most of the business community feels the same way..Bringing up the old saying about 20 million Frenchmen can't all be wrong.

[Skyhi]

I have a BA in Accounting and did a Tax concentration while in law school, so I know the complexities of the tax code more than I'd like. :) :)

I know my example was simplistic, but the main idea holds true: a 4% increase on the top bracket will not cause business owners to shy away from an otherwise promising capital expenditure.

By the way, the thought of doing your taxes is making me sick to my stomach :)

[Bear Paws]

I have a BA in Accounting and did a Tax concentration while in law school, so I know the complexities of the tax code more than I'd like. :) :)

I know my example was simplistic, but the main idea holds true: a 4% increase on the top bracket will not cause business owners to shy away from an otherwise promising capital expenditure.

By the way, the thought of doing your taxes is making me sick to my stomach :) If not, then why is it causing the businesses to run for cover..? It can't be all urban myth and politics.

Thats funny??.. Our CPAs felt the same way... Ironically they are the ones that wanted it structured that way. My brain used to glaze over just from the summaries and reports. I would need to go out into the shop and suck on a exhaust pipe to get my head back in order.

[HDRoberts]

If not, then why is it causing the businesses to run for cover..? It can't be all urban myth and politics.

Greed. They would always rather have more.

[froggigger]

Greed. They would always rather have more.

Government would always rather have more but you claim they can't be greedy.

[stevenl]

You know there will be another Tea Party on July 4th.. I bet the numbers double this past one.. It will he considered a huge victory and increase in sentiment..

Of course in reality, these events will be held at July 4th cook outs and firework displays.. On a day people already plan to attend events.. Its easy to get people to come to an event during a holiday where they tradtionaly go to events. The hard part is to get them to go on an odd day.

[fallout2600]

You know there will be another Tea Party on July 4th.. I bet the numbers double this past one.. It will he considered a huge victory and increase in sentiment..

Of course in reality, these events will be held at July 4th cook outs and firework displays.. On a day people already plan to attend events.. Its easy to get people to come to an event during a holiday where they tradtionaly go to events. The hard part is to get them to go on an odd day.

Got a link to that? or are you just predicting?

[stevenl]

Its all over the web in differnt blogs and differnt people claiming it.

Heres one link teapartyday.com

[fallout2600]

Its all over the web in differnt blogs and differnt people claiming it.

Heres one link teapartyday.com

Wow, I thought it would be a fad and was too much too late, I guess it stuck.