Monday, April 20, 2009

Teabags to the Future

Look at all the nooses. They hung them in a flurry, anticipating a revolution that never came. All of those empty-eyed nooses, they’re winking at us baby; because we didn’t go crazy

or buy a gun.

The would-be insurgents all feel silly now,with their stashes of bibles and bottled water.

Were they really going to do it to us?
Were they really going to burn it down?

A revolution staged at Waffle House. A revolution of riding lawnmowers. A revolution so efficient, everyone was home in time to watch C.S.I.

39 comments:

Lodo Grdzak said...

Now thats revolution modern American style!

Spencer Troxell said...

Unfortunately, it's also non-biodegradable.

GbiZ said...

Aw, come on. Why pile on the teabaggers? Theyre harmless, and they help the economy by buying all that poster board and all those sharpies.

Spencer Troxell said...

Sorry, G. Mobs just make me uncomfortable.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Unless you are in the mob yelling "Yes we can". Mob is a point of perspective. This seems like an overreaction that horowitz warned about. I didn't see a noose, never been to a waffle house and tivo recorded CSI so I could deal with the matter at hand. Preparation, as determind by the Red Cross and other disaster relief orgainzations, is not silly. In fact has served me well, when the power goes out for a week, we eat, we live, we enjoy the quiet without concern. Our lanterns gave us light to read by, are grills cook the food, and the bottled water stood by in case it got worse. In fact we watched tv on a battery operated one, watched movies and listened to the radio for news. Since those who feel they are overtaxed are American nationals and not illegals they cannot be insurgents. If a bible gives someone some comfort, is that bad? It is not a revolution they are looking for, but to constrain a government that seems out of control. Things are done in progression, first you let them know your dissatisfaction, second, you rally to vote them away. Yours is another example of an emotional, somewhat hysterical response to a (mostly)peaceful display of involvement and concern over the government. Yes, I did buy a gun because of the adminstration, not to use against them. It's not the proper type for that anyway. So laugh and feel smug. Being prepared for disaster, major storm or inconvience, makes sense. I will now get on my riding lawnmower to increase my carbon footprint, because Yes I can.

Spencer Troxell said...

Sic: There's nothing wrong with being prepared, and there's certainly nothing wrong with petitioning your goverment, or assembling. I'm uncomfortable with these particular gatherings because of the nature of alot of the rhetoric that comes out of the groups,because of the historical associations many of these people are bringing up, and because I've counted enough instances where certain teabagger's emotions to comprehension quotient seemed out of whack. I was also (and still am occassionally) uncomfortable with the Obama crowds too; It's a big reason why I took so long to decide to vote for him. None of the Obamamaniacs were stockpiling weapons however. Alot of them lacked a deep understanding of the issues, and were picking their president more in the spirit of an American Idol contest, rather than in the spirit informed civic duty. I understand that. What I'm concerned about is the possibility of this whole revolution thing becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it was you a few posts back that warned about people becoming isolated and feeling more and more cut off, etc. being more likely to become violent. I agree with that. I also agree with what the President said about disenfranchised people clinging to guns, religion..etc. What I worry about is these disenfranchised-feeling people insulating themselves from the outside world, not thinking as critically about the actual complexity of the issues they're angry about, stewing in and reinforcing each other's outrage until something pops, and the violence they were preparing for happens. The teabaggers are free to gather and say whatever they want, but so am I. This is my response to the movement. I'm uncomfortable with mobs and false populism. I'm sure most of the teabaggers are well-meaning people, but well meaning people are capable of doing terrible and stupid things in mobs. As the poem indicates, I don't expect anything horrible to happen, and I think there will be egg on the face of the more incendiary members of this group when all is said and done.

This poem is a reaction to emotionalism, not an example of it.

Ken Patel said...

Spencer,

With all due respect, I do think your characterization of the tea party protesters is oversimplified. There are extreme elements in every group, and yes, groups are capable of doing dangerous things. These protesters are largely not extreme. Largely, they're just people like myself, who think government spending is out of control. I understand your concern about those who are stockpiling weapons and talking revolution stuff. I am too, but I think it's a case of the squeakiest wheel getting the grease. Loud people and crazies get lots of media attention, but most of the people at these tea party events are good, honest folks who want their governments to listen to them. You're totally right about the extreme members of this group, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Spencer Troxell said...

Ken: Well put. I agree with, and am encouraged by all of what you said. Thanks for bringing me back to Earth.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Nothing about being disenfranchised. These people do not believe they did not vote, they do not believe the votes were not counted. Some like myself, beleive there may be cases where Obama supporters voted more than once (because of organizations like ACORN). There is no evidence that these people are stock piling weapons and ammunition. In fact, I would argue that they are two different groups. There may be some overlap, but it is not a guiding principle, a stated goal or even a foot noted afterthought. Someone you know may have those two beliefs, but the issues are very deffinately seperate. You have put the two together. Is there a greater possibility of overlap than militant vegans and tea party people? Absolutely. Please understand, people on tend to be on the right are not the idiots that protest like those on the left. They do not protest by destroying property or throwing things at police (like the G4 and G20 protestors, or throw blood on people wearing furs). These are people who have looked at issues and are responding in an adult manner. They bought all of the permits, scheduled the event and even cleaned up after themselves. I know the more famous left protestors, the ones more likely to support Obama, tend to be more destructive in making their opinion known. 800 cities with thousands of protestors each, and more people protesting the teaparty were arrested than the teaparty people. No one is asking for a revolution, they are asking to take the country back to rule of the contitution and away from rule of an administration. You seem to want to put a lot of words in others mouths. The Teaprty people are tired of sending so much of what they earn to a wasteful entity. $1 trillion dollars the fake stimulus is spending, could have put almost $5000 to every man, woman and child in the US. $20000 in your hands is far more stimulitive to the country than $1000000 spent by the government. None that I'm aware of are saying that there should not be any taxes. The amount does not determine my patriotism (per Joe Douche Biden). They want something that is fair. From this perspective, your poem and response was emotional and not fact based. You may fear that they will rise against Obama, but there has been nothing said to indicate it will happen. Don't confuse passion as hysterics, and don't confuse the chosen interview by some biased reporter as a reflection of the "mob". Question the motives, but its basic, money. The government is stealing and spending to much.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Also, refering to them as Teabaggers is inflamatory and emotional.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

"what I worry about is these disenfranchised-feeling people insulating themselves from the outside world, not thinking as critically about the actual complexity of the issues they're angry about". No one has a monopoly on critical thinking, two people can look at the same data and come to completely different ideas as to what it represents. Both may be thinking critically, disagreeing with Obama, Pelosi, or any one else does not mean they were not thinking critically and it does not mean they are wrong. I'm unsure as to what you mean by false populism, but if you believe they live under the delusion that they are in the majority, you are mistaken. They believe that those at the rally and many more believe Obama is wrong to spend more in one bill than ALL OTHER PREISIDENTS COMBINED, then tax corporations, cigarettes, soda and anything else he can to have more. Then he wants to cut the budget $100 billion, which is not even the interest on that debt. Yes, I took your poem as an attack, and I tire of hearing if you disagree and hang out with other who do, you're crazy, misinformed, emotional, capable of stupid and irrational acts, dangerous, extremist, religious, incendiary, or worse. Believing these people are anything but concerned, because they dare say the President is wrong, is a stretch. When the police chief in Cincinnati was interviewed, he stated he wished all demonstrations were like this. I've read more on this president than any other in my life, I've rationally looked at all the data available to me, I looked at his associations and what they stand for to get an idea as to what he may stand for, even researched his wife who may sway some of his opinions, I did not like what I found.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Teabaggers sounds about right to me. Self-proclaimed, self-righteous teabaggers. Yep, teabaggers. That's what they are. Just like they say are. Teabaggers.

Spencer Troxell said...

"You seem to want to put a lot of words in others mouths."

Please re-read your comment. You spoke for quite a few people, and made quite a few generalizations.
Also, please see my interaction with Ken above where I concede that I have fallen victim to outgroup homogenization. Unlike a glassy-eyed true believer, I'm able to introspect, see personal inconsistencies, and attempt to change them.

I stand by my caution about the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies and groupthink. People of all ideological stripes are susceptible.

Spencer Troxell said...

"No one has a monopoly on critical thinking, two people can look at the same data and come to completely different ideas as to what it represents." I agree that everyone has the ability to think critically, although some certainly exercise that ability more often than others. Your statement is fundamentally true, and I would urge anyone even remotely possible of killing another person over a preference for free market economics over mixed market economics to seriously consider it.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Of course I was speaking in generalizations, based on conversations with those in attendance and my own opinion. Yes, I did not include the fringe that you wanted to highlight. Caution against self-fullfilling prophecy, but atleast get the prophecy correct. This is where you are wrong. I don't know where "glassy-eyed true believer" applies here and is probably more applicable to those in the crowd shouting "OBAMA". Obama must really enjoy his cult and how they attack his critiques. I will admit to hypocracy on issues, and more importantly, when someone shows me the error of my ways. All of your arguments reinforce that Obama and his supporters will not stand for anyone saying he could be wrong. Oscar played with the Hitler Obama comparison and the righteously offended stood and cried foul. People organized and said the government is spending to much and the morale cried racism. If you like we can take the converstion to any level you desire. This president is not above criticism.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I have no idea where, you got this idea someone wants to kill anybody over free market versus obama evil socialist government control. The premise is baffling. OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST PIG BUT I DO NOT AND DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TEA PARTY THAT WANTS TO KILL ANYONE OVER IT.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

"Unlike a glassy-eyed true believer, I'm able to introspect, see personal inconsistencies, and attempt to change them." SInce you've made this statement am I to assume that you are the only one in this conversation able to do this and you plan on killing everyone else. Or that you don't wear glasses and plan on killing everyone else. I'm very confused as to how you've turned an anti-tax movement in to murdering anti-Obama (this is the new term for anti big government because everyone knows that if you critise any aspect of government you are a racist, unable to think and can only follow crowds that are lead by the guy standing on edge of group with the most provocative sign that is going to be shown on TV) nutjobs that cannot distinguish between policies and hide in closets reading bibles. If they disagree with Obama it does not mean that they want anyone to die.

Spencer Troxell said...

You're not paying attention.

First of all, whatever you were trying to illustrate with my quotation didn't make any sense. Secondly, I'm not saying people who are anti tax (or anti spending) are going to kill anyone. I'm saying that I'm worried about things getting out of hand when a group of disenfranchised citizens get together, take up revolutionary banners, start stockpiling guns and water, and begin labeling people who oppose them fascists and cult members. Thanks to Ken, I was able to see that I was using too broad of a brush in this post, and have since narrowed my focus. There are elements in the tea parties that concern me, but I ultimately don't expect blood in the streets when all is said and done, just maybe a little bit rushing to certain people's faces.

Did someone call you a racist for opposing some government policy? If so, they were profoundly ignorant, unless of course you were saying we should go back to Jim Crow or something like that. I understand that the media is predominantly liberal. I sympathize with the plight of conservatives in this regard. I have some moderate to conservative tendencies myself in some instances, so I can sympathize.

I agree with you: Disagreeing with Barack Obama doesn't mean you want someone to die. I never said that. I disagree with Barack Obama on several issues, and I don't want people to die. You seem to be venting your anger at some kind of perceived systematic injustice towards me. I can't solve your problems.

Again, my thesis in list form:

1. I'm uncomfortable with certain elements of the tea party protests.
2. Group think and self fulfilling prophecies occur, and are things people should be aware of.
3. I think those were my main points, but it always seems like you should have a third when you do the list thing, doesn't it?

I don't have anything else to add to this conversation that wouldn't be a rehash.

I'm sorry if any of the thoughts or feelings I expressed made you upset. I don't think you're a racist or a killer for disagreeing with me, and I don't think Barack Obama is a deity that has to be defended at all costs. Those are some things we agree on.

Lodo Grdzak said...

This tea-party nonsense is so damn stupid. Anyone with any intelligence was aware of the deficits being run-up by the previous administration--and those deficits didn't even include the tab for Iraq, which was kept "off the books" (so to speak). Now suddenly these tea party folks are outraged to the point of protest? Where you been guys? All those "homosexual, liberals,"you dismissed close to 8 years ago as pussies warned you what would happen if Iraq turned into a quagmire. Plus we had the Soviets in the 80's to show us what happens when you invade Afghanistan. 2 wars at the same time, both of which are halfway round the world and we're cutting taxes? No wonder the government needed the banking sector to keep booming. Can't have our cake and eat it too. You teabaggers bet the farm on victory in Iraq/Afghanistan and you blew it. Now pay up!

GbiZ said...

Aw, man. I totally missed the shit storm. Damn! Maybe next week. I think youre all wrong and youre all going to hell! ha ha ha ha!

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Nonsense, meaning lack of sense is a relative term because it does nto makes sense to ou not mean it makes no sense or nonsence. Any one with any intelligence would have researched and discovered Deficits have been run up by ALL administrations, wars are never officially on the books, never has a president ran up the deficit so fast or so much, dissent doesn't equate to outrage, and this protest was to call attention to the dissent, gays tend to be liberal, not all liberals are gay nor all gays liberal, there were probably gays attending the teaparty, pussies warned of a quagmires back to colonial times. A quagmire generally is an un-winnable position, Iraq is not unwinnable, When Bush left office Iraq was on the way to being won, now it is Obama's to lose. Obama's ramped war in Afghanistan will be off the books as well and has greater potential to become a quagmire because Obama is cutting military spending, the US is not the same as those cocksucking soviets in the 80's that were fighting US backed Afghan, WWII was two wars at the same time against stronger foes, Iraq and Afghan are not half way around the world, the Indian ocean is, cutting taxes has increased revenue to the treasury everytime it has been tried so it makes sense do it again, even John Kennedy proposed it. The booming bank sector was caused by the housing bubble brought on by democrat led housing initiatives to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, I had cake on my birthday and ate it too, no farm was harmed in persuing the war in Iraq/afghanistan, and to save face around the world we didn't use the full might of the military which would have caused a speedy end, devistated the population of those countries and pissed off the rest of the world and saved money, I don't owe you anything and that is the problem with you liberal types always wanting something given to you and not willing to work for it. Get a job and maybe you'll be upset at the taxes the government is stealing.

GbiZ said...

Sic Semper Tyrannis? Like the guy who shot Lincoln? Yeh, you'd never do anything crazy.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Actually like the state motto of Virginia, of course one crazy can bastardize a good idea.

Willie Y said...

Sic Temper Tyrannis should probably turn off Fox New and most notably Glen (I am having a break down) Beck and Sean ( I will lie to get my point across) Hannity. The teabaggers movement, if you really look at it, was not a total grass root uprising. Look who organized these protest . Not people who are making under 150 thousand a year, who will get a tax break, but by multi millionaires , Hannity, Beck, Gingrich, Dick Army and all of the fair and balanced people at Fox, who's taxes will rise to the limit when Clinton was president. Who will be affected more? We all have to be diligent about what the government is doing. But where were you when the last administration was diminishing are rights. The other guys won this election and that's why you are mad, let face facts.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I have never watched Fox news, never listen to Beck and probably hear 1/2 hour at most of hannity. I listen to Bob and Tom and local shows till noon. I was writing letters to congress and the president every time I saw Bush, Clinton, step on our rights. I didn't want McCain, don't want Obama but he won, that doesn't mean I have to like or bend over and take what he wants to do. I am not angry that he won, I am angry at what he wants to do. The teaparty was and is a grassroots effort, Fox highjacked it and may have helped attendance and hurt the image at the same time but nothing else. I have no clue as to how much every organizer in every city makes per year, but that does not diminish their efforts. Is there some rule that you have to make less than $150k before you have the right to protest against government tyranny? The founding fathers were the wealthy as well. Should throw everything away because they made more than average? You know most of those teaparty people came to the opinion on their own without the help of the talking heads you fear so much. In many cases, I believe they listen or watch because it re-affirms what they believe. It is human nature to seek those who believe similarly, I don't try to bash you for listening to the narrow minded air America. I also know most teaparty people look to other sources for information. I am not your biggoted profile, I don't listen to, watch, or read what you seem to believe I am suppose to to form these opinions. So if you'll drop the stereotypes maybe we can discuss why raising taxes is oppression, bad for the economy, and ill advised or how the government manufacturing so much money causes inflation, hurting the poor and middle class and creates a strain on businesses that provide jobs. You will never be able to justify the government making more money on a pack of cigarettes and a gallon of gas than the manufacturers do. These taxes are passed on to the consumer and hurt those who can afford them the least.

Willie Y said...

Who will pay for the military, who will pay for police, who will pay the firefighters, who will fix the roads, who will protect our food, who will pay for the people that can't take care of themselves, who will pay to help people with disabilities.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

No one that I know in the teaparty is saying no to all taxes. There are better systems that promote economic growth than a punitive system that the US currently operates. Taiwan had a huge economic boom when they leveled a flat 15% tax. Again, every time the tax rates have been lowered in the US, the take by the treasuery went up, even the most beloved Democrat John Kennedy wanted lower tax rates. Police, firefighter are usually payed through levys at a local level, so the people close to and in need decide how much they need. That's a great democratic principle. Roads are supposed to paid for by excise taxes on fuel and tires, essentially a use tax. So again the people using it are paying for it. Today much of the taxes taken in from gas are used for other things or to blackmail local or state governments into doing what the congress wants. Crongress says pass an emission regulation and check system or we withhold your funding for the roads. There are alot of government programs that help others, but there is a lot more waste. If people get to keep more of their own money, charaties like United Way, Red Cross, and most homeless shelters that are actually touching the lives of people who are in dire need, get more money. Study after study has shown that conservatives give way more money to charity than liberals. I don't discount the tax deduction aspect or any other reason for this, its just what studies have shown. Bottomline the teaparty people are looking for a tax system that allows business to grow, allows hiring more people and doesn't punish you for being a little succesful. To me, that is not unreasonable.

Willie Y said...

A flat rate tax sounds good, but what would the rate be? Is it going down for the rich or is it going up for the rest of us. What is to be taxed? What will the government need to function? Figure it out, if we have 2 rates now and went to one and things stayed the same, like how much the government need to function, the rate for the higher rate would be lowered and the lower rate raised. Unless you change what is taxed, in which case, people in need who pay little or nothing, will have to pay the flat rate on much more "taxable" income. The rich fokes really already have most all new marginal income as taxable income at the higher rate now.

Also there would be only maybe 1% of small business that would have their taxes raised. And if you are making over 250,000 dollars a year there are many ways with our tax dedutions, that you could save youself some tax money.

According to Gallup, for only the second time in more than half a century, a plurality of Americans (48-46 percent) think that they're paying the proper amount of taxes. The only other time that that has been true since 1956 was in 2003 when 50 percent of Americans felt they were paying the right amount in taxes.

Spencer Troxell said...

You guys might find this useful to your discussion:

http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/WallStatsDATlarge.jpg

It's an interactive graph of the actual, current federal budget. This is where our money is going. If there are going to be cuts, where would you cut?

It's brass tack time.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

Obama is just starting with tax rates and is now threatening to rewrite the code to his liking. A huge task and if is essentially revamping the same system will probably again be used to continue government control over us on some issues, like smoking, alcohol and others. The tax code should never be used to influence behavior as sin taxes are used. So, I won't comment on what his plans are because they are not clear. I can't identify the magic rate and don't know know how to find it. The highest the marginal rate ever has been around 90% meaning that the government got 90 cents of every dollar. Obama now wants to raise it again to near 40% and some research show that he might like something more like 70%. Now these are based on income and the reality is that it is not taxing wealth but is taxing income. One of Obama's changes that is not identified as a tax increase on the poor but is, is the lowering the bottom rate to 0. Before Obama you could make up to $160 a week and not pay a penny in taxes. Now if you make a dollar, you owe the federal government 7.5 cents. I have to verify this but I have read and been told that the tax cut we supposedly recieved is actually just an adjustment of withholding. We would still owe the money at the end of the year, we just get to hold it longer. I will agree the wealthy may get more of some government benefits for their taxes but if we lowered it to a flat tax, I believe they would pay more because they would feel free to make more. Also, I think it would increase opportunities for people to start their own business with less fear. The flat tax would eliminate many deductions and in my mind what could be more fair. at a 10% rate one guy makes $25k a year and pays $2500, the guy that makes $250k pays the other guys annual salary in taxes. I'm not saying 10% is correct but its better than people and corporations hiding income to avoid paying taxes or laundering money overseas in places where the tax rate is lower. Then if you want to help less wealthy, give deductions for things like kids and school. I believe we want to foster an atmosphere where wealthy aren't sitting on the money but we make it worth it to invest it. It would then increase jobs, probably wages, competition and then savings.

On government spending, the federal budget is a monster out of control. It will take many administrations going through line by line,, expenditure by expenditure, and eliminate everything that is not an absolute nessecity, then rebuild from there. I'm sure that there is money going to projects and things that have long outlived their usefulness. And the budget for these probably goes up each year. I would like to see a couple of Republican and a couple of Democrat Administration cut everything they think is useless or a pet project of the other side. No sacred cows in my view. Some of what you are seeing with teaparties, have been brewing a long time, maybe back to Bush I. Obama's stimulus and wanting "spread the wealth around" pushed many over the edge. He, in my mind and many others, have taken bad ideas and policies to an extreme. When we should be looking for new and better ideas.

GbiZ said...

So, per Spences comment, where would you cut? I know John Boehner just humiliated himself by putting out a flimsy large print graphic laden republican alternative with a bunch of platitudes and no numbers. Its easy to say cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes and play to the crowd, but you cant cut taxes unless you cut spending and the system weve got is gigantic and requires alot of income. flat tax wont do it. Fair tax wont do it. progressive income tax is the best bet and most people in the upper brackets voted for obama in the last election so they obviously dont mind.

Willie Y said...

Spencer great web site on our budget. 799 billion on military/ national security,68%, WOW.

Spencer Troxell said...

Thanks Willie. I found it informative. I got it from the Daily Dish. Other than thinking that we're underfunding NASA, I think the way things are allocated seem largely sensible. I'm sure there's some room to squabble.

Gbiz: Surprisingly, your name links to something related to the conversation this time. I'll read the article later tonight.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I don't know where you got the information that most people in the upper bracket voted for Obama and that they don't mind. I doubt that 50% of those in the upper bracket voted for Obama, and I've spoken to many people that are now embarrassed that they voted for him, anecodtal evidence at best. Again EVERY TIME taxes have been cut, the treasury took in more money than before the tax cut and significantly more than a after a tax increase. When people get to keep more they spend more, and create more taxpayers (aka people with jobs). Yes it is difficult to cut spending. If you even suggest cutting or eliminating any government program, some schmuck congressman, some minority group, some majority group, or even an individual are on the national news saying it's the end of the world, children will starve, every tree in the world are going to die. The reality maybe the loss of 14 adminstrative positions in the government and a family of three in Utah are not going to get a check for $4.23. An exageration, but you get the idea. Every politician in Washington should feel humiliated. To some the flat tax and fair tax are interchangeable. There are three examples of a flat tax around the world and all have been great successes. It increased the amount of money government took in more than any other example of tax rates anywhere else. The system we have now is popular with politician because it gives them power. With this system, the government influences behavior. I know two business owners that did not expand because it would bring there income to a level where they would actually make LESS money because it would push them up two to three tax brackets. If their numbers are right, that is 14 decent paying jobs that were not created because of the tax system. I know every government cut is going to piss off somebody, and I may get angry about some, but it needs ot be done. There are too many people in this country demanding that the government give them something, mostly money. That has to stop. It amazes me that most people wouldn't go to their neighbors, friends and others around where they live and demand money because they felt it was owed to them, but they will have the government go to these same people and do it for them. Our system does not require alot of money, the abuse of the system we have now, costs lots of money. Lincoln intitued the first income tax to pay for the Civil War, it was repealled around 1870. Then it came back in in the early part of 20th century then deemed unconstitutional. So they passsed the 16th ammendment for the government to steal from its people and it has been abused since then. In this crazy world, I don't mind paying for a strong military, national parks and others things that benefit us all, but I do mind sending an "artist" $68000 to put a crucifix in urine, and force people to walk across a flag to see his "work". I think we can cut the three million for a bowling pin museum. There is not enough room to document all the waste and unecessary spending. some amounts are small, some are huge, and I'll bet most can be cut and eliminate billions and billions in spending. John Boehners budget if after numbers are applied its smaller than Obamas, I'll support it, if Ted Kennedy brought one that was smaller than Boehners I'll support that.

GbiZ said...

"And I've spoken to many people that..." Now THAT is anecdotal sir.

My resources:

http://www.slate.com/id/2204043/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168333

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why-the-wealthy-voted-for-obama/

if you want to see the libertarian wet dream come true, move to somalia:

http://artvoice.com/issues/v8n16/getting_a_grip

Spence: "links to something relevant THIS time"? porn is relevant to all conversations related to politics and religion, and definitely your discussion of riding a giant mechanical penis.

Good talk boys.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

I'm not attacking you on your sources but both are opinion pieces that use the the same county in conn as the basis for their opinion and one references exit polling which has been eratic at best and flat wrong at worse in the past years. You may be correct in your statements, at this moment I don't believe it and don't know what would convince me. The third is a blog, not a credible source to me. Whatever he is saying may be 100% accurate, but I would have to research all of his sources to believe any of it. There are Blogs for anal exams from aliens, we landed on the moon, we didn't land on the moon, and Britney Spears is the best musician ever, blogs do not equate to fact. If a libertarian wet dream is somalia, I'm taking no-doze. I'm not a libertarian, I would describe myself more of Literal Constitutionalist. Abortion and Gay Marriage should be a state issue, you have the right to worship freely, say what you want and it is not commiting a hate crime, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So I don't have a problem with Vermont having gay marriage or that California banned it, just an example. Back to the point, I'm not sure what "rich" is or that even 50% of them voted and that 50% of those that voted for Obama. Some guy with money saying he is paying the right amount in taxes does not mean that the tax system is correct. To me, it means he has the a good accountant that finds him LOTS of deductions.

GbiZ said...

The blog is from the Wall Street Journal. if you question all of the sources people usually get their voting info from I dont know what to say to you about it.New Zealand is the most capitalist country in the world, and it works. We hit our bumps in the road in the rest of the free world, but I think light socialism can work too. It has. I think it depends on the society. throughout history the thing that determined a peoples survival was guns germs and steel, now maybe we can add brains to that list. Kids from socialist countries outperform the US in almost every way. Countries w. universal healthcare have better infant mortality rates and better quality of life. The government can be a tool for the people, it doesnt always have to be the adversary. If we didnt have the tool of government, we'd get squashed by those in this society w. an upper hand. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, for everyone to have an equal start there has to be an even playing field, and the system we have more often only helps those who inherit. Its getting easier to get into the big club, but its taken alot of reform to get us there, and alot of govt. intervention. The government may be like fire, but its necessary. If you say you have to have faith in people to do whats best (free market idea), then you have to have faith in people to use the tool of govt responsibly too. Its a democracy. If you want your govt to do different things than the govt we have is doing, go get some more voters on your side.

Willie Y said...

Right on brother. We don't live in the land of gum gum balls where everybody flys around with fairy wings were everybody treats everbody else with kindness and we all have the same chance in life. There are people that need help, and we want that help from our goverment. At least I do any way. This administration is taking on things that should have been done 30 or 40 years ago. I think we are headed in the right direction.

Sic Semper Tyrannis said...

My problem with your sources were that they were editorial opinion with limited sources, and as you've seen on this thread many different opinions can be quoted from one blog as a source. Universal healthcare in some countries have a lower infant mortality rate, but better quality of life is something we can argue about all day. There are people working at Taco Bell that just want enough to pay rent and get something to eat and believe they have a better life than Bill Gates. There are socialist societies where the well off have little more than the working poor in this country. Kids doing better in school is a function of the culture not the economic model. Cultures that believe in hard work and that education is important, and these societies tend to have more two parent households than the US, have kids that do better in school. There are examples of socialist societies turning out many more engineers, doctors, or what ever technical field you choose, but of limited quality. You've heard the old joke of the foriegn born cab driver saying "in my country, I was a doctor", in this country, he is not qualified to work on gerbils. I don't have faith in people to do whats best and that's why Government has its place, limiting monopolies, defense of the state, etc., there most important task is protection of freedoms. The playing field can never be completely leveled, everyone is different, the best we can hope for is equal access. This country is far above most of the world in that regard. Girls don't have to cover their faces and can go to school, and try to be anything they want. The limit to people int this country, in most cases is their ability. School loans and grants are the equalizer for education access, one thing the goverment does ok. One of the great things about our sytem of government is the seperation of powers. It is to keep one man, or group from assuming control. Our tax system, punishes you if you smoke then they complain they are not getting enough tax money from it when people quit. You should not pay more taxes because you choose to use a legal product. The excise taxes on gas and tires when properly used is a good thing and from a government study produces enough to take care of all road improvements and repair, until they start spending it elsewhere and raising taxes so that people cut back on driving. Our tax system is used as a means for the government control, not to raise revenue for the things government should be doing. The tax system is the only place in our society where you are punished for doing better in legal activities. It's a democratic republic, I do want SOME things done differently and the teaparties were designed to do exactly what you specified, get more voters. They may have repelled some but they didn't agree with the movement anyway. Overall, I think they highlighted important issues which have spawned discussions like this one. My problem with some discussions is those who would rather insult and dismiss rather than study what they have to say, or those who become offended and defensive. I'll listen to anyones ideas, and if there may be something to it I'll look further. I've seen effects of socialism all my life in veried forms from the Soviet Union and China to Welfare in this country, I've seen well intentioned leaders declare themselves presidents for life in many countries, so any consolidation or increase of government power here is something I want to avoid. Welfare while good intentioned, has in some ways created a dependent segment of the population and that is why the reforms during the 90's.