Five Tea Party Convention Lessons

My family in DC Metro is trying to tell me this is the worst winter they can remember, but from afar I cling to the belief that 1993, here described by NOAA, was the worst (and my last before heading to California). I was living in Old Town and commuting by car to the hill everyday and I found myself on my scrawny backside more times than I could count (this was, in part, due to the booze).

“The winter of 1993-1994 was one of the iciest winters on record. Repeated storms from January into early March produced between 19 and 23 days of icy precipitation over greater metropolitan area. The worst storm struck on February 10-11, 1994 just from Fredericksburg into Southern Maryland. Freezing rain caused a thick glaze of ice across trees, power and phone lines and roads. Travel was extremely hazardous. Trees and utility lines fell under the weight of the ice. Some people were left without power and heat for up to two weeks due to the extent of the damage. This storm warranted a Presidential Disaster declaration for a swath of devastation from ice that stretched from Tennessee to Delaware. Damage to Maryland was estimated at over $20 million.”

6. How do you lower the deficit if taxes, and the TPers want, are lowered as well as spending (“smaller government”)? At best, woudn’t a comparable level of spending cuts and tax cuts equal the same mess we’re in now?

These folks will never gain support from independents or the majority of voters fed up with government AND partisanship. They won’t buy this extreme rhetoric.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Who cares? I’ve been to pig roasts with more (and more lucid) people, even after a couple of kegs.

The focused TIME is still not telling us why this a get-together of 600 suspected racists is so notable and deserving of wide coverage – more so than say, the superball that was of interest to millions.

Does it warrant the deluge of daily affront to our browsers.

‘Keep the change … I’ll keep my freedom, my guns and my money!’

Palin is the perfect representative for these people. She was for the ‘Bridge To Nowhere’ until she found out that Alaskans were going to have to pay for it. Then, when she couldn’t stick the ‘lower 48′ with the bill, she was against it.

I hope the tea partiers that are in the path of the storm appreciate the government they disdain removing that pesky snow.
Oh, they probably have shovels, stand in the road, and say stand back, I will make my own way. To do otherwise would be buckling under to socialism.

Could I see one example of these Conservative “good works”?

They don’t need a leader, because Palin’s their heroine.

They don’t want to start another party, but the Republicans would sure make a good umbrella for their group.

Doesn’t Palin’s “America is ready for another revolution!” fall under sedition or some such? Shades of AIP…?

I agree with a lot of what the Tea Party claims to espouse. However, it takes a LOT of discipline and fortitude to REALLY support the ideals of Liberty to the ends where it would make for a more effective system of government. Most everyone involved in the “Tea Party Movement” do not. Thus I could never associate myself with it. Palin only serves as fodder with which to mock them.

To really believe in a working system of smaller government and less taxes involves sacrifice. They have to come to terms with the idea that Liberty means accepting when other people, whose ideals and values are vastly different than theirs, exercise it. They can’t chant “LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LESS TAXES” while advocating legislation against gays, full-body scanners for Muslims and growing the drug war. To be viable and have any hopes of capturing an intelligent and reasoned following they must sacrifice the Republican “dogma”. You can’t have it both ways. But almost everything I’ve seen about the Tea Party reeks of hypocrisy. Palin is just the cherry on top of the Fox News whipped bullshit.

A lot of municipalities (especially here in areas where we get a lot of snow) employ private companies to clear the roads. It works pretty well: The roads get cleared, people make money and those same private companies use that exact same havy-equipment year-round in excavation and construction projects. That way the local government does not have fleets of underutilized equipment sitting in storage all summer sucking up maintenance costs.

I’m not a Tea Partier but it sounds like you’ve fallen victim to the sweeping propaganda pushed by the Republicans & Democrats that serves to marginalize any viable independent party or ideology. Sure the Tea Party folks sound like fools the way they throw around the worlds socialism, nazi and tlak about Obama’s birth certificate. But, the ideological roots of that movement have a lot more credence and applicability today than either Fox News or MSNBC would have you believe. The problem is that it’s mostly a group of disenchanted Republicans who jumped on a bandwagon without reading the bumper-sticker’s first.

augment I appreciate your perspective. Don’t your taxes provide for those private contractors. I have not sorted out the Tea Partiers yet. I keep asking who is funding them. How are all their itterations connected? Who are their real leaders? What are their core beliefs?

You know, I’m educated, a professional helper (social work/therapist), and have been working in the field for 15 years. As I understand the tea party movement in my locale, it is a bunch of regular, educated folks, that balance their checkbooks, pay their taxes, do extreme things like take their kids to soccer, visit grandparents, teach their kids to be respectful honorable citizens and the like. We are sick of people touting intellectualisms that don’t add up in the real world. I’ve heard the great economic theories (just that-never proved) that say we can “spend our way out of a recession” and the like. My gut, my head, history, my experiences and those of others around me tell me it’s ridiculous. Watch iousathemovie.com (by BUSH’s Comptroller of the Treasury) to see if we’re EXTREMISTs. It is ridiculously ignorant to overthink what good ole common sense tells you is bullpucky… America: the Codependent Family in Macro View… my PhD…

To me, she’s just a typical, money-loving, attention-getting politician. Move along folks, nothing to see here!

You guys have lined up, evidently, behind a vapid, brainless quitter of a politician who happens to be “hot” – if that’s your sort of thing. You let this hypocrite present the face of and speak for your party.

You don’t have to be an “intellectual” to see that that kind of thinking leaves a _lot_ to be desired.

I made a comment already but, for some reason it’s “awaiting moderation”. I refuse to call myself a Republican and find myself at odds with most of the Bush administration did. (if my other post appears you’ll get a better idea of where I stand) However, I agree with your post 100%.

I’m an electrical engineer and have a tendency to make broad abstractions in an attempt to understand “systems”. More often than not, I find even the most complex systems can be boiled down to a few fundamental rules that dictate their general operation. I’m not saying that we can take a big brush and reduce everything to black and white (isn’t that what both parties already do to every issue anyway?) However, there ARE simple rules that we’ve been taught since we were children. These same rules DO NOT lose their applicability when applied to the BIG PICTURE. Personal responsibility, debt management, risk vs. reward, picking up after yourself, etc…

The real problem is the oligarchy that’s threatened by a properly functioning democracy. It’s in their best interest to promote the idea that the system is “far to complex for the non-professional to understand”. That is the fundamental lie told by both political parties. It allows them to excuse their self-serving, power & wealth seeking, state building, middle-class reducing, behavior in the name of the common good. The news media perpetrates this 2-party “us vs. them” (“them” depends on which network you watch) sporting event because it’s good, profitable entertainment.

In reality, things COULD be a whole lot simpler. This would increase transparency and accountability to the system. As well, things are SO intertwined and obscured by so many shells of unnecessary bureaucratic complexity that no single person can ever really get a complete picture. Neither can any legislation be enacted without 1,000 page bills that are never even read in their entirety. It’s the perfect situation for those that it employs. But for the citizen it means more taxes required to support laws and systems so complex that we require legal counsel just to ensure compliance and avoid punishment.

Of course the establishment labels this kind of thought as extreme. It seeks to reduce it’s role in our lives. I’m an engineer; scientific & pragmatic. The only thing extreme is my anger towards the crippling inefficiency and nonsensical management of our country.

@apr2563

Of course taxes pay for the snowplows. I’m not a Tea Partier but I’ll defend them a little bit here and say that their ideology is not as extreme as to abolish all taxes just like Liberals are not really hell bent on turning the USA into a socialist regime. All that is just news media hype. Don’t fall for it.

From what I know, the Tea Party is grassroots with no real leader or top-level funding. However, that puts them in a really precarious spot. Republican political interests are hungry to bring them into their ranks while Democratic see an opportunity to paint them as extremist and racist. As well some Republicans, at the same time, seek to marginalize their ideologically Libertarian roots because of the threat posed if they can capture a portion of the independent vote. The lack of voice or leadership makes that all possible.

In the end it serves it’s purpose as a barometer of public discontent and maybe nothing more. The choice to involve Sarah Palin was horribly misguided. The principles that I’ve heard come from the Tea Party do seem Libertarian in nature and as a Libertarian-leaning independent I take heart in that. However, the neo-conservative, backward-looking and statist Republican agenda is completely at odds with my political philosophies.

I think a third party would be VERY healthy for our democracy. The idea that it is impossible or that a vote for a non-major party is a throw-away is completely un-American. So, even though the media is portraying the Tea Party as extremist, realize that the ones painting that picture are probably the same ones threatened by the movement’s solvency.

“I’ve heard the great economic theories (just that-never proved) that say we can “spend our way out of a recession” and the like.”
.
You’re a f@cking PhD, why don’t you try reading something. Start HERE and then tell me all about what’s never proved.
.
And it’s not that we can “spend our way out of a recession” it’s that government spending is the only way out of severe recessions other than to suffer their full, unmitigated consequences.

augmentedfifth: “I’m not a Tea Partier but it sounds like you’ve fallen victim to the sweeping propaganda … that serves to marginalize any viable independent party or ideology. …”

You are not a suspected racist of the Chai brand – yet you seem to carry a torch for them.
You could have fooled us if you claimed to be the grand wizard of that Chai Klan – until we espied Tom Tancredo, who may as well be the presumptive leader. [Or can it be the islander-averse shifty Sara Palin?]

” I think a third party would be VERY healthy for our democracy.”

Discuss.

Well, here is what I think: DEMOCRACY can thrive in a one-party state. And a one party-system may be just as good or even a better political system in those resource-rich (and hence, western-controlled and/or teeming with treacherous foreign-funded NGOs, missionaries, CIAs and Blackwaters) African countries on which virulent, scheming imperial predators conveniently foist foreign-controlled political parties for a destabilizing multi-party curse.

“I’ve heard the great economic theories (just that-never proved) that say we can “spend our way out of a recession” and the like.”
Does government spending – or, indirectly, a governement’s policies on taxation and interest rates – have an impact on the economy at all or shouldn’t a government get involved in the economy?

Overheard yesterday at a superbowl party:
Palin is an inspiration to all adolescent girls who think they are plain or ugly or dim. If they talk fast and nasty, they can make it in USA.

@cfukara

I do believe we are smarter and more prepared to deal with expanded options in the “marketplace of ideas” than ever before.

I also believe it is intellectually dishonest and unfair to write off an entire group of people based on a couple of labels attributed by the media.

In the end, my strongest belief is that the Rep. vs. Dem. circus played out endlessly on TV is divisive, pointless and self-serving to the establishment.

” .. I also believe it is intellectually dishonest and unfair to write off an entire group of people based on a couple of labels attributed by the media. ..”

You may agree that those Chai people have received considerable coverage – especially from their fellow tavellers and cheerleaders at TIME’s swamp and at FOX, the most popular and trusted network.

Despite the wide exposure, they even fail to impress most of the usually gullible, spelling-challenged placard-carriers at the summer’s townhall meetings. Can we then honestly and fairly write them off – or should we just patiently accommodate in our discussions what their right-wing Limbaugh may call ‘political retards’?

We’ve so locked ourselves into the “government’s there to help us” mentality, that we’ve forgotten why and how this country was formed. Review the basics of what the Founders based this country’s government on: it was the FIRST time that men were allowed to rule themselves in the history of the world. They were creating something NEW. Not Europe — ON PURPOSE. Where people were allowed to rule themselves, not just with a Republic, but that as individuals we would be running our own lives; States running their own states. Freedom as much as is practically possible. It WORKED! But the inclination of man is to be afraid of that as life gets hard, for a few to start garnering power, and encourage the masses to give them more and more power to TAKE CARE OF THEM. When it gets “hard” to be the individual it is easy to see that as BETTER. A government check is NOT all of us banding together to help our fellow man. It’s more about consolidating power. And it’s easy to get sucked into it. I vote for returning to a belief in what they created. Put the responsibility for our lives back on us. To succeed or to fail. I’m not afraid of pain nearly so much as I’m afraid not to be free to have that pain, or the success. I know, RADICAL thinking… Well, only in 2010. Not in 1776. I vote for 1776. Seemed to work better back then, even though people struggled. I don’t find any better answers now, and at least back then the responsibilities were clear, and they had a way out of their debt. The debt we have now is a SYMPTOM of how the system is failing. And there are nature law reasons why it’s failing. We’ve shifted responsibility for our lives from our shoulders onto others. Doesn’t work. Ask any professional helper. NEVER MAKE THE CLIENT’S PROBLEM YOUR OWN.

I also believe it is intellectually dishonest and unfair to write off an entire group of people based on a couple of labels attributed by the media.

True. Which is why I’ve written them off because every TPer I encounter is a bonafide racist and biggot.

hotbbq – I don’t know what you consider a racist and a bigot — how you judge them, but my family is Puerto Rican, I have African friends who are Tea Party people, friends married to African Americans who are tea partiers. I belong to a church that is integrated and has major church leadership who are African, who has 2 million members who are Hispanic–I speak Mandarin. I work in the helping profession, and have a profound respect and admiration for cultures of all types. I try to see people as the people I see in their eyes — nothing else. I am a believer in principles, and at least the people that come to my house monthly for meetings are not racist and bigots. They are truly concerned citizens, who help in their communities, but believe in fundamental values and principles. I don’t PITY people who don’t have. I still respect them. I believe people can rise above circumstances, and economic prosperity is a poor standard for assessing wealth. Some of the poorest people I know were the richest in spirit. I’d be careful how you throw around those words. Will probably not serve you well. Common sense. A lost art… What does your GUT say about a debt of TRILLIONS of dollars with no real sign of getting it under control? Does that work in real life? REALLY? It’s a symptom folks, not a fleeting fanciful statistic. And BOTH parties have sold out — not just one. It’s what happens to all people when power gets too centralized. It’s just too tempting to want a piece of it. Rise up America and take your country and your lives back. Listen to your gut–for some of us, we gotta look DEEP inside.

Shoulda been “AS the TPers want…” sorry. Thanks for the response.

@nflfoghorn
Have you ever heard of the laffer curve?? Let me help you out….. When you cut taxes, that money remains in the hands of the people who are actually paying the taxes. Those people tend to be the people who invest money and create jobs (remember we have a 10% unemployment problem). When people are working and are productive, they actually contribute to the tax base instead of draining it. This is why government revenues nearly doubled due to the Reagan tax cuts. Now… if we can do this and cut spending, then you have a solution for this Nation’s crisis. Cut spending will be difficult, because we will have to address the Social Monstrosity that is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs are not sustainable (and are the largest ponzi schemes ever created by mankind), so we need to gradually get out of it altogether, while keeping our promises to those who built this. A cutoff age should be to those who still have time to create their own retirement (30ish). It will take a generation or so to recover, but we can do it. Most of all, we just need to tell American’s the truth about the Progressive agenda.

Jdog-Please provide a link that confirms that revenues doubled when Reagan cut taxes. I have not been able to find it.

I agree, Matt. I am one who is very skeptical of both parties, but consider myself a tea partier. They are both on notice. I am not a Sarah Palin fan really–she seems to be selling herself down the tube. I am looking for honest people who are wise and frankly don’t WANT to serve (like GW–he had to be begged to serve as president and ran away from the WH when he completed his terms) but who will answer the call. You cynics out there might say that’s impossible, but at this point, I’m holding out for a true miracle — finding honorable men and women who care less for their own lives and more for the freedom of all. Who will shun being corrupted. Join with us — there’s a growing number of us who are not willing to settle anymore for either party’s status quo. Join up and start believing in US again.

@shepherdwong
Paul Krugman is hardly an economist you should refer to. He is among the worst of Keynesians. Krugman says, “I have always been a free-market Keynesian: I like free markets, but I want some government supervision to correct market failures and ensure stability.” In other words, he believes in doing EXACTLY what we have been doing that has utterly destroyed our economy…. picking winners and losers, bailing out companies that are too big to fail, funding banks coffers to cover their losses, and ultimately supporting corporate welfare. He is also a progressive that supports redistribution of wealth, large social programs, Socialized economic sectors, and ultimately dependency on government.

In other words… He is a Socialist. He believes that government is the answer to our problems. His entire economic philosophy is based on the bail out. This economic theory has failed over and over again. It interferes in the natural and healthy “evolution” in the economy. Just like sechandler912 has said… we need to return to personal responsibility and sever our dependency on the government. Only then can we truly be a free people.

You can get a good indication of what a political movement stands for by reading the t-shirts at their gatherings.

Jdog, I don’t know where you got the idea that reagan doubled federal revenues, but unless you can come up with a halfway credible source I’m just going to call you a liar or a delusional nut, based on this source:http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States#From_the_.E2.80.9CReagan_Revolution.E2.80.9D_to_the_Bush_Tax_Cuts. According to this, gov’t revenues actually increased slightly slower than economic growth under Reagan.
-
Now, if you have something verifiable, by all means post it. Otherwise, I’ll just assume you’re ranting. Secondly, you don;t seem to know what a Laffer curve is. Do a google search. It’s easy to find. Or go here.:http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

Ok, that link was really screwed up. Let me try this again. http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

@CDRwayne
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

We already know this works. We have seen it done time and time again. There is ALOT more to the reason why progressives want to increase taxes, and it has never been about increasing revenues.

@ohiolib
Fortunately, you can never write off anybody as a nut job for sharing the truth. As far as understanding the the laffer curve, I assure you that I understand it quite well. We can measure where we are at on the curve by referring to the critical economic measurements…. like unemployment, productivity, GDP, income tax revenue, etc.
Based on the current measurements… it is easy to conclude that taxes are too high and spending is too high. Based on the past, If we reduce the top tax rate down to 20%, we can expect 5-6% economic growth and 50+% in income tax revenues over the next decade. We can then cut spending and eliminate programs. It is very possible to ween people out of dependency in this economic environment.

Other countries have done it and reaped huge benefits…
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html

I happen to be a Fair Tax proponent. I say… dump the income tax altogether. We will see double digit economic growth and become global competitive once again in a business friendly environment.

What makes them racist?

“I like free markets, but I want some government supervision to correct market failures and ensure stability.” In other words, (Krugman) believes in doing EXACTLY what we have been doing that has utterly destroyed our economy.
.
This is not accurate. The trend for the past 30 years has been for de-regulation which, in-turn, birthed policies that had caused near economic catastrophy. Ie. allowing derivatives (liabilities bundled together to form assets) to be traded with no oversight while growing from $0 to a multi-trillion market in 8 years. Add lobby induced measures such as lowering debt to equity and cash requirements, lowering the interest rate to less than 1% (for money to be lent as mortgages at 6+%), allowing companies that purchase these instruments to determine rating, allowing cos to become “too big to fail”. A ponsi scheme of sorts was developed– as long as home prices increased, everyone made money and padded their ballance sheet. Banks were able to make so much money from mortgage-based derivatives that they caused the housing bubble- when the bubble burst (homes depreciated from their artificially inflated levels) regular people bore the brunt– all of which fore-warned by Krugman. With minimal “government supervision” the problem likely would have been avoided.
.
Our reaction to a devistated economy was a tax-cut heavy emergency measure which included stimulative spending (eg. money to States for infrastructure projects).
.
And per:
.
we need to return to personal responsibility
.
Institutions have no personal responsibility, they have a responsibility to their stockholders (and personal fortunes). Corporate oversight counters often preditory practices of deep-pocketed and influential elites and protects common, working people.

‘Have you ever heard of the laffer curve??’
.
Putting aside the fact that the economic policies of Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr have lead the country to massive debt and economic chaos, lets talk about the part of the (mostly discredited) Laffer Curve hypothesis that its advocates seldom mention — probably because few of them actually understand it.
.
The Laffer Curve is not a curve that continuously rises. It is a bell curve. Laffer’s hypothesis states that if you lower taxes too much revenues will plummet. Most righties that invoke the Laffer Curve fail to mention this inconvenient fact.

” .. it was the FIRST time that men were allowed to rule themselves in the history of the world. ..”

Comrade, with age (or “as your life’s journey takes you ever closer to your grave”) you will learn – at times ruefully – to be circumspect with regard to making sweeping statements.

While your second source appear decent, it misses the point. None of you links actually claim that reagan doubled revenues. The marginal tax rates article appears good, but doesn’t back your specific argument. Nor did you have a source backing your statement that Reagan actually increased revenue based on tax cuts.Sorry. All you had was the bad article claiming that tax cuts increase revenue, which is based on circumstantial evidence-that, since taxes were cut and income went up, the tax cuts were the cause. Oldest logical fallacy in the book-correlation equals causation. Plus, the bulk of the evidence says the opposite-most tax cuts decrease overall revenue.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165
-
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/
-
http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm
-
And I apologize if I began offensively, but we get some real conservative idiots here. Not that all the conservatives here are, just a disturbingly large chunk of them.

** I neglected to include TARP under “Our reaction to a devistated economy…”.
.
The “toxic assets” are these derivative induced mortgages. Regulations (or not de-regulating as described above) could have prevented the incentive for banks to abandon tradtional mortgage practices.

Please note fukara when men were allowed to rule themselves prior to that. I’m fascinated with the examples you’ll bring out.

Hey cfuk, Jdog asked you a question. Why do you call us Tea partiers racists? If your going to accuse at least have the balls to back it up.

Is that so shepwang? So am I to assume that you’ve been to a few teaparties and are thus qualified to make that statement?

“When the people fear the government, it’s called tyranny. When the government fears the people, it’s called liberty.”
.
That’s one of my favorites that I’ve read off of a teashirt.
.
Which teashirt slogans are you referring to sacred?

Yeah pint. Regulation that Barney Franks would have no part of. “Fannie and Freddy are in great shape” said he.
.
Now I’m trying to remember his political party……

Pintortwo
Do you know (search the NYT for the article in the 90′s on this) that it was during the Clinton era that the Feds were pushing banks to LOWER their standards to allow these crappy mortgages – “a dream home for everyone” was the call from our liberal establishment… Whether the banks thought it was good or not. The NYT made the comment at the time that this would work in a boom economy but would be a disaster in a downturn…. Gee, why doesn’t the NYT toot it’s own horn and boast how right they were? Check out the article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

@ohiolib
for your convenience… because I don’t believe you read the links or you merely skimmed them:
“Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.”
“among the world’s twenty fastest-growing economies Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. As Table 1 shows, all these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002 (Botswana, Mauritius, Singapore, Portugal, etc.).”

My case it made here… I can bombard this post with links that show real world evidence beyond what I already posted. Reality trumps Keynesian theory.

These are not small examples of what tax cuts do for economies. This is overwhelming evidence that the ONLY way to recover an economy is to cut taxes. The Keynesians have failed EVERY time. You will never be able to prime the economic engine by stealing wealth by taxing it or printing it.

2/3s- That’s your rebuttal? A quip about BF?
.
OK. Blaming Fannie and Freddie for the mess is like blaming the gas station for your speeding ticket (more accurately, blaming the station where you bought a couple of gallons of gas out of a full-tank). They provide liquidity. Once the system became corrupt, they provided liquidity to a broken system– one can reasonably argue that they exacerbated the problem, but not that they caused it. If the system were not altered (de-regulated), F+F would be moot.
.
Bank lobbies are very influential, they fought hard for less oversight– bank executives enjoyed the windfall bonuses, politicians enjoyed the bump in re-election coffers. De-regulation of the financial industry consolidated power for the elites. Which party claims to be the champion of de-regulation? I’m trying to remember…

@pintortwo
How is it inaccurate…. Krugman said it, believes it, and advises to do it (bail outs).
For the record… A “trend to deregulate” is not deregulation. In this instance… the housing market was not even trending deregulation. We all know what happened in the housing sector. It was regulation and welfare that created the bubble. The government forced the quasi-government institutions (Freddie and Fannie) to lower lending standards and to create interest schemes to snare ill-prepared and ill-qualified buyers into investing into an artificially inflated market.
Now these people are A. upside down in their homes B. Foreclosed C. Short sale, in which the bank gets a write off and the seller gets hosed with the tax bill. So how did our lenders make out?? The taxpayers (the same people that got screwed in the housing deal) are FORCED to bail out lender, they are forced to pay taxes if their house sales for less than their mortgage, their 401k tanks, and they have bad credit for 2-7 years.
No… this was not a “free market” event. This was Keynesian policies at work. We can even look into it a little deeper if you would like and have all kinds of fun analyzing the Federal Reserve and currency control.

At best, Jdog, you have established correlation. That’s at best; if if a country has low capital gains rates and still slow growth-which wouldn’t have been shown in the information provided- then your theory falls apart. While I don’t have evidence at the moment, you have not actually demonstrated that tax cuts increase revenue. Correlation does not equal causation, especially Reagan passed large tax hikes after his tax cuts. Hmmm….I wonder if that might be influenced the numbers. Again, correlation does not equal causation. And finally, you proceeded to ignore the contrary evidence I posted. The “tax cuts increase revenue” argument is only true under certain circumstances. Finally, considering your dismissal of Krugman, who has a Nobel prize, I’m not sure why i can take you seriously-unless, of course, you have similar awards of your own.

Thanks for your response, sechandler912.
.
Please see this
.
Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand (for higher yield than on Treasuries) with the MBS (mortgage-backed securities) and CDO (collateralized debt obligations), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable.
.
The CDO in particular enabled financial institutions to obtain investor funds to finance subprime and other lending, extending or increasing the housing bubble and generating large fees. A CDO essentially places cash payments from multiple mortgages or other debt obligations into a single pool, from which the cash is allocated to specific securities in a priority sequence. Those securities obtaining cash first received investment-grade ratings from rating agencies. Lower priority securities received cash thereafter, with lower credit ratings but theoretically a higher rate of return on the amount invested.
.
By September 2008, average U.S. housing prices had declined by over 20% from their mid-2006 peak.
.
And this:
.
Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%
.
The toxic mortgages were written as de-regulation created huge profit opportunities in the brand new MBO and CDO (I included them under the blanket of “derivatives”) markets. Not the loans written during the Clinton era push for home ownership.
.
(link for above)

Sorry pint, my mistake,(well not really) Barney was just one of the many liberals down through the ages carrying the flag of progressive, level the playing field, spread the wealth ideology. A philosophy that started way back in the Woodrow Wilson days at least, and it definately has worked. We’re all poor now, the field becomes more level everyday. Go ahead and blame Bush for a concept that was born decades ago. My biggest beef with him is that he stood by and let it happen, but he damn sure didn’t start it. Reach across the aisle you say. I say he reached across too much. You call today’s GOP the party of no, and I say thank God. What you call compromise I call abandoning conservative principles. Obstructionists? They damn well better be if they want to keep their jobs. We’re gonna turn more blue states red with or without them and they know it.

It always devolves into a blame game…

Both parties are at fault and neither has the solution.

Hotbarf, either you’ve never encountered a tea partier or you are just plain a liar. For some reason I suspect the latter.

It’s a nice idea, but for one, I don’t trust wickipedia for my sources (note their disclaimers) and two, that’s naive and intellectually oversimplistic to state that it had no effect (again, read the liberal NYT’s view on things). The CDO whatever business of course didn’t help at all. I will be honest, I see our problems as a combination of factors, and as a spiritually-minded person (in the purest sense of those terms), I feel the lack of principle, value, honor on all levels of our society. Honesty is fading, love, forgiveness, integrity, hard work, etc. The banks, the government, the individual (I can’t tell you how many young people, and those my age-48-have purses that cost more than their health insurance premiums would be IF “they could afford it”, cars on credit, etc.) It’s a crisis of principle, and it covers all levels of society. So I’d prefer not to put the blame entirely or pin the solution on any one sector of the society.

But surely you can agree that the central government is not the most efficient or effective mode of addressing complex issues? I lived in DC and worked for government and contractors both. What a joke it always was how ineffective the government tends to be–… That’s why I don’t understand how intellectuals fall for that trap except that they conjure up a utopian pretend government that is somehow different from what we’ve witnessed throughout time… I trust the Founders more because their plan acknowledged reality, and PLANNED for it. I respect that common sense that was coupled with a simple but effective system–the three branch system. Interestingly enough, what I see is that the Executive Branch is trying to rob the other two, the Legislative is trying to wrest away power from the Judiciary and such, and the Judiciary is trying to legislate from the bench. LUCKILY it’s still holding, this grand scheme, but boy are we getting close to it buckling. In the end, individual morality is what will save us – the virtuous banker, civic leader, citizen… we need every last one of them. I’m starting with my little group, we’re studying the Founders, their ideals, those virtues, and the plan, and hope to incite others to riot virtuously against corruption, dishonesty and greed on every level. Wanna join us?

jdog, augmented and sechandler,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful and very intelligent posting.
As you may have noticed logic, facts and truth do not fit very well on this website. The commenters as well as the reporters are 90% liberals and about 10% conservatives and moderates. The liberals do not like facts they have not created or that didn’t come from someplace like the dailykos or media maters. They have a deep seated hatred of anyone who is not a liberal and will do everything within their power to demonize and marginalize them. Kind of like the Obama Administration.
There are one or two liberals that are intelligent and have a somewhat open mind. The vast majority have minds so closed that their minds are dead from lack of oxygen.
Other than that it’s a pretty good website.

My tea party friends just got back from Haiti for a two week stint to rescue, help, as many people as they could working 15 hour+ days — yes, strangers, at their own expense or from other tea party friends’ financing. Oh, and some of them were black too.

I work 25+ hrs a week, helping people change their lives: drug abusers, broken marriages, bereaved widows, molested children and adults, etc.

I volunteer at church to help the 146 kids in my congregation how to love and serve their families and others the way Jesus taught.

And since I have so much time after raising 8 kids, I find time to make food for funerals, volunteer at food banks, volunteer at school, visit the sick (going tonight), donate to charities 10%+ of our incomes, etc. And I could name by name probably 500 of my closest Christian and non-Christian friends who do that and more. I’m not trying to brag, but you’re very ignorant of who you’re trying to denigrate. You don’t see us–we’re not radicals, we’re middle America, who get that this mess is fixable, but only with a return to time-honored principles. I testify that’s true. The ones that the media choose to highlight help their ratings, but lead to a fostering of ignorance about what’s going on. If you’re ever in Arizona, look me up, and I’ll let you see it firsthand.

The Tea Party advocates are not a movement. Martin Luther King led a movement. The goals and means were clear. You knew if you joined the Civil Rights movement what you wanted to accomplish and how. Guess what it worked. It had an inspiring leader who kept to the message and did not let it become extreme.
Anti-war activists tried to have a movement. I was one of those radicals who wanted the Vietnam war to end. But the message and leaders were too fractured. The extremist screamed loudest. I had friends the screamed and burned administration buildings. I had friends that fled to Canada. The activism did not really grow until college deferments ended. Too much of the movement was self-serving. The war ended but not until the “movement” was pretty well ground down. There wasn’t a lot of care when just high school kids were getting drafted.
This is why I don’t consider the Tea Party a movement. It is too fractured. They can’t simply state their goals and how they will make change. The leaders are all over the place. The monetary support is opague. So, critics will take the extreme comments like Tancredos and the overt signs of racism and use them to define the Tea Partiers. Too much of what we hear is self serving.
Supporters need to clearly state their goals, how they will legally make change, and what their ends will look like.

Tancredos call for literacy tests. Was that one of the lessons learned. Here is a history of literacy tests.
http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm
Will poll taxes by next.

Apr,
Again I have to disagree with you. Tea Baggers are a force to be reckoned with. That they are hundreds of grass root groups operating independently only makes them stronger. They all have the same core beliefs but with local passions and will implement these beliefs in each of their areas of the country and will make a major difference in the election latter this year and in future years. What liberals don’t understand is that the Tea Baggers are symbolic of the wakening of Middle America. Liberal/Progressive policies of the Obama Administration and a Democratic congress have caused this awakening.
As the Japanese Admiral in command of the attack on Pearl Harbor said “I fear we have only awakened a Sleeping Giant.”

@ohiolib
Surely you are not going use the Nobel Prize as if it means something. Shall I list all of the Nobel Prize winners who were wrong, terrorists, failed politicians, or just plain wacko.

I think I pointed out who Krugman is somewhere else on this post. He is wrong and has been wrong for the last decade. His Keynesian solutions and recommendations has added to disaster and is all about corporate welfare and the bail out.

I would agree with you that the tax cuts are correlated but doesn’t cause more revenue and stimulation to the economy, but I have a small issue. We have established the same correlation to similar tax cuts made by Coolidge and Kennedy. Revenues increased and the economy grew significantly.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

In fact, Glenn Beck covered the exact same thing on his show tonight and sourced the facts. Causation is absolute.

As far as your links go… Every one of those economists and politicians contributing to those articles are Keynesians and many of them work for progressive think tanks. The numbers don’t match. If Krugman is wrong, then certainly Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Kogan (both progressives) are dead wrong. Your other links aren’t sourced. They look more like a College thesis than work from a professional economist.

It’s fascinating. I keep checking myself because I try to be a fair-minded individual, so when I listen to Beck, I hear through his hysterionics to the facts, the analysis, and his points about liberals and I question the veracity of his statements. But here, I can look through the liberal statements, and they follow the pattern that he outlines. First you denigrate, put forward your points (fine and good to do that), then, when articulate replies are made, supported, and truth (you have to admit at least partial truths) on the conservative side (no we’re not REPUBLICANS- I fancy myself and independent or Constitutionalist) are put forward, then the tact is to attack some other way, usually personal (see your “not a movement” tactic, “racists”, “bigots”, etc). Rarely an acknowledgement of the validity of points made. The comment above about close-mindedness appears to be valid. It’s unfortunate, because we all need to be more humble and willing to see truth wherever we find it and get regrounded on what endures. This country was founded with the most unique government-the first truly free people’s government (never heard the list of those that came before us, fukara). It’s worth preserving. For those of you who doubt the tea party movement, we take as our lead the spirit of the great George Washington. A man who starved and felt chilling cold, prayed daily for help from above when the Congress ignored his pleas for help for his ragtag army, the men, his commanders folded–he kept them together on a wing and a prayer. Outmanned, outtrained, out-organized against the world’s greatest army… But they were defending their lives, their homes, their families and their beliefs. Guess who won… I fight and other’s like me fight for the truth about what works. History is on our side. Just watch the miracles (like MA) that will turn the tide of intellectual and “emotional” rationalization that has led to policies that undermine the freedom of the American individual. Being an American means freedom. Freedom to succeed, and freedom to fail. Freedom to feel pain. Freedom to give and to love, freedom to die. There will be pain in such a setup, but the potential for true greatness will also exist. Opposites will coexist where freedom is allowed. It is unavoidable. I hope that you who misunderstand what is going on will look inside and study anew what truly works. We have been undermined by both parties–the tea party movement is about neither. Palin is not our leader. We the People… these are our leaders. Just watch and see what happens.

Apr,
Time will tell if the Tea Party phenomina is movement or not. Lets analyze what has happened…
1. The Republican party is running scared. All of the incumbents are on notice. Those that are left… are clinging to the Tea Party message. RINOs are being replaced for sure.
2. The progressives lost major campaign battles in New Jersey, Virginia, and Mass (arguable the most progressive State). They are bracing for 2010 losses.
3. Democrats are separating themselves from Obama.
4. Socialized medicine is defeated and health reform is back on the drawing board. Obama is meeting with Republicans.
5. Cap and Trade is dead. Man made GW Lie was exposed.
6. Acorn was exposed.
7. Most importantly… Obama Girl ended her affair with Obama.

The Tea Party and 912 thing has just gotten started. Perhaps you are right… it isn’t a movement. Guess what… Tea Baggers don’t care. Conservatives and Liberals (classic liberals) alike are steam rolling the progressive agenda. You are going to wake up January 2011 to a country that found its way back to it’s founding principles.

I can’t take the teapartiers seriously until they shake themselves free of the faux populists like Tancredo and Palin. They would have to denounce the secessionists, the bigots who use hateful language to promote the hatred of Obama, the Christianists who insist they are the one truth, and the homophobes. I will never be able to associate myself with the scare mongers Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rove and their master Roger Ailes. I would want the Tea Partiers to see what the military/industrial complex has down to our country and its influence around the world.
To accept them I have to know who is financially supporting them, who their real leaders are, and what their specific solutions are..not generalizations. As long as too many act like Huey Long, George Wallace or McCarthy, I can’t join them. At one time, leaders like Peron, Hitler,George Wallace, and David Duke tried to describe themselves as Populist. The title is easily corrupted. Real populists like Teddy Roosevelt used the government to fight monopolies and regulate business. I keep hearing they are diverse. I’m not hearing the diversity. I hear too much Republican cant. The Republicans today would never accept a TR or Lincoln as their standart bearers.
Allende in Chile, duly elected Populist, was brought down by American business interests and replaced by Pinochet. This has happened too often.
Be careful what you wish for. Make sure the cause is for the betterment of our society and not just for instant grativication or nebulous greivances.

jdog, sechander, and augment
I really hope you will all continue to post to this site. We the few moderates and conservatives who post here can really use your help in trying to bring some sanity, balance and truth to this site. As you can see it doesn’t have a whole lot of that presently. There are a few commenters you haven’t heard from yet that are even more closed minded than Apr.

There was a study done a few years ago by a Liberal college professor titled “Who Really Cares”. He believed that his study would show that liberals were the ones who cared and conservatives did not. What he discovered was the direct opposite. Conservatives were the ones who gave by far the most of the time and money to help people in need. They made up a large majority of the volunteers who were involved in helping the poor. They were the ones donating their money to charities.
Liberals on the other hand talked a good game but donated little of their time or money to people in need. I’m a retired moderate conservative and I give 50% of my income to charity each year.
It’s interesting if you look at the last few Democratic candidates for President, They all gave very little to charity according to their released tax returns. President Obama and his wife, excluding what they donated to the racist church of Jeremiah Wright, gave very little to charity. The same is true of Kerry and Gore.
Jdog and sechander you are correct. The liberals who post here have no understanding of who we are.

Wow, apr I just hope you’re taking the liberals and the democrats and holding them to as lofty a standard as that. That would be great for our country. Do you know who’s backing Obama? We’re not deluding ourselves that there’s no money being exchanged there either are we (nah, we haven’t seen any funny stuff going on in this Democratic Congress over the past 3 years… nahhh) I freely admit there’s corruption permeating both parties. If you’re worried about the tea partiers succumbing to the same lot, I get that. That’s why we’ve got to keep big money out of it. How to do that will take a miracle, but hey, I said that’s what I’m going for. My AZ friends and I and I assume a lot of others put our $25 each toward Scott Brown, and look what happened…First political donation I ever made. I plan to do it and encourage others to for every state until we take back the Congress. Again, I take as my inspiration George Washington. Incredible odds against him–yet undaunted still he trusted in something greater than himself. I wouldn’t be downing all the Christians, man. There are tons of decent, law-abiding Christians who believe in all those values I mentioned who are the backbone of this country. Stability of character is what will save this country. Shifting morals, “doing what we want whenever we want” attitudes and behaviors have NEVER led a country to prosperity for a sustained period of time. It’s always led to its demise (the reason I know this (besides historical record) is because it’s a child’s attitude, and as a parent of 8 I know that that attitude leads to fighting, self-serving behavior and trouble-why would that ever work for adults?)

Don’t know what to tell you. Roll up your sleeves, and start doing something and start getting out there and fight for the freedoms others are dying for and have died for. If you’re not willing to do something, I would keep your mouth closed. It’s just hot air. Just keeping it real, my friend.

@sechandler912

“Stability of character is what will save this country. Shifting morals, “doing what we want whenever we want” attitudes and behaviors have NEVER led a country to prosperity for a sustained period of time.”

Be careful. While I doubt anyone would agree with your assessment about the importance of character, don’t forget that the REAL goal of the change we are looking for is LIBERTY. Although your values are 100% correct and good to yourself and your family, avoid the temptation to assume that it makes it right to force them using governance. That would make you no different than those you disagree with in power now. No doubt, they feel EXACTLY the same way about their moral convictions. That’s exactly why we want to reduce the Govts. role in our lives, so that we are free to live them how we chose. Don’t fall into the trap.

i’m sorry, but the Founders stated that the people would have to be a “moral people” in order to stay free. Although I don’t believe in proscribing all the rules and such for moral behavior, I do believe that unless people can govern themselves according to the inner light within them (that moral compass I believe we all have) then this society can not continue. If we cannot govern ourselves to do the right thing by ourselves and others, we are destined to have a government be forced to try to do it for us. Read: current American society. It is a mess.

I can’t tell if we’re in agreement or not! Morality is such a loaded word that it’s hard to infer the scope when you say it.

The whole idea of personal liberty and free markets being the cornerstones of a pragmatic system of government relies on the fundamental belief that people are good. Free-markets operate best when certain social contracts are followed consequently that economic system serves to reinforce those same ideals through it’s inherent mechanisms of punishment/reward. Those “social contracts” naturally evolve out of the choices society makes and how they “vote with their wallets”. Trust, compassion, honesty, etc. are all qualities that, I believe, SHOULD be rewarded in a free-market system. The beauty of it is, that as consumers in that type of system we CAN shape the market to reflect society’s mores. You can further argue that this ‘evolution’ is inherent and inevitable.

The system that we have now is NOT organic. The mechanisms of risk/reward & cause/effect, besides being completely malfunctioning in some industries (namely monetary & financial), are determined by an impossible web of legislation, policy & cronyism. That effectively outweighs much of the effect consumers are able to exert on the market.

I, am an optimist. Just look at all the US support for Haiti. People from all political, religious and secular stripes exhibited a tremendous amount of compassion, despite our own current financial woes. This just reinforces my belief that American are fundamentally good. As well, like I mentioned before, a truly free-market economy will encourage good behavior. The values that encourage prosperity and community such as hard-work, kindness, teamwork, honesty and personal responsibility are integral to this feedback loop and foster innovation and “good business”.

Now, on the flip side: If you cannot cannot get around the idea that, while some morals are absolute there are some that ARE relative. That idea is FUNDAMENTAL to the ideals of liberty. Accepting that, means we have the intellectual honesty to realize how our life experience and individuality is integral to our understanding of the world. Likewise, we must have the EMPATHY to understand how those around us are different because of them. That sometimes involves a sacrifice, that being “uncomfortability”, personal offense or anger. That is the price of liberty it requires tolerance and a “thick skin” because it can’t protect our emotions.

It all boils down to FREE-WILL and accepting that NO PERSON should be free to exert power over another’s exercise of it through the means of force or coercion. Of course, it’s a two way street, meaning your free-will cannot trump anyone else’s either. IMHO, this is where a lot of Christian ideals have been mis-applied recently. Free-will and empathy are two themes stressed heavily in the New Testament. Jesus helped EVERYONE from prostitutes to lepers and tax collectors. He taught and INVITED them to follow him. The use of force is entirely absent in the gospels. Christianity, to be compatible with Jesus’ teachings, must in practice be exercised with love and compassion towards others as the primary objective. All the while, recognizing that we, as humans, fundamentally lack the wisdom and understanding to judge or exert control over other’s free-will. That is the entire basis of Liberty.

sechandler I am not denouncing Christians but Christianists. Christianists are people who believe that they have the one true faith and others must accept and live by their tenets.
I saw nothing in your posts denouncing Tea Party members like Tancredo. And, mention Beck and I run for the hills.
I am not naive. I know both major parties are corrupt. That doesn’t mean I will follow another party that may be as corrupt or more. I need a lot more reassurance that people like Dick Army, FOX, Grover Norquist and Focus on the Family have not overtaken the “movement” and perverted what you hope is a grassroots effort.
It is not a movement. It is a concept with many diverse goals and methods. Call me when it has a firm ideology, defined goals and known leaders and financial backers. Maybe then I will take it seriously. I will not roll up my sleeves and support what I have seen so far. Good luck.

I think we’re basically in agreement. I find it almost tragic that we have to tiptoe around words such as morality now. Can you imagine George Washington and Jefferson arguing over the word morality? It’s just so sad because I feel that people have lost touch with their “inner voice” (sorry if it sounds psychobabble-ish but I believe in our inherent goodness, and that in part comes from our “inner voice”). I am a therapist/counselor/life coach, and I’m telling you, if people are allowed to calm down, look you in the eyes or in the mirror, people KNOW… Not about how to solve every human problem, but minimally they know what they need to do. On a fundamental level. And it comes down to the basics: don’t steal, don’t lie, do right by people, keep commitments, seek peace, be nice, etc. The basics. Morality.

Totally. I’m not really sure if it’s just people TODAY. I think a big part is because the internet almost forces us to engage with the whole spectrum of humanity; good and bad. Plus, the nature of it lends itself more to reaction instead of thought and without regard for any social consequences, am unfortunate side effect of anonymity. It’s kinda like living in a city as opposed to a small town; You take the good with the bad. But, I definitely agree and take heart in the fact that almost everyone that I meet face to face is a good person. It’s just as soon as we hop behind the cover our machines; car, keyboard, whatever…we forget that we’re communicating with other human beings.

Anyway, the whole “PC” movement, I feel like, is a sad confirmation of your ideas. It’s funny but you can almost draw direct parallels to government. I agree 100% with the motivations of political correctness: not to cause harm. But, the whole idea that we lack the intelligence or insight to assess the meaning and intent of a word or action depending on the context and situation pisses me off. It should be insulting to anyone’s intelligence. But somehow, our society has decided that things work out better if we turn our brains off, label specific words ‘good’ or ‘bad’, regardless of context, and react with the mob. It’s just another example of sacrificing freedom(mental) for the feeling of safety.

But, like I said before, I think most of it’s due to the nature of the internet. It’s easy to get down on the state of affairs when sensationalism is the media’s MO and he who shouts loudest get’s heard. I try to remind myself often that it’s never as bad as it seems.

To clarify, I totally agree that 99.9% of people do KNOW what’s right. You make an excellent point that all the “noise” makes it really easy to forget the “inner-voice” is there.

I’m an compulsive thinker (and meta-thinker)…almost to a fault. So, I’m totally down with the “psychobabble”…you can’t fully understand others until you understand yourself. (admittedly, both unattainable goals!)

This clip illustrates everything that the tea party wants to change – this makes me want to puke, and I’m sure that the Republicans have abused their power as much as this man (God bless his soul) did on this occasion.

Wow…admittedly I don’t have the full context of the situation. But, from what I saw that’s completely indefensible. It’s complete disrespect and contempt of the democratic process.