Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Tea Party Babylon

by The Reverend on April 15, 2009

in economy,tea parties

tower-of-babel

When the Biblical Tower of Babel was under construction, as the legendary myth goes, God intervened, (still not sure why), by confusing the languages of the workers so they couldn't continue building. Hard to construct something if the construction workers can't communicate with one another.

Out of that mythical story we learn the original meaning of the word, Babylon,….confusion.

Today's Tax Day Tea Parties, and Fox's coverage of those Parties….is truly Babylonian in nature….confusing.

I want to be fair about what's being said by Fox and "Friends" concerning today's protests, I really do….but I must say, it ain't easy.

Even though Neil Cavuto, (in Sacramento, CA reporting on, but not promoting, anything), admits this morning that 95% of American workers have just been given a payroll tax cut under Obama's program…..he also points to the protestors anticipatory-worry of higher taxes in the future for all Americans in order to pay off all the spending. So the tax part of the protest, it would seem, is not about what's happening right now regarding taxes (Obama tax cuts for workers), but what will happen years from now. Lots of talk about "the children" being burdened in the future with Obama's great debt.

Okay, the anti-tax part of the Tea Parties is a protest of future tax increases on all Americans, and the protest is not about Obama's plan to end Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The protest, then, is kind of a pre-emptive tax rate increase protest…..a protest about something that isn't a part of Obama's plan, yet will happen sometime in the future anyway.

Well…no….I'm learning that the protest is also about government spending, primarily on the bailouts and the economic stimulus but not, for example, on defense spending, where America spends 1/2 trillion dollars or more each year.

When it is pointed out that the bailouts started under a Republican president, the responses have been that the Tea Party attendees are bi-partisan, not just Republicans. Cavuto is telling me right now that he's talked to Democrats and Independents today and they're fed up, just like Republicans. Honestly? That's kind of confusing to me. Am I supposed to believe that Democrats and Republicans are equally represented at protests today? Am I supposed to believe that Democrats, who support Obama by 90%, are turning out to these Parties in similar numbers as, say, Republicans? Is that believable?

Similarly, when it has been pointed out that our national debt, which those same children of ours will have to pay, DOUBLED, in the eight years of Republican-controlled government, the same answer is given. Protestors, we "learn" from Fox, are not partisan in nature, you know, only protesting Obama. The Tea Party protests are directed at both Republicans and Democrats.

Why, then, didn't we have any of these Tea Parties during the last eight years? Bush's expansion of the national debt from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion didn't happen, like, all at once in the last month of his presidency. Instead, Bush ran repeated deficits virtually every year after his inauguration. But I don't remember any protests about spending, or deficits, during that time….in fact, I don't remember many, if any, Fox "reporters" or Republicans, ever even mentioning Bush's spending and deficits in a negative way. Why would that be the case?

Am I to believe that the Tea Party protests are really all about government spending, when right-leaning folks never held, you know, grassroots protests about Bush's borrowing and spending? Spending which resulted in the doubling of the debt? Really?

Five trillion dollars were added to the debt during the last 8 years, debt that our children will have to pay, and yet, it's the $787 billion Obama stimulus spending which has sent all the Taxed Enough Already protestors into a hyper-frenzy over spending and deficits? Is that credible?

If it's the bailouts that are being protested, then it would seem to follow that the protestors did not believe Bush last fall, or Obama since, when both men said if the banks and AIG weren't bailed out, our national economy, as well as the international economy, would collapse, thus creating an even worse situation. Are both presidents simply wrong in their evaluations? Should our leaders have just allowed our biggest financial corporations to go belly up? Really?

The only thing that has changed since the bailouts began is the presidency. Is that why we have protests now, instead of last fall, or anytime during the last 8 years?

None of these answers explain why I'm seeing so many signs today with the word "socialism" or "communism" on them. Cavuto and Fox's "reporting" (but not promoting) have not explained these signs, nor the signs which tie the name Obama with those two other words. Why is that?

Shep Smith is now telling me that the Tea Parties are about government largesse and high tax rates……so, you know, I'm still in Babylon here.

Jeebus, now Cavuto is telling me the Sacramento protestors are protesting a state tax increase. "The rage is palpable and the rage is everywhere." Now it's rage.

"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief." Jimi Hendrix.

  • Roy
  • rayy

    Great post! I agree they are stoking some kind of vague anger or "malaise" and don't really have a well-defined common cause. If it was about one thing (say bank bailouts) then it could be an effective movement. But Glenn Beck? come on! Texas talking about seceding? –too bad they didn't think of this 10 years ago!

  • Knozzmoeking

    Keep burying your heads in the sand and believe that this is about right wing kooks. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. You are so hung up on the two party system that you can't allow for people who have their own principles outside of a political party.

    I give it a better than 50/50 chance that at least one state will go down the road of seccession. At the very least, like minded individuals will start congregating together in states that support their beliefs.

    I know you rely on the shock value of your blog and don't really want to engage in real change, so no reply is necessary.

  • The Reverend

    Yeah…"shock value"….yep, that's my goal.

    "People who have their own principles outside of a political party"…..is that why Fox News promoted these parties? Because the people attending were not represented by one of the two national political parties?

  • Knozzmoeking

    Have to congratulate you on the deceptive nature of your response. I bring up the fact that the people attending had more on their minds than the two party system and your response is that Fox promoted the parties. Priceless subterfuge and a non-answer at best.

  • Dave

    The people who attended, me included, are NOT represented by the Dems or the Reps. Here is why:

    1. NEITHER party wants to practice fiscal discipline. Yes – Bush ran up deficits in the $400B range. Dumb. Obama wants a deficit that is 4x that. 4x as dumb. BOTH parties suck. Vote them ALL out.

    2. NEITHER party wants to restrict the reach of federal gov't. Both parties increase the size and scope of federal gov't, and it needs to end. When the federal gov't bypasses other shareholders (who paid good money for stock shares) and the Board of Directors and fires executives – it has overstepped its bounds. When the federal gov't tells banks to take money or else be audited, it has overstepped it bounds. The socialists are free to move to Europe – we are CAPITALISTS.

    3. NEITHER party wants to promote personal responsibility. Bailouts for industry, and bailouts for gov't are now the norm. Here's a thought – if congress and an administration run a deficit, then they should not collect a paycheck until they pay off the debt! If a company makes no money, it should go to bankruptcy!

    4. NEITHER party want to protect American sovereignty. They just sell our debt to unfriendly countries with nary a thought about when the debt will come due. Throw out the idiots.

    If you went to one of these Tea Parties, then you would have gotten this understanding. But instead, you just blog uninformed with your snide little comments. We are going to cut the federal gov't down to size with or without you. We're pissed off and we are in full throated REVOLUTION!! The corpulent pigs in DC will hear us.

  • Da King

    Standing ovation for Dave and Knozz. They are talking about the true meaning of the Tea Parties, while Rev is only interested in partisan spin. The two-party system is very broken, and neither is serving the real interests of America at this time.

  • http://ohio.com Chris

    I went to one of these "Tea Parties" just to see what it was about. It was about right wing comentators inciting people to violence and to disregard their government. If lower class minorities did the same thing they would be in jail for trying to incite a riot.

    People of the world think. It will take time for America to undo the harm caused by 20 years of conservative thinking. Just like it took Roosevelt time to undo the harm caused by 20 years of conservative rule. Conservatism by nature means that they want to conserve the old rules, the old traditions and the old ideas. Liberalism by nature wants to bend the rules, bend the traditions and look for new ideas.

    For those conservatives in the house if you want a smaller government try to get the 16th amendment repealed. Without the power to tax on a progressive nature the federal government would die. However the states are in no position to take over the power vacumn. And we would end up with 50 individual republic's without the ability to actually change the world.

  • Dave

    Chris – which tea party were you at?

    Your second paragraph cuts both ways. It took Reagan 3-5 years to undo the harm caused by 4 years of Carter. It took Bush years to fix the mess left by Clinton. Conservatism says, "if it isn't broke, then don't fix it". Liberalism says "if it is too hard, then make it easier for the lazy or dim witted".

    We are working on the 16th amendment repeal and the Fair Tax. We'll cut the federal gov't to size – not eliminate it. The federal gov't will be sized to comply with its mandate in the constitution, and states will have the rights due to them.

  • The Reverend

    Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, last I checked, were Republicans. Fox, no longer considered anything other than a GOP network, also promoted the Parties.

    Why can't conservatives acknowledge these facts. Grassroots, my ass.

    And Dave's #2 is just ridiculous….

    "When the federal gov't bypasses other shareholders (who paid good money for stock shares) and the Board of Directors and fires executives – it has overstepped its bounds. When the federal gov't tells banks to take money or else be audited, it has overstepped it bounds."

    Please…..you have to stay minimally informed about this stuff. GM took tax money because they couldn't make it on their own. They were given a chance to come up with a restructuring plan. It sucked. The CEO was fired.

    Moral of the story: Don't take federal money to bail your ass out and then expect no strings attached.

    Unless I see evidence otherwise, no banks were FORCED to take tax money. They wanted it.

    And #4……so now allowing foreign investors to enter our T-bill market is giving up our sovereignty. Better tell Reagan and the Bushs….I bet they didn't know that.

    You know what's really humorous…..secession talk. I just get such a big kick out of secession talk. By all means…..please Texas….do it. Perry is such a dick.

  • Dave

    There are libertarians and third party (like the Constitution party) involved also, but a lot of Republicans. I am an independent.

    Oh. So Sorry. I was under the impression that if the NPV calculation presented to the presidential designee is not sufficiently positive, that the TARP funds would need to be repaid immediately and that would force GM into bankruptcy. Instead, when the NPV was not good enough, they fire the CEO and take the company over. I didn't know lenders could fire CEOs. I thought that was the domain of the Board of Directors and for shareholders. Do you even own stock??

    Agreed upon strings are one thing – changing the agreement and instituting a power grab to protect constituent unions is another. The gov't has NO BUSINESS running any business. Period.

    Putting limits on how much of U.S. Gov't equity can be foreign owned is the right thing. Reagan and Bush did the wrong thing by not limiting it.

  • The Reverend

    Listen…when you go to the freaking government for help….hat in hand….you've reached the end of your rope. Any bitching about the "deal" after the handout, is just whining. Obama said, specifically, that GM had to come up with a workable plan. Obviously, that didn't go well. It's the corporate boards and the shareholders, who put the company in the gutter in the first place…or aren't boards responsible? Shareholders? And if they're not, who is? Or is it always simply the workers fault?

    And it's the same with the banks and AIG.

    The problem with big corporations, and it's happened over a long period of time, is that the white collar boys got to believing in their own bullsh*t, thinking they were the gods of all prosperity, entitled to the kingdom. Never responsible, mind you, …Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom,…..but always entitled.

    Unless God wants to take GM over, the American government is the next best choice.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    Banks WERE forced to take bailout money by the government. There's no doubt about it.

    "the government may have to continue to press banks to participate in the [bailout] plan. The first $125 billion will be divided among nine of the largest U.S. banks, which were forced to accept the investment to help destigmatize the program in the eyes of other institutions." – Washington Post

    "The regulators are pushing us so dad-gum hard, we’re scratching our head saying, ‘If we don’t take it, does that put us on their bad list?’ ” Dan Rollins, president of Houston-based Prosperity Bank. Houston Chronicle Article

    “Almost 95% of banks in this country remain well-capitalized. Since that time, many banks have been contacted by regulators, and urged, sometimes forcefully, to participate in the [Capital Purchase Program].” American Bankers Association president Edward Yingling

    “This person runs a bank that’s worth about $250 billion, it has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts, wasn’t involved in credit default swaps,” Napolitano said. “It didn’t need any money. It didn’t ask for the money and didn’t want it. The FDIC with Treasury backing – officials from both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don't take this money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you." – Judge Napolitano's conversation with a bank officer.

  • Dave

    The boards, shareholders, management and labor are ALL responsible in a failure as big as GM. They should ALL be forced to reckon with their mistakes like everyone else in America and go to bankruptcy. I agree it is stupid to go to government for handouts. I would expect, however, that the government would not change the contract in the middle of the deal. People have every right to expect and demand honesty from our government. Are you OK with a dishonest government?

    AIG should have been broken up into viable pieces. AIG is a perfect example of the government not knowing what is going on. The banks should not have been strong armed into accepting the loans. Both of these are happening on Republican and Democrat watches.

    These two examples are government run amok. Our congress doesn't even know what legislation it passes, but it thinks it can change roles from oversight to management of corporations. This is a grab for power, and they need a ruler to the knuckles.

  • The Reverend

    Judge Napolitano? Oh, please, King….we're gonna' need better sources than that.

    Fair enough Dave. We disagree on some details, but I mostly concur with the sentiment.

    Obama's answer to his maintaining the banks (and AIG) in their current states was that they were strapped with explosives with their finger on the trigger and it was his job to talk them down. I think he was serious. What if the feds would have forced a bankruptcy? The ripple effect could have been far worse than what we have now. And also remember, the top 5% of banks that needed help held over 60% of the nation's assets. Where government failed was in letting them get that big.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).