Posts Tagged ‘TEA Party’

Racist redneck Republican Obama hating big business teabaggers

Sunday, July 12th, 2009

BostonHarborTeaI’m 0 in 2 for Tea Party attendance in Bellingham.  A pretty dismal record, but I’m sure I’ll get another chance or two.  However, my lack of attendance does not indicate a lack of agreement with the Bellingham Tea Party principles.

The Bellingham Tea Party is a non-partisan group made up of local citizens who are alarmed by the excesses of the US Federal Government, and want it to return to the founding principles as specified in the US Constitution.

Our mission is to motivate and educate our fellow citizens about the founding principles.

I am a local citizen who is alarmed with Federal Government excesses.  I believe that leading the world in debt accumulation is not right and further, I believe that adding more debt on top goes against constitutional principles.  How does our Federal Government protect life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the people of this nation when they must also bend to the will of those nations to which we are in debt.  Our government, like us, cannot serve two masters.

Enough of the soapbox.  I think it’s a pretty clear message that binds Tea Party supporters together.  In fact the message is so clear and simple, it’s no wonder that half the county wasn’t along the Guide on the 4th.  I was celebrating our nation’s independence with my family up at the Blaine Parade, so for myself, my absence was a simple time conflict.

But I have wondered just how many people who agree with the Tea Party message didn’t stop in because of some negative perception they’ve picked up from media or on the web?  Tea Party perceptions like these are pretty common.

  • It’s not grassroots, it’s all organized by big business
  • They are a bunch of racists
  • It’s an anti President Obama thing.
  • It’s a Republican thing

If any of these have kept you from expressing your dissatisfaction with government excesses at a Tea Party, then let me share a few thoughts from my perspective.

It’s not grassroots, it’s all organized by big business – You know, business is good for our nation.  Business employs us.  Business drives our economy.  Businesses, both small and big suffer from government excesses the same as you and I.  So if some high level organizing was done by a certain size business, it’s easy to understand why.   I’ve spoken with people who attended because they feel government excesses are personally affecting them and the future of our nation.  They want to personally express that dissatisfaction.  That’s nearly a stand alone definition of grassroots.

They are a bunch of racists – Sometimes when all other arguments fail, it is time to pull the race card out of your sleeve.   That card was played quite early in the game, way back in April when Janeane Garofalo called teabaggers “racist rednecks”.  <==Don’t miss that link, it’s a classic.  Tea Party supporters come from all walks of life, so I can’t be sure that there isn’t a single lonely racist somewhere, but racism is certainly not foundational to the group.  In fact,  the National Black Republican Association supports the Tea Party message.  One wonders if their membership knows they are racist?

It’s an anti President Obama thing – People’s perception that this is an anti-President Obama thing is probably the easiest perception to understand, because the programs that he, with the assistance of Congress, is currently implementing, represent the largest excesses this nation has ever seen.  I’m not even sure it is possible to be  pro-President Obama and pro-Tea Party message?  Perhaps if President Obama can start to deliver on his promises without more government intrusion and more debt then the answer might be yes.  It would sure help the partisan gap in our nation if he would even make an attempt at not increasing debt.

It’s a Republican thing – As someone who has attended local Tea Party organizing meetings as well as most recent Republican committee meetings, I can tell you that this is not just a Republican thing.  While the Tea Party message may be more closely aligned with Republican or perhaps Libertarian thought, this is not an outgrowth of the Republican Party.  I’ve never been asked for party affiliation at a Tea Party meetings and as I looked around the meeting room I saw people known to me with various party affiliations, Democratic, Libertarian, Republican and some who I had no idea.    Not a local thing, but pertinant and interesting none the less is the story of Leslie Eastman of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition.

A common misconception of mainstream media’s political pundits is the claim that the “Tea Party” movement is merely a covert Republican operation. That is simply not true. I am a founder of one of the largest grassroots organizations in the nation (Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition, LLC; SoCal-TRC). I am also a registered Democrat.

SoCal-TRC policies are based on a sound understanding of basic economics derived from practical experience in the world of small business. This is because all of SoCal-TRC’s founders run small businesses, and appreciate that liberty and personal freedoms are best served through the fair practice of free enterprise. Our group strives to maintain a message that is focused on sensible fiscal policy and limited government intervention.

SDNN.com

If you were considering participation or support for Bellingham Tea Party events, then I hope this post helps.    People are out lining the Guide and waving their signs because they feel that government excesses will have a direct negative affect on themselves and their family.  So, if you are just regular Whatcom county folks who would like to have the government reign in spending, then I look forward to seeing you at the next event.   That is, assuming I don’t go 0 in 3.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

wapoobamabudget1I’m not really into reposting other’s material, but I’ll make this article from the Heritage Foundation one of the few exceptions.   As per their usual, they have with great visual simplicity, painted a picture of outrageous spending habits of the the Obama Administration.

No, they don’t let President Bush off the hook, for his poor spending, they just clearly show how much worse things became after President Obama was elected.  It’s no wonder that people are taking to the streets in protest.

And after you check out the outrageous spending plan, don’t miss the penny explanation of President Obama’s budget cuts?

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

  • President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
  • President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  • President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  • President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
  • President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
  • President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
  • President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.


America is me

Saturday, June 27th, 2009

TEA party

Thursday, April 16th, 2009

tea-party Now I didn’t attend the TEA Party on the Guide, but I do identify with the sentiments of those who did.  I happened to see my 2nd grader hit a double in his first baseball game, so I won’t be apologizing for my absence.

I have kept tabs on the TEA party goings on though.  I’ve heard liberals & liberal Democrats on talk radio and television laughing at these Tea Parties with remarks about us not realizing that the government would cease to exist without taxes.  And I can’t recall where I read this comment, perhaps it was on the Herald Politics blog, however, it was a snide, yet entertaining remark about the irony of anti-tax protestors standing on streets that were paved with taxes.  And I’ve read a local liberal/Democrat blogger quote a poll “which finds 61% of Americans saying they regard the income taxes they have to pay this year as fair.”  Keep in mind that the poll asked about the fairness of taxes paid this year without mention of whether drastic future increases would be fair.  And let’s not for get this misdirection play by Janeane Garofalo who calls the protests racism straight up and describes those at the TEA parties as redneck white power activists who simply can’t tolerate a black man in the White House.

That’s all fine, dandy and part of their right to express themselves in our nation, but whether through ignorance or stubborn partisanship, liberal Democrats act like they miss the very plain message of the TEA party.

I’m of a mind that they are just being stubborn to play the partisan game, because the message of the TEA party is very simple and exactly as stated; we are Taxed Enough Already.  The message is not that we don’t want to pay taxes.  The  message is not that we are demanding extreme cut in taxes.  The message is that we are Taxed Enough Already.  Taxed Enough Already as in we don’t think it is right to be taxed even more.

We acknowledge that the previous administration added to our future tax burden when they first began the recent bailouts, but we also can’t ignore the kind of spending that is currently being proposed.  While the Obama administration is promising that 95% of us will see no tax increase this year, with his penchant for spending our money, he is also setting into motion future tax increases that will dwarf all those from the past, both ancient or recent.

We are Taxed Enough Already and we wish for our government to reign in their spending so we won’t see future tax increases.  I know, I know, it is said that we need more money in play to jolt our economy out of it’s slump, but who says that money has to be taken from us under threat of incarceration and spent by the Obama administration in order to reach the economy?

Since the government will take a cut for managing the process, I’d argue that there would be more money stimulating the economy if the government simply left it in our pockets rather taking it from us in additional taxes.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but money I have is either saved or spent.  And I don’t save it by shoebox or mattress, I put it in some form of banking or investment.  I would bet that rich or poor, from me to Bill Gates, we all do pretty much the same thing with our money.  The money we spend goes directly into the economy and the money we save is used by banks for loans which also puts money directly into the economy.

If we stand for the spending that this administration is proposing as necessary stimulus, then we are approving future tax increases that will cripple if not completely kill our nations economy.  Just like the Grimm Reaper, the taxman will visit the children of all regardless of party affiliations.  We have a problem that crosses all party lines and the shear number of those who turned out makes me think that Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and no those with no party affiliations whatsoever are finally beginning to getting it.

We need to demand that our government stop increases in spending because we are Taxed Enough Already.