Poll: The Tea Party Movement

[SyphonX]

but my point still stands, you should not be allowed to complain about a president that the country elected. this and bush are great examples.

Sorry, but this is garbage. First of all, I did not vote. There were 2 choices, a shriveled old white man with 6 or 7 estates or a slogan-spewer. Oh I suppose I could have chosen 'Other' to make myself feel good, but what do I know.

I suppose you're right. If I wake up one morning and Benito Mussolini is president of the United States then I should have no right to complain that my "country" "elected" him.

 

[LockHeart]

Why, all of a sudden, are people holding these "tea party" protests? I see it going on all around America and I don't think it will be long before the fervor over it spreads around. Personally, it makes no sense to me. I understand that the economy is in a bad way, but is this any way to fix it?

A few weeks ago there were riots in Britain. There didn't need to be riots in Britain. Those people came out, dressed up like clowns, wrote clever little slogans on picket signs, and paraded around in front of the "establishment" like they were accomplishing something. And what did they accomplish? They broke a few windows and got beaten down by police. How did this help the economy?

I mean, I get it, you're exercising your rights, and thats all fine and good, but don't play at it like you're changing the world. These protests, these tea parties that're going on in America today, they're just catharsis. People are venting their anger over the economy, but they're invoking the old American image of revolution with the tea party. Do they expect the heavens to part and the power elites to descend down off their throwns to concede. "Curses, you've defeated us, I guess we'll slink back to our respective lairs now, here is all your money. You may have won this round Gadget, but I'll get you next time."

Bad jokes aside, what do you feel about the Tea Party Movement?

Well in Iceland, popular protest forced the government to resign...

And lets be perfectly honest, a few nutcases broke some windows at the Royal Bank of Scotland while the police (with balaclavas on and ID numbers covered) went about killing a man and "beat down" others with no provocation. This does not constitute a riot. It constitutes a perfectly legal protest (in which, admittedly, some people took the piss and tried to kick off) marred by police brutality. We could do with a riot though, and a fucking good one at that. We've been shat on for long enough.

If we can force the government to resign, then we can stop them pissing our money up the wall and change something. So yes, 'parading' in front of the Establishment can change things for the better if you give them a few solid kicks for good measure.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I'm not in a position to say yea or nay. But for arguments sake I say Nay.

 

[RetiarySword]

A 'tea party' protest? how does that even work! A protest is supposed to be annoying and is only succesful if the police tear gas the crowd. Thats the sign of victory!

 

[SyphonX]

A 'tea party' protest? how does that even work! A protest is supposed to be annoying and is only succesful if the police tear gas the crowd. Thats the sign of victory!

America isn't quite up there with the rest of the world when it comes to protesting for something. Not up to snuff just yet...

 

[LockHeart]

Their protesting wasteful spending, by wastefully spending.

Spending money?

The point is that they are choosing how to spend it, not a wasteful bureaucracy who takes they money under the threat of penal action to prop up companies which should be left to collapse.

 

[Failurebot]

The fact that people feel that the government acting during a critical time in one of the greatest economic downturns in history is wasteful is insulting. The previous administration did little but keep the seats warm for the next president, as they knew it would then no longer be their problem. Now that president Obama is actually acting and trying to turn things around by using government funds (how else is the government to act?), there are cries of socialism, or worse yet, fascism. For some odd reason, people see this and think they'll feel the brunt of it.

News to them is, even with the massive amounts of money being pumped into the economy, the federal budget for 2009 is projected to be 3.4 trillion dollars, that is including any further stimulus AND comprehensive operations in Iraq (another mess Bush got us into) and Afghanistan. This may seem like a lot, but the 2008 federal budget, which was chalked up by the responsible, small government Bush administration, was 3.21 trillion dollars, and that does not include and military spending in the Middle East.

As for the "massive" tax hike that people are fearing, it will remain the same for individuals making less than $250,000 a year. I doubt anyone making that much money is appearing that these protests.

It really is insulting how even when they're on the run, so to speak, the conservative minority still feels the need to try and convince people to oppose anything that would benefit the average person.

Lastly, the original Boston Tea Party, regardless of what it truly was, has gone down in history as an attempt by the common people to receive representation in the government. The current protests are simply overly theatrical attempts to vilify a government that allows direct representation, but is simply doing something these people neither understand, nor care to try and learn about. I'm sure if these protests were against a republican administration, the 24 cable news networks would be throwing up red flags, and have elaborate, alarmist headers proclaiming something along the lines of "Tea Party Protesters Undermining American Values!" Real patriotic.

EDIT:

If we can force the government to resign, then we can stop them pissing our money up the wall and change something. So yes, 'parading' in front of the Establishment can change things for the better if you give them a few solid kicks for good measure.

My response to this is that if we were allow these companies to fall, the damage to the economy would be irreparable. It would send the global economy into a tailspin, causing much more damage than any amount of government intervention could. As for what got us into this mess in the first place, it was a Randian lack of government involvement that allowed the CEO's and executives of some of the largest corporations to lie and cheat their way to wealth, leaving the rest of us to feel the pain when it fell apart. Corporations could never self-regulate, the greed is always too prevalent. A lack of oversight is what got us into this mess, I don't see how forcing those willing to take action to resign would help anyone.

 

[Barry93]

haven't we already had like 10 of these threads?

 

[blackcherry]

haven't we already had like 10 of these threads?

Its an important topic on many peoples minds. Also its a great distraction technique to avoid the reality of a minor economic slump.

 

[Evertw]

Okay, I'm not familiar with American history, but how exactly is a tea party form of protest? No crumpets? Refusal to give any participants sugar? Milk supplied when you meet our demands?

Well unless someone has already explained it's just like the Boston tea party, just that some Americans climbed aboard a British ship dressed as Indians and started throwing tea shipments over board.

 

[IsoNeko]

What Irks me the most, is that people are blaming Obama for the recession and why America is in debt.

For Fuck Sake! The guys been in office less than 6 months!

These tea parties are held by nothing more than pansy little children who cry because their wing didn't win. Bring on the flames children, I'm ready for 'em.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I agree anything the quadruples the deficit prolly needs to be stopped Also as far as not increasing taxes on the <200k crowd. If you use energy that cost is going up( something like a 800 billion energy tax) I guess if your amish....

EDIT: to bad the media has turned in into an anti obama thing rather than an anti waste dealio.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The government has to be seen to be doing something, and bailing out the banks, in America's case at least, was seen as the most appropriate course of action in order to stop them collapsing and creating a massive void in the economy. It's interesting how people are now challenging the idea of massive stimulus spending because of the fear it will create higher taxes. It's similar to the idea that people here in Aus want banks to pass on the full interest rate cuts in line with the RBA, without realising in the long term those rates will rebound and drag them into debt because they're unable to keep up with the mortgage repayments, and the cycle continues.

The problem is that this whole idea is retarded. They should give all that money to poor people, who will spend it and so stimulate the economy. Give the money to banks and what will they do? Lend it. That will put even more people in even more debt, that will mean less people spending and even more stagnation of the economy. Only now the situation will be worse, because money the government could have used to do something about it has been given to banks.

There is also the moral question of whether it is right to take money from taxpayers, then give it to banks to lend to those same taxpayers, then make a profit on them from their own money. Couldn't they, kinda like, not give the banks money and let the people keep that money?

On the general question:- Op, I suggest you look into the civil rights movement sometime. Protest marches and stuff not only work but they are essential.

 

[dwightsteel]

I've wrote about this twice before on this forum, but the original Boston tea-party is a sham. If they're representing anything, it's their ignorance.

Not only do I agree whole heartedly with Armored Prayer, but lets look at what the Boston Tea Party was.

It wasn't a patriotic act of rebellion against a tyrannous monarchy. It was a message to the British to back off by pirates.

The Tea Act, among many things, lowered the price of tea, to allow England and the East India Trading Co. to stay competitive with smugglers, who were importing the brunt of the colony's tea.

When they lowered prices, the smugglers dressed up as natives and dumped the tea over board as a giant "fuck you!" to the king.

Not only are they making a pointless statement, but they are doing it under the guise of patriotic concept that doesn't exist. Double fail.

It doesn't really matter what happened at the Tea Party because it was just a precursor to the American Revolution. I am not sure if what you're saying is true but if it is, it doesn't matter anyway because we got our Independence anyway.

It's not exactly difficult to look up. Type in "Boston Tea Party" in google, or read a few books on the subject. And it does matter, because the Tea Party WASN'T a precursor. The Stamp act was a precursor. The Declaration of Independence was a precursor. The Boston Tea Party was a foot note alongside a revolution. It happened amidst what was going on. This broad misconception gives undo credit to an event that was ALL about business. And to base a modern day protest on this event not only broadens this misconception, but helps to point out the ignorance of the group who tried to protest under the veil of "patriotism".

 

[Inverse Skies]

The problem is that this whole idea is retarded. They should give all that money to poor people, who will spend it and so stimulate the economy. Give the money to banks and what will they do? Lend it. That will put even more people in even more debt, that will mean less people spending and even more stagnation of the economy. Only now the situation will be worse, because money the government could have used to do something about it has been given to banks.

There is also the moral question of whether it is right to take money from taxpayers, then give it to banks to lend to those same taxpayers, then make a profit on them from their own money. Couldn't they, kinda like, not give the banks money and let the people keep that money?

On the general question:- Op, I suggest you look into the civil rights movement sometime. Protest marches and stuff not only work but they are essential.

Hmmm... dispersing it to the poor doesn't quite work as well in practice as it does in theory. Here in Aus we've just spent something like 11 billion dollars in stimulus spending which hasn't done... anything to stimulate the economy. We're just lucky that we still have around 3 percent of official interest rate cutes left to slash in order to stimulate spending. We're going into recession, but the stimulus packages to the poor haven't done much to avert it. I'm not sure what strategy should be used to avert recession, but I always thought large scale infrastructure projects would be the most viable in terms of creating jobs and injecting money into a floundering economy.

 

[Jeronus]

I've wrote about this twice before on this forum, but the original Boston tea-party is a sham. If they're representing anything, it's their ignorance.

Not only do I agree whole heartedly with Armored Prayer, but lets look at what the Boston Tea Party was.

It wasn't a patriotic act of rebellion against a tyrannous monarchy. It was a message to the British to back off by pirates.

The Tea Act, among many things, lowered the price of tea, to allow England and the East India Trading Co. to stay competitive with smugglers, who were importing the brunt of the colony's tea.

When they lowered prices, the smugglers dressed up as natives and dumped the tea over board as a giant "fuck you!" to the king.

Not only are they making a pointless statement, but they are doing it under the guise of patriotic concept that doesn't exist. Double fail.

It doesn't really matter what happened at the Tea Party because it was just a precursor to the American Revolution. I am not sure if what you're saying is true but if it is, it doesn't matter anyway because we got our Independence anyway.

It's not exactly difficult to look up. Type in "Boston Tea Party" in google, or read a few books on the subject. And it does matter, because the Tea Party WASN'T a precursor. The Stamp act was a precursor. The Declaration of Independence was a precursor. The Boston Tea Party was a foot note alongside a revolution. It happened amidst what was going on. This broad misconception gives undo credit to an event that was ALL about business. And to base a modern day protest on this event not only broadens this misconception, but helps to point out the ignorance of the group who tried to protest under the veil of "patriotism".

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to correct a mistake in history but what you are trying to do is pointless because the "Tea Party" that America knows is the one in our history books. They aren't ignorant just misinformed. Also it is a patriotic concept because no matter who did it, it inspired patriots everywhere to rebel against the British government. Whether it was pirates or colonist, their actions inspired a rebellious atmosphere among the people and in the end helped aid the American Revolution.

 

[dwightsteel]

I've wrote about this twice before on this forum, but the original Boston tea-party is a sham. If they're representing anything, it's their ignorance.

Not only do I agree whole heartedly with Armored Prayer, but lets look at what the Boston Tea Party was.

It wasn't a patriotic act of rebellion against a tyrannous monarchy. It was a message to the British to back off by pirates.

The Tea Act, among many things, lowered the price of tea, to allow England and the East India Trading Co. to stay competitive with smugglers, who were importing the brunt of the colony's tea.

When they lowered prices, the smugglers dressed up as natives and dumped the tea over board as a giant "fuck you!" to the king.

Not only are they making a pointless statement, but they are doing it under the guise of patriotic concept that doesn't exist. Double fail.

It doesn't really matter what happened at the Tea Party because it was just a precursor to the American Revolution. I am not sure if what you're saying is true but if it is, it doesn't matter anyway because we got our Independence anyway.

It's not exactly difficult to look up. Type in "Boston Tea Party" in google, or read a few books on the subject. And it does matter, because the Tea Party WASN'T a precursor. The Stamp act was a precursor. The Declaration of Independence was a precursor. The Boston Tea Party was a foot note alongside a revolution. It happened amidst what was going on. This broad misconception gives undo credit to an event that was ALL about business. And to base a modern day protest on this event not only broadens this misconception, but helps to point out the ignorance of the group who tried to protest under the veil of "patriotism".

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to correct a mistake in history but what you are trying to do is pointless because the "Tea Party" that America knows is the one in our history books. They aren't ignorant just misinformed. Also it is a patriotic concept because no matter who did it, it inspired patriots everywhere to rebel against the British government. Whether it was pirates or colonist, their actions inspired a rebellious atmosphere among the people and in the end helped aid the American Revolution.

I'm not claiming they're ignorant because of their lack of knowledge on the history. I believe their cause to be the thing that makes them ignorant. Their misinterpretation of that event doesn't strengthen that cause. In fact, I think their lack of knowledge is a rather ironic twist. And the Boston Tea Party had NOTHING to do with why the colonists revolted. It was more than likely public knowledge back in 1773 that the tea party wasn't patriots but smugglers. Everybody in Boston knew what Britain was trying to do. They publicly lowered prices. The misinterpretation of events took place much later down the line. It's the exact same thing with Paul Revere's ride, or the way it was up until recently with everyone thinking Christopher Columbus was a hero, when he was really a stupid, cruel man that now has a holiday named after him.