Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Tea party could boil over

September 29, 2011

Advertisement

This country is in a world of hurt if the likes of Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry wins the next election. It might be in greater trouble if Barack Obama does.

I can take no credit — or blame — for that analysis. It originated with one of my colleagues, a veteran political reporter, and he shared it one day not long ago as we were chatting in the office. It troubles me for one simple reason: It makes sense.

So here is how his thinking goes. The genteel, pragmatic Republicanism of the past has been supplanted by a pitchforks-and-torches mentality, a funhouse mirror distortion of traditional conservatism. Meaning, of course, the tea party.

These are folks who don’t just support the death penalty; they cheer for executions. They don’t just oppose health care reform, they shout “Let him die” to the uninsured individual who faces life-threatening illness. They are the true believers: virulently anti-government, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-tax, anti-facts and, most of all, anti-the coming demographic changes represented by a dark-skinned president with an African name. They are the people who want “their” country back.

The old guard of the GOP doesn’t much like them, but it likes winning so it keeps its mouth shut.

You might think Obama’s re-election would solve this, offering as it would stark repudiation of the politics of panic, paranoia and reactionary extremism this ideology represents. The problem is, these folks thrive on repudiation, on a free-floating conviction that they have been done wrong, cheated and mistreated by the tides of history and progress, change and demography. So there is every reason to believe, particularly given the weakness of the economy, that being repudiated in next year’s election would only make them redouble their intensity, confirming them as it would in their own victimhood.

And ask yourself: What form could that redoubling take? How do you up the ante from this? What is the logical next step after two years of screaming, rocks through windows, threats against legislators and rhetoric that could start a fire?

An awful, obvious answer suggests itself. You reject it instinctively. This is, after all, America, not some unstable fledgling democracy.

Then you realize it was not so long ago that a man blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City out of anti-government sentiment not so different from that espoused by the tea party. And you remember how that tragedy exposed an entire network of armed anti-government zealots gathering in the woods. And you read where the Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of radical anti-government groups spiked to 824 in 2010, a 61 percent increase over just the previous year.

And you wonder.

This is not a prediction, only a speculation — and a suggestion that those of us who have regarded the craziness of recent years as an aberration, a temporary temper tantrum from people who feel threatened and dislocated, may have been entirely too sanguine. In less than 20 years, the locus of radical anti-government extremism has moved from remote woods to Capitol Hill.

How should the rest of us respond? That’s a question we urgently need to answer. They say they’ve come to take “their” country back.

Maybe it’s time we took them at their word.

— Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email is lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Comments

mloburgio 3 years, 4 months ago

What If the Tea Party Wins? They Have a Plan for the Constitution, and It Isn’t Pretty

In the Tea Party’s America, families must mortgage their home to pay for their mother’s end-of-life care. Higher education is a luxury reserved almost exclusively to the very rich. Rotten meat ships to supermarkets nationwide without a national agency to inspect it. Fathers compete with their adolescent children for sub-minimum wage jobs. And our national leaders are utterly powerless to do a thing.

At least, that’s what would happen if the Tea Party succeeds in its effort to reimagine the Constitution as an antigovernment manifesto. While the House of Representatives pushes Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to phase out Medicare, numerous members of Congress, a least one Supreme Court justice, and the governor of America’s second-largest state now proudly declare that most of the progress of the last century violates the Constitution. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/tea_party_constitution.html

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

But none of those stores has the resources to inspect the operations of their suppliers. And while you may prefer lawsuits after the fact of an episode of food contamination (and all the lawyer fees that go with them,) others believe that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

I think those suppliers are going to keep their costs as low as possible-- Wal-Mart demands it-- even if it means putting the consumers at risk.

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

Exactly. Did WalMart inspect those contaminated toys from China?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

"Sam Walton said that the customer has the power to fire everyone in the business all the way up to the owner."

Tell that to all the small communities that now have no other retailers besides Wal-Mart. Tell that to all the manufacturers who have no retail outlets except Wal-Mart.

gccs14r 3 years, 4 months ago

Except that when you remove government regulation, you don't get competition, you get collusion. Removing the meat inspectors would mean that all the meat (except that which is hand-selected for the wealthy) would be bad. It wouldn't matter which supplier or which grocer you used.

Bob Forer 3 years, 4 months ago

Evidently Liberty never read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It exposed conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry, causing a public uproar that contributed in part to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. Of course, if we follow Liberty's theory there is no need for inspection and regulation because good old capitalist competition takes care of that.

Nonsense I say. You can't argue with history. If Liberty's hypothesis had any semblance of validity, the conditions which precipitated the writing of "The Jungle" would have never materialized.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

What if the moon turns into butter and falls on our pancakes? Alarmists are going to be working overtime until November 2012 to keep the base fired up.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

What would be going on now in the MSM if a Republican governor had mentioned suspending Congressional elections for a couple of years in the same fashion a Democratic governor did earlier this week?

cato_the_elder 3 years, 4 months ago

"...a suggestion that those of us who have regarded the craziness of recent years as an aberration, a temporary temper tantrum from people who feel threatened and dislocated...."

Gee, Leonard, you've finally, even if by accident, described succinctly how Barack Obama, a man utterly unqualified to hold the office of the presidency, got elected in 2008.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 4 months ago

Republican bashing?????? How about the Anti-Obama crowd, the (racial slur) in the White House crowd, the "Kill Obamacare crowd, the Limbaugh/Klan/Perry/Michigan Militia groups?? Whaddya call that, huh??

Jim Phillips 3 years, 4 months ago

I call it your worst nightmare and long overdue.

mom_of_three 3 years, 4 months ago

maybe pitts is referencing the actions of the REAL tea party, over 200 years ago? Because that kind of violence took place for many years in the colonies.

vuduchyld 3 years, 4 months ago

Keep your tea away from me You've been drinkin, I can see I think I'll have a glass of lemonade Your slash and burn democracy Is not good public policy That tea is causing your intelligence to fade

(watch the music video here!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmSh2q...

grammaddy 3 years, 4 months ago

When I tried to share this on facebook, the story about the fire in N. Lawrence comes up.Wazzup with that?

jonas_opines 3 years, 4 months ago

"What's really puzzling is that those like Pitts and his crowd truly feel we're seeing real progress now. That is hard to get your head around--by any stretch of the imagination"

That is because it largely exists only inside of your head. While the intractable ones will continue to believe (much like the ones that continue to believe the Last president was a good one), most of the rest have realized that very little has changed or progressed in the slightest.

jonas_opines 3 years, 4 months ago

I suppose I could go back into my profile and find comments from September and October of 2008 expressing deep reservations about Obama, but I'm not all that interested in taking that much time to promote how smart I am.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

I didn't vote for Obama, and probably won't the next time around.

That said, as disappointing as he's been, McCain/Palin would have almost certainly been worse.

But it would have been interesting to see how the Tea Partiers would have reacted to that.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm all for markets-- I just don't happen to believe they are either infallible or magic or immune from manipulation, as the current economic mess well demonstrates.

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

Why do you think Palin was chosen? They needed to lose this election, so they could blame the Democrats and the slow recovery that will probably be slow no matter what the government does or doesn't do.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 4 months ago

Lenny, you done good! You forgot, however, the Palinist crowd. She is teasing the tea baggers with her "availability". After all, seeing Russia from her front porch is a great issue for the right wing nut crowd. But you better watch it or Governer Hair will be mentioning you in his next debate, since he seems to have run out of steam and fuel. For that may the Lord make us eternally thankfyul!

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

This post pre-removed for using a vulgar sexual term to refer to a disappointed progressive.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

Republicans are doing their best to make sure that elections are increasingly irrelevant to how the country is run.

mom_of_three 3 years, 4 months ago

$2 billion trip to INdia - stop listening to bachmann. And how much did bush's 400 odd trips to Texas and another 400+ trips to Camp David cost? and don't forget Kennebunkport.

heygary 3 years, 4 months ago

Disappointing Mr. Pitts. You talk in polarizing superlatives in an attempt to trash a grass roots party which vigoriously and peacefully assembles to defend their freedoms, their principles and the capitalist system they view as being reasponsible for this great country. We are all aware of how the African American community "mobilizes" when natural disaster or manmade crisis even slightly diminishes the full force of the law. Perhaps it is on that group you should focus.

Additionally, I suspect those few, loud boo's heard at the last republican debate may well have been liberal plants, as it was inevitable that the dont' ask, don't tell question come up!

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

A grass roots party is not funded by billionaires.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Democrats are not a grass roots party.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

The immense un-selfawareness of the teabaggers is amazing. Especially how the cowards run to the Our-own-bigots-must-be-Liberal-plants defense.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

This comment pre-removed for using a vulgar sexual term to refer to a disappointed progressive.

ljwhirled 3 years, 4 months ago

Don't ask Don't tell was repealed.

Equality is now the law for members of the armed services regardless of sexual orientation.

Big shrug. Hasn't effected our readiness. Still ready to kill bad guys. Just tell us where and when.

Liberty275 3 years, 4 months ago

"How should the rest of us respond?"

How about... voting?

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

This article borders on hysteria. The “strawman” linking certain elements identified with the Tea Party movement to terrorism is quite frankly despicable.

ljwhirled 3 years, 4 months ago

I agree with Pitts. If Obama wins the tea party will get even more extreme.

Let me see, JFK, RFK, King, Malcolm X, Truman, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Theodore Rex........all progressives who were targeted for assassination.

One the conservative side... Reagan, Wallace.

Seems progressives get shot more often than conservatives.

Haven't seen any progressives blowing up Federal buildings lately.

I think this is something to worry about. The Civil War happened just 150 years ago.

On the other hand, who in their right mind would shoot someone over a 3% increase in the marginal tax rate. Seriously. Grow up.

voevoda 3 years, 4 months ago

The Nazis were a grassroots movement, too. They attracted followers by bashing the legally-elected government, blaming it unfairly for the country's economic woes, identifying internal "enemies" and demonizing them, and promising big business a free hand and endless opportunities. We all know what the Nazi movement led to. Is the Tea Party like the Nazis? I don't know yet. But I do understand why Leonard Pitts is worried.

voevoda 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, Liberty_One, we already know that you're an anarchist who can't distinguish between legitimate government and tyranny.

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

I spoke to a dear academic colleague who's back in Germany who spoke of the way scapegoats are created by cowards who can't face the circumstances created by others. Being from Germany she spoke of what she knew about her country seventy years ago. I told her about the Brownshirt movement afoot here in Kansas and she laughed. I told her it was as if Europe kicked out it's most religiously superticious and backwards people to emigrate to America...she laughed and agreed. Isn't it a shame when others in the world think that America is full of wife beater shirt wearing archie bunkers and yet the archie bunkers are too oblivious and intelligence deficient to care and boast proudly and publically about their shortcomings...oh well.....be stupid as you want to be....the rest of the world is watching...

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

you know what's funny kspillboy......I've traveled through much of southeast Kansas and Oklahoma and I see lots of caucasian people in rural areas that I've studied on the net with them having statistics showing these counties to be very poor, very supported by srs dollars and very white. I remember a graph showing the wealthiest counties in kansas and a number of the rural ones were between 85th and 106th in wealth meaning they were near the bottom in wealth and mostly white. Srs , farm subsidies you name it...and yet this area is probably tea party country blaming minorities and yet looking away from themselves in the mirror holding on to the old welfare stereotype perpetuated by the reagan era liers whose baloney is peddled at gop debates to this day to people brainwashed enough to believe the lies... you right?

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

The ATF has been selling firearms directly to the Mexican drug cartels. That sort of makes any Tea Party mischief pale in comparison.

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

hey snap no clue....do you remember Iran Contra, Ollie North??? oh that's right it's okay if republicans do it right???

rwwilly 3 years, 4 months ago

I don't particularly endorse the Tea Party, but, come on, give them some credit. Yes, they want meaningful border security. Most Americcans do. Tea Partyers also wanted controlled immigration rather than the border free for all we have now with 12-14 million undocumented aliens. I believe, again, most Americans believe the same. Tea partyers also want less governement intrusion into their daily lives and most importantly an end to the spiraling, out of control spending by our goverment. Again, so does almost everyone I talk to regardless of party affiliation. I have yet to meet anyone who is wishing for a party platform that calls for more spending.Tea Partyers want was no increase in taxes because it is counter productive to increase taxes BEFORE agreeing on spending limits otherwise you are simply feeding the addict.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

It is somewhat fascinating that if the raid had occurred during Bush's presidency, I'm certain that BAA would have given him a lot more credit than he gives Obama.

This is the peculiar partisan playbook - when the president is somebody you like, give them credit for the good things that happen, and no blame for the bad ones. When it's somebody you don't like, just switch that around - no credit for good things, and all the blame for bad ones.

It's odd to me.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

It's clear to me from a number of your comments that you follow a very odd partisan plan similar to the one I outlined.

People on both sides of the aisle do it, and it seems equally odd to me every time.

Clinton didn't get much credit for you about the great economy during his tenure, Bush didn't get blamed for the 9/11 attacks, Obama gets little to no credit for anything good that happens now, etc.

I'll give as much "credit" to Bush for taking out Bin Laden as the "blame" you'll give him for the attacks in the first place.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Ok - so you give Clinton full credit for the swell economy during his presidency?

And Bush/Reagan full blame for the recessions and lousy economy during theirs?

You really think you're not partisan?

It's clear to me that you are quite biased in your views - I'm not sure whether you just don't see it, or have some reason to want to deny it.

And, I didn't say Bush did something that provoked retaliation. He was, however, the president, and there seems to have been quite a bit of information about Al Quaeda and Bin Laden floating around. You don't think it was his responsibility to notice that, and do something that could have prevented the attacks?

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

He killed Osama bin Laden. That makes things better. He supported the rebels in Libya, which drove Ghadafi out of power. That makes things better. He let pirates know not to mess with Americans. That makes things better. I could go on, but you will pretend none of these things make the world a better place. Whatever.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 4 months ago

The main reason President Obama has been ineffective is that he has either continued the failed Bush policies or he has given in too much to the republicans. I don't see any point of actually handing the reins of power to the republicans as that will only hasten the demise of the country.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

"Traditional Americans"?

Hey BAA, what exactly is a "traditional American"? I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by that phrase, but an explanation should be entertaining.

Oh, and your socialism mantra is completely incorrect. Taxes have never been lower than under President Obama. The desire to allow the temporary tax cuts (a delay on paying for services already provided) to a top tax rate that is far, far below what it was under Reagan hardly makes Obama a socialist. That is just plain silliness to continue to repeat that incorrect statement.

By the way, what exactly is going on with your party? Why aren't the Republicans happy with those running?

The Republicans are seeming a little desparate in their cries for first Perry to enter, and now for Christie to jump in now that they realize Perry isn't all that. Why is the grass always greener with your party? Don't you think the American public is seeing how Republicans are responding to their own candidates and that independent voters will agree that those who are running really aren't all that interesting? Why don't Republicans like their candidates, and why should anyone else?

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey Bea

Squarely on both sides of the issue. We are paying the lowest taxes ever (really – go look way back and remember to deflate the incomes).

Please remember that the richest have seen the majority of that reduction – the middle by comparison has been had. Of course we have the 30 to 50% who pay nothing toward the operation of the federal government.

In general we are paying less because we make less. Some people are benefiting from last years payroll tax reduction - not all. For most the deduction is so small as to be lost in the latest utility increase to implement “green” policies.

The ”lord” taketh and the “lord” giveth away.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

"In general we are paying less because we make less."

In general then, it appears you are admitting that we are paying less. Nice to see you admitting to reality.

Taxes truly are lower under Obama than under previous presidents of the past 100 years, at least. A lot of this is due to the cuts made by Bush, without question. President Bush and his administration pushed through cuts rather than actually paying for the things the government was spending money on. Obama added even more tax cuts, and he too is spending well beyond our means. If blaming both for overspending is stradling the fence, then so be it. I just find it funny when people throw lines out about high taxes and socialism under Obama despite the reality of the situation. It is really, really funny.

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Well Bea there are two sides to this.

Some people think that the federal government should not be spending 25% of GDP and should go on a diet.

Some people think that 25% should be the new norm.

We have only spent that much historically during major wars.

An election will tell but please be honest about the choices. Tax revenue rose during the 60's and in some people's minds led to the revolt of the Reagan tax cuts. Which is the norm?

Why do we not discuss why we need 25% of GDP rather than argue that we are evil because in some people's minds we are not paying what we did at some point in the past when we paid more. There are many points in the past when we paid less!!!.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

I'd be happy to discuss anything, including the spending of 25% GDP, but just because I don't mention what you want to discuss originally doesn't mean I am being dishonest.

Also, where did I call us "evil"? Were did that come from?

On the tax issue, when in the past 100 years did we, across the board, pay less in taxes?

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

You did not call us evil. That comes from the larger universe of tax and spenders.

I don't think you are being dishonest - unless you attach that to being on both sides of an issue. I am perplexed at how a group can argue for tax increases at the same time they seem to want credit for tax cuts?? Are you doing that Bea?

What do you mean less in the last 100 years? I look at tax rates and depreciated average incomes. By my reconning there have been many years we paid less and yes, we spent less.

If you are talking cash on the counter we are probably at a low point in recent memory even not counting the Obama payroll tax cuts. All we need do is fix the economy and that will right itself. This economic diaster is unique and seriously impacted income and therefore revenue form most of us (excepting the rich).

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Oh my gosh, that was so funny. I mean, you mixed the names of Osama bin Laden with Barack Obama. Oh gosh, the comic genius of that is astounding! Who could have ever come up with such a clever line like that! Really. You are a comic genius. Honest.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

As I predicted, it was an entertaining read. Sorry to see you still having trouble with voicing an opinion with resorting to name-calling. Keep trying. Your writing style might mature.

Since you asked, I believe in America as being the wonderful melting pot that it is -- a fabulous country made up of all kinds of people, from atheists to Christians. That is the tradition that makes America great.

Now, as far as your ridiculous "your Dear Leader" comment, I can assure you he is simply the elected President of the United States of America (showing a tad bit of respect for the office of the President was something I thought "traditional Americans" favored -- guess not). He is not, nor has he ever been, my "dear leader." He was simply the best candidate when the majority of voters elected him. Sorry you think the majority of voters are "far left radicals." I am quite sure such a statement says more about your stance than about anyone else. After all, when you stand to the far right, everything else is to your left. Funny.

I still predict that Obama will be re-elected.

Oh, and "traditional Americans" also believe that we should have to sacrifice a little if we go to war. Sorry your party doesn't believe this to be true.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

This President kept our nation from falling completely into collapse. Many economists felt the initial stimulus simply wasn't large enough. If he had listened to Republicans, things would be much worse off and he would have allowed the American auto industry to crash, with the exception of Ford. He has also done something for getting all people insured -- we will have to wait and see if it is constitutional.

With Republicans at debates booing a military man serving his country, shouts that people without insurance should be allowed to die, and nonsense comments by candidates themselves against vaccines that keep people from dying of cancer, I wouldn't count my chickens before they are hatched if I were you. I don't see a lot of independents being won over by the charms of the Republican candidates.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

It is true that I can't prove with absolute certainty that the economy would have been worse. I also can't prove that if Michael Jordan hadn't been on the Chicago Bulls that they wouldn't have won six championships anyway. However, they did; and the economy didn't completely tank in a Depression-like way. But those are imaginings of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

You should watch the clip again. It was far more than one person booing the military man asking the question at the debate.

Proud of their masculinity? Really? Sounds more like they are afraid of their masculinity if they are threatened by some gay guys being near them. Guess what -- there were problems before the antiquated DADT was repealed. People were getting fired, we were making our defenses weaker, firing translators of Middle Eastern languages, families suddenly found without work, people hiding who they were, etc... Plenty of problems.

Yes, freedom of speech is protect. Republicans can boo fellow Americans and serving military personelle if they want. Just don't believe for a second that it is a positive thing in winning over the independent voter. It reflects poorly on all Republicans when they don't step up and say, "that was wrong."

If you missed the debate where Ron Paul was asked whether someone should be allowed to die if in an accident without insurance and people in the audience shouted "Yes!," here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QX...

As you can see, it is not a liberal attempt at anything other than to discuss the reality of the extremist views coming out of the Republican debates. However, your ignorance of the news on this is far from my being dishonest. It is too bad that you apparently believe that if you don't know something and someone tells you, you believe the messenger is being dishonest.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Just in case you didn't know, 6 out of 9 studies have concluded that the stimulus had a significant positive effect on the economy.

The other three concluded it had a small positive effect.

None of them concluded the effect was negative.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

I was talking to Bea - I don't expect you to agree.

And we've already discussed why the downgrade happened, and I don't share your views on it, since they don't align well with S&P's own descriptions.

Sorry, I don't have links - I read a story about it online a while back on my homepage.

I imagine you could find it pretty easily by googling "studies about the stimulus" or something similar.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Believe what you like.

I don't lie, though.

jafs 3 years, 4 months ago

Right.

It's too bad they can't run a "generic" candidate and have to actually come up with a real one :-)

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

Maybe since Biden has admitted that the current administration now owns its failures regarding the economy, things will start getting better.

tbaker 3 years, 4 months ago

So the Tea Party is a "funhouse mirror distortion of traditional conservatism." Really? What does that make status quo politics in the capitol? Some species of "normal" we should all be thankful for?

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

Has the current regime whizzed away more hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to prop up companies tied to large donors to the Democratic party or with executives related to Democratic members of Congress today?

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

man, dumb has never sounded dumber and louder, rush, american, math both ways excedera.....facts don't agree with you so make up your own.....I would guess that all of you are archie bunkers aka caucasian middle aged men who've always been able to bully your way to being right without facts... sorry reality doesn't jive with you so go back to Mayberry where there aren't any minorities on your tv show and recreate your mythological family values lives....

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 4 months ago

I enjoyed some really nice goat cheese on French made toast rounds and a sparkling lemonade.

ljwhirled 3 years, 4 months ago

No. It is a strike on a foreign belligerent who also happens to be a criminal.

The two are not exclusive.

He got killed for being a foreign belligerent. If he wanted to be treated as a criminal, he should have turned himself in for trial.

It is one thing to shoot a man locked up in a cell. Quite another to shoot a man engaged in armed conflict against the United States from foreign soil.

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

when confronted with being owned change the subject and malign the person doing the owning......like John Lovitz said....that's the ticket.....

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

exactly...your intelligence on full display and why do people take your postions seriously???

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

BAA criticizing other for name calling? Priceless.

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Bea Said

Oh, and "traditional Americans" also believe that we should have to sacrifice a little if we go to war. Sorry your party doesn't believe this to be true. "

Huh?? It is odd that somebody who has not served is making issues about sacrifice. When has someone sacrificed enough? Leg, arm, marriage, mental health, other...?? The only war still on the table is Mr. Obama’s war in Afghanistan. Where was his call for sacrifice from the rest of us? Right now it appears he wants those who fought it to "sacrifice" a bit more by paying more for their promised family health care.

Oh by the way Bea, the IRS web site shows that federal tax revenues were growing through 2007 and were higher than at most times in our past. So exactly what is you point about taxes??

By the by, I do not remember Mr. Johnson calling for sacrifice when he took us into Vietnam big time. There were those who got to sacrifice by going there and there were those who burnt ROTC buildings as they avoided going. I recall we had “Guns and Butter” – the great society sucked up quite a bit of resources.

I bet we are still paying for that war as it was mostly financed with debt as have been most of our significant wars since WWI.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

So George, what is with this constant combative tone of yours towards me?

Sacrifice isn't just about serving in a branch of the military. Sacrifice also means paying for the wars being fought, even if it means rationing goods and paying higher taxes. Certainly you have read about that kind of sacrifice. Also, the poor are the ones who sacrifice as they are far more likely to join the service due to a lack of opportunities. My father fought in WWII, so I am familiar with familial sacrifice, even if I didn't join myself.

As far as your claim about Obama not calling for sacrifice (or pushing for us to sacrfice with higher taxes to pay for the wars we fight), I agree. Very disappointing in that regard.

However, you keep going on about Obama in your posts directed to me like I am trying to say he is perfect. Hardly. Yes, I think he has done a better job than I can possibly imagine McCain being capable of, but I find Obama quite disappointing. Unfortunately, from what I have seen of the Republicans at the debates I don't see anyone there being capable of doing a better job. That doesn't mean I'm head over heels happy with Obama. Not at all. He is a politician, after all. Now do you understand? Can I be any clearer for you? Do you get it yet? Why is it so important to you that I fit into this nice little box you keep trying to put me in as a crazed Obama supporter?

I just don't fall for the European Socialist nonsense others spout, and don't mind calling people on it. The point on taxes, for the umpteenth time, is that people who are whining about class warfare and calling Obama a socialist for wanting to do away with a temporary cut on taxes for the wealthy are just being ridiculous. If Obama truly is a socialist, why would the rate he is seeking be so much below where it was under Reagan, and what does that make Reagan if not a super European Socialist?

Also, taxes are lower now than under any president in the past 100 years. Sadly, we can't say the same about spending. I would be thrilled if we slashed government spending, including massive cuts to military spending.

In 2007, unemployment was low, tax collections were indeed up, but what about the debt? Why are you giving George W. Bush a free ride on the debt issue? Why do you think President Bush was perfect? (I know, you didn't say anything about Bush and the debt or anything about liking his policies. I just wanted to demonstrate to you how easy and cheesy it is to jump to such a conclusion. I mean, you didn't say anything bad about Bush and the debt, after all). Geez.

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

are you trying to use tos as a way to silence others for acting and saying things the way you and your ilk do....that's not very courageous of you....as a Democrat I have a right to claim the fighting tone of Harry Truman because back in the late 1940's he was fighting the same kind of anti-intellectual narrow minded people that I fight now....if you want to silence others for what you think is bullying why don't you silence yourself first....without name calling of Obama and decades old recycled reagan nonsense....what do you have....that's what I thought...nothing...

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

tushy, there's a limited amount of "...." in the world. You are using waaaay more than your fair share these days.

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

And Bea says

Also, taxes are lower now than under any president in the past 100 years. Sadly, we can't say the same about spending. I would be thrilled if we slashed government spending, including massive cuts to military spending. "

Moderate responds

I can not substantiate that from any responsible forum. Exactly what do you mean.

And Bea says: Sacrifice isn't just about serving in a branch of the military. Sacrifice also means paying for the wars being fought, even if it means rationing goods and paying higher taxes.

Moderate Responds: We are Bea - all of them a little at a time. We are still paying for WWII in VA care. I have repeatedly reminded you that debt is how we have paid for all. Why are you focused on Republicans not paying for wars they most certainly are paying for - just not all at once. How did we pay for Vietnam, Bea??

Yes Bea I become disagreable when I find posts that are inaccurate. In your case, I hold you to a higher stabndard as I believe that, unlike many on here, you have a brain and use it.

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

George, I am not focusing just on Republicans. I am using Republican administration policies as a counter to the current situation. I am also saying the same of Obama when it comes to spending and the debt. For instance, if we were taxed in a manner that covered what we spend on wars -- under Republicans or Democrates -- we likely would be less apt to get into wars in the first place. Anything I am saying about Republicans on this issue is to counter the nonsense coming from those calling Obama a "European style socialist" because he is "waging war on the wealthy," is engaged in "class warfare" etc.... (paraphrasing easily found comments on this site). If people are saying this of Obama, why aren't they saying it about past Republican administrations? Why is Obama a Socialist for wanting to bring the top tax rate back to 39% when it was 50% under Reagan, yet we aren't calling Reagan a Socialist? Get it?

As far as what I am saying about taxes, it is pretty simple -- we really are paying lower income taxes now than we have in the past. Also, our debt is out of control. Both are pretty straight-forward statements. Make of them what you will.

Now, don't think that just because I say something about one person or group that it must mean I feel the opposite of another person or group. Unless I actually make such a statement like "I don't hold Obama to the same standard," don't make that assumption. It gets tiresome always explaining this point. In other words, just because I don't say "I'm against poking strangers in the eye" in every post, please don't assume I'm for poking strangers in the eye. I've told you on multiple occassions that I'm not a party over country type and I don't think Obama hung the moon. He has disappointed me on several occassions. (He has also made me glad he is in office on several occassions.) Further, I'm disappointed that the Republicans have yet to show me something that comes close to a better option. If they did, I would gladly vote for him/her. Have I at least finally made this point clear?

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Bea says: As far as what I am saying about taxes, it is pretty simple -- we really are paying lower income taxes now than we have in the past. Also, our debt is out of control. Both are pretty straight-forward statements. Make of them what you will.

Moderat Responds: Please provide source. I hav eposted IRS data that shows the middle is not paying less. The rich and the poor are. In arregate we are not (not counting the current economy)

Do you propose to raise taxes on those who have already been hurt by the economy so that the "poor" (half the population) are exempted from sacrifice. Do we get to reduce taxes when the economy improves or does that become a windfall to the tax and spend crowd. Facts Bea, facts!

As to the rest. I find it hard to distinuuish between when you are bashing Republicans as a response to Obama bashing and when you are bashing them just to bash them. Either way I would appreciate you staying on the good side of the facts. Yoy do IMHO tend to stray in the heat of battle

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Check the numbers for yourself: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

We are paying less now. Facts George, Facts! (Geez)

Yes, I do think we need to raise taxes and cut spending to get out of our present situation. Not sure why you are re-asking about my view on those at the lower end. I'll repeat it. I think everyone who can should have some skin in the game.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

What's up with Van Jones, former BFF of the Mope, calling for revolution this fall? Is he about to boil over?

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Do you ever get off your party horse? Ever?

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

you know, liberty, you deny history...most conservatives do...they have to...if they deal with history from the get go...they have no arguement...so instead of having no arguement you treat the people who've been the victims of your wonderful patriotism like they're the problem....cowards deny...you deny that the consequensces of history have led to the present....you have a one sided view if history that leds people like me to refute that...you think that since this is kansas you will have no opposition.. problem is people like me are here to take the wheels off of your apple cart of half truths and reaganisms.....you can't handle it so you flip stuff on it's head... me a racist....really....I saw the klan as a kid in Ocean Springs, MS in 1978... funny they were old white guys with horned rimmed glasses that sound like a lot of you on here.....me...not like them at all except maybe to denialists who don't have a leg to stand on.....you have no legs huh.....you and your ilk lay claim to this land with your doctrine of discovery bull from Johnson V. McIntosh ruling of 1823 and your Marshall Cherokee case rulings of the 1830's which defined states and tribes as sovereign to govern yet dependant on the US Government for protection....Commerce Clause says US Congress has plenary powers over states and tribes and knowing this means that the health insurance law is a legal goverment action as states are dependant sovereigns of the US Government except when states are overran by denialistic legally ignorant people thinking they're still fighting the US Civil War 146 years after they lost it....oops I let the cat out of the bag.....hot air everywhere...am radio fox, kmbz, klwn, wibw.....we don't have to really know what the law is.....an angry uneducated mob of people will do sufficiently.....not talking about the tea party... nooooooooo, not the tea party.....

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Well sir. your version of history and mine are at odds. Using your tactics I win because I say I win!

Mike Ford 3 years, 4 months ago

liberty..you are proof that americans know nothing of their history except for what george will and ken burns tell them....I only play the race card against racists...

George Lippencott 3 years, 4 months ago

Bea said

Check the numbers for yourself: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publicat...

We are paying less now. Facts George, Facts! (Geez)"

Yes, I do think we need to raise taxes and cut spending to get out of our present situation. Not sure why you are re-asking about my view on those at the lower end. I'll repeat it. I think everyone who can

  1. Wrong Bea. That is my source. When you take income back do you deflat it. $100K today is like $75 K in 1980. makies a big difference as to where you enter the tables. I have already posted taxrate by 10 year increments and it show you are wrong in your general; statement.

Besides the real issue is effective tax rate because it at least takes deductions into account. They have changed along with the rates and using the tables does not acknowledge that.

Who decides who can pay more?? Tha halkf thta pays no federal income tax surely will want the half that does to pay more.

The only think factual about your comment is that revenue last year was lower than revenue in 2007. So was income.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.