An Open Letter to Tea Party Supporters | An Outsider’s Commentary

Blog

The following was written by Jeremy Styron, a news editor from Northeast Georgia. Much of his critique/commentary of the Tea Party movement centers around both the perception of the movement through the media and from commentary taken from this site (which we don’t expect to necessarily reflect your personal points of view). As an individual watching the movement from the outside, he has been gracious and bold enough to address “Tea Partiers” as a guest commentator. Please feel free to provide your feedback. In doing so, we request that you provide him the same respect for his differences of opinion that he has.

Everyone,

As I’ve recently offered some rather critical comments (and here) about the tea baggers and about the various “Tea Parties” cropping up across the country, I was invited to write a guest commentary for this site. Here, I will offer my appraisal of this movement as well a suggestion or two for making it less susceptible to misunderstandings.

One of my main arguments has been that it was getting a bit hard to tell — as we on the outside attempt to sift through various online and television media coverage and literature on the reteaparty Web site — just what this movement is all about. Obviously from the mainstream media, we hear movement supporters arguing against taxes and against government overspending, as in the recently passed $787 stimulus bailout plan. But as most everyone knows by now, all types of folks seem to be cropping up at these rallies nationwide. We have seen the far right and folks who are anti-anything Obama to the core. We have seen the anti-tax bunch. We have seen the cartoonish 18th-century throw-backs, pretending they are somehow helping to enact change by resembling those who helped spur the American Revolution.

To, first, address this briefly, those who instituted the Boston Tea Party seemed to me a motley crew of somewhere between 100 or less of possible Sons of Liberty members and others who decided to take matters into their own hands in light of what they viewed as British offenses against the colonies by way of the Townshend Act and the Tea Act of 1773 and, perhaps, favoritism given to the East India Company. Regardless of which issue put them over the edge — probably a combination — the issue was, by and large, about taxes without having representation in England. Today, our taxes are levied with the understanding that we are represented, even if it’s by people we may disagree with on some issues.

Now, to the task at hand. The central problem that I find with the Tea Party movement is that of vaguaries and generalities. Of course, if the organization decides to keep their intentions and basic precepts vague, they will, by right, win the support of more people, won’t they? For, the more specific a plan becomes, the more people begin to fall off from support. Thus, in one of my posts, I suggested that this site’s “About” page was too general and needed specifics about what precisely the movement was attempting to accomplish. I was told the site makers were not wanting ostracize certain groups, make participation freely open and not segregate those who agree from others who may consider joining but haven’t made up their minds. In other words, the goal, as I understand it, was to make the movement accessible to many. That’s a reasonable goal, I suppose.

But in this case, that strategy doesn’t come without consequences, those as I discussed earlier (Folks showing up in 18th-century whigs and far-right slinging all kinds of nonsensical, proposterous claims). Take the case of religious organizations. The intention, in the case of Christianity, is to reach the most people with the good message of Christ and help them live for Christ, before he comes back, raising up (literally) those who accepted him and sending those who did not into eternal separation from God. But good intentions turn sour. A cursory examination of Christian denominations will show that we have hundreds just in America alone, all claiming the right reading of the same book. The central message is this: a series of precepts, which may be good outright, become tweaked, altered or even distorted when specifics are not given and when things are left open to interpretation. A brief look here shows humans can decide little on religion because nothing was set in stone from the outset and nearly everything, even the truth of Scriptures themselves, has been left to conjecture and interpretation. So, we have a plethora of readings of Scripture and 100s of denominations, all holding slightly different doctrines.

This is why we see so many “Tea Baggers” who show up to parties for different reasons. Everyone comes for their own set of issues, regardless of whether those reasons line up with the “quasi-official” stance of the true Tea Party. And here, I turn to the following specific points made in this well-written post, What Tea Parties Are and Are Not:

We’re fed up with politicians whose only answer to our problems is to try to spend our way out of them. We’re fed up with corporate fat cats who fly in individual private jets to collect billions of our dollars in bailout money. We’re fed up with this notion that we have to give up our privacy and our freedoms to feel secure.

We have had it up to here with politicians and corporations trying to run every aspect of our lives for their benefit. All we ever wanted was to run our own lives for the benefit of ourselves and our families.

I suppose the poster is talking about the automakers flying into Washington on private jets, wiretapping and other possible privacy infringements by the Bush administration, but to say that politicians and corporations are attempting “to run every aspect of our lives for their benefit” is an overstatement. Automakers and bankers offer services and products that we can buy into … or not. Politicians offer ideas for solving problems that we can buy into … or not. The Obama administration has offered an idea it feels will take steps toward solving our problems. That is, to prop up the failing financial institutions and car makers in an attempt to save a number of companies, that not only hold the livelihood of their own employees in their hands, but the livelihood of many employees of “partner” companies, that, if the larger whole fails, the spiral arms of the economy twist downward as well.

Many corporations were allowed to become “too big to fail,” as Sean Haugh points out, and this by itself is one of the most caustic and overarching problems: deregulation of big business. Policies, or the lack thereof, through the last decade of more have seemed to have spurred this on. Haugh’s “let them fail,” proposal, while, in a perfect world, would have no dissenters, in this world, has many. It is not possible for the aforementioned reason. Thus, for right or wrong, we start with the “brute fact,” as philosophers like to say, that these institutions are (were), in fact, too big and important for the economy to fail. I would like nothing more than to sign on to the notion that we should let these greedy, corporate suits get what’s coming to them, but the nature of the beast is that we can’t let the beast perish. If she does, the ship may not be able to right itself. Are tea baggers proposing such notions willing to take the risk of sliding down a wormhole to another Great Depression? Visited a soup kitchen lately? If certain companies fail, that trip might be closer than some of us think.

If you are a politician of either party, then we’re pretty much done listening to you. Sure, you are welcome to join us, just like any American. But don’t think we’re going to fall for your false promises again. The same Republican politicians talked a big game in 1994, and we all remember how that turned out.

That first sentence is a dangerous one to make. Politicians on both sides of the aisle (that includes the president), like them or not, have an enormous responsibility on their plates; they keep the plates spinning. If they all, en masse, left Washington one day and decided not to show up for work because they no longer had the support of anyone, anywhere in the U.S., the country would cascade fairly quickly into chaos.

We are not just against taxes. What we’re really against is being told taxes have to be raised so the politicians can spend even more of our money. It’s the spending that’s the problem, even more than the taxes. We live within our means and we expect you to do the same.

This is one complaint against the new administration that I just can’t wrap my mind around. Obama has said it over and over and over and over ad nauseum that he would not institute a tax increase on those making less than 250k per year (At this link, it’s questioned whether a cigarette tax is included in his promise. I say it was not, since smoking is volunteer, hazardous to one’s health and others, is a luxury and not a base federal income or payroll-type tax.). So, many who have become the recipients of bailout money are also the recipients of tax increases, based on Obama’s plan. Do the two balance themselves out? I doubt it, but at least it can’t be argued that regular folks are getting a raw deal. Portions of the stimulus bill were over the top, I will cede that point, but the point was that the economy was in such dire circumstances in so many areas, that nothing short of a gigantic boost would be sufficient. In fact, some experts say even $800 billion isn’t going to be enough.

Further, many Americans don’t live within their means, and I can see no reason why this wouldn’t include a number of tea baggers. To claim the majority use financial frugality and common sense and don’t have substantial credit card debt or mortgages is wishful thinking.

We love it (America) because here you can say what you want, believe what you want, and live the way you want, without someone with a badge and a gun looking over your shoulder all the time.

I, of course, don’t believe this to be true. Hispanics, legal or not, and I would imagine, some black folks don’t have this luxury and don’t believe it to be true either.

Finally, allow me to comment on the demands listed at the end of the post:

Our demands to the politicians are very simple and make perfect sense to us.

Stop making the rich even richer while putting our children in debt while telling us it’s necessary to save the economy.

Debt is something “our children” must learn to live with. They will no doubt acquire it themselves through credit cards or mortgages, and it’s not likely that, even without a recession, they will escape through their government.

Stop taxing us to death and then saying you have to raise taxes even more because you failed so miserably at the things you taxed us for in the first place.

This is onerous. Taxes are necessary to continue funding the many services we enjoy on a daily basis, including the Postal Service, the parks system, Medicaid and Social Security. If you want to live on some service-less frontier free from taxes, by all means have at it, but it will be a very hard life of subsistence living. I dare say that if Americans weren’t so anti-tax, our standard of living, our educational system, our technological development and our ability to treat illnesses and find cures would increase exponentially. But we will simply have none of that.

Stop spying on us and stop intruding on our fundamental rights. Give us back habeas corpus and stop even thinking secret tribunals and prisons have any place in America.

Agreed.

Open up the system and let the average citizen participate in how this government is run. Stop putting up barriers to getting on the ballot just so you can stay in office forever and stop keeping any of what you are doing secret from us.

I’m not sure I follow the point here. True, some government offices are secretive, but that’s what the Freedom of Information Act is about. Any resident, not just the media, can file a request to see any public document at any time for any reason, and that reason doesn’t have to be stated. And if the government agency does not relinquish the requested information determined to be part of the public domain, the requester has the right to sue.

Read the bills that you pass and have some kind of idea of what you are doing to us before you do it.

Agreed, but the individual lawmakers should be judged by their consituents on how they are or are not doing in leading. Implying that all lawmakers don’t read the bills they are passing or are not informed is skewed thinking.

It is time for the current crop of failed politicians to get out of the way and let the people run this country again, the way it was originally intended.

Here, let me cite Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier from “Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787″:

According to the theories of the classic political thinkers, there were three basic types of government: the monarchy … the aristocracy … and the democracy, in which the people directly controlled the government. The problem with all of these forms, the theorists said, was that they all tended to run off with themselves: monarchs became despots; aristocracies divided into factions, one which gained ultimate control and formed a tyrannical oligarchy; and democracies degenerated into anarchy, which in turn gave rise to a despot.

I tend to believe that a country totally run by the people, without some means of checks and balances, would fall into disrepair and chaos. Our three-tiered system works to check one branch against the other. The people do, in fact, have a hand in running this country in that the people elected Obama and every other member of Congress to be our representatives. The “people” can’t run this country literally because the “people” don’t know how to run a government and are not qualified. Try putting the state of Texas in Farmer Jones’ hands and see what happens. In fact, the people were never originally intended to run it. That’s a misnomer. The people vote for elected officials, who, in turn, actually run it.

To conclude, there are some good thoughts here but many of them appear to me to be too idealistic to hold muster in this nation or any other. As I’ve said, the missions proposed on this site are a bit vague and would, in fact, likely be approved of by most reason-loving individuals. Details are missing from the “About” page, and of course, this likely sways more folks your way, not because of the accurate information they have about the organization, but because of what they have heard. Adding specific points would, perhaps, subtract people from your numbers, but at least, the movement would know who its true supporters were. After all, if and when you make it more explicit what the movement is about, and the movement still has a well-spring of support, you know you will be on to something.

Thanks very much for giving me to the opportunity to write.

Jeremy Styron

Jeremy Styron is news editor of a weekly newspaper in Northeast Georgia. He has also worked as a night editor for a five-day daily and as a sports writer. He holds a bachelor’s degree in English and a minor in history from Clemson University and enjoys Web design, photography, literature, American and British history and musical performance. More of his writing can be found on his blog at www.jeremystyron.com.

42 Responses to “An Open Letter to Tea Party Supporters | An Outsider’s Commentary”

Shane said:

I am going to attempt to answer this in its entirety. Do bare with me I am not an accomplished writer.

What are the Tea Parties about? It does seem we have attracted a wide assortment of views and opinions. Are some a little out there, yes. And before someone skull bashes me for not believing their conspiracy theories they should know that I spent 10+ years studying things of that nature and the end conclusion was most of it is unprovable and if followed to its logical conclusion dangerous for even the most educated, in such matters, to dabble in.

Now just because some may seem a bit wacky doesn’t mean we should just dismiss them. One of the main objectives, as I see it, is a return to a constitutional government. This means a government limited to the exact specification enumerated to them in the constitution. And this is the point that many of the “wackos” have been pushing for 20 or 30 years and conservatives have finally realized they were right about some things. So excluding them is like saying thanks for the solution, now get lost.

Now of course there are those on the other side with a mindset to just do some reform and then maintain the status quo. And I would say that they have been welcomed as they have just begun there awakening. And with time they will be introduced to the merits of taking this further than they had imagined.

Now for yourself who thinks we are bashing Obama or any person on the right that sees this as chance to bash Obama, I would say there is much more to this. In reality as a staunch conservative I say the republicans are more the enemy than Obama. One thing about a liberal is they are a liberal unashamedly you know where they stand precisely and you can make your decisions based on that. Were as republican will twisted which ever way the wind blows but they will do it under the guise that they have some “principles”, which in truth most do not. They are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, so they will be spewed from our mouths.

On your assessment of the original tea party you forgot some key points. You failed to mention how those Sons of Liberty go there start. As well their protest was not originally called a tea party. Next they did it late at night dressed as Indians to avoid being arrest. Which interesting to note, as torture is all over the media lately, that they would have been wiped leaving many deep cuts in their back, chest and legs and then placed in stockades, outside, for many days without food or water (high risk of death). They set themselves on a course, aware of the consequences, risking all, for something more than just scraps from the kings table ($400 stimulus check).

Also a more important note is that they did have “representatives” in the English parliament. Yet they still cried “No taxation without representation”. Eerily similar to today. Also should note the type of tax they rebelled against. It was tax that was equally applied to all whether they partook or not. In other words you were taxed so other could have something even if you didn’t want any of it. And to not pay was a crime. Does this sound like today. I think you would find the taxation our founding father protested to be very mild by today’s standards.

As for our vagueness. What organization has ever started out with a clear cut plan and mission statement. Most have some generalities that over time are honed to a precise mission. And we never hear of them till after that point has been reached. These tea party are so spontaneous and put together so rapidly in most cities if you had to ask who was in charge you would get the run around as they don’t even know. But that will change sooner than later.

As to Obama’s proposed solutions. Yes we can choose to buy into them or not to. But if we do not buy into them what recourse do we have. This nation has become a nation of mob rule. Meaning the larger mob rules enforcing their will on the minority. This mean if he is wrong we all pay the bill. And the question is if the borrower is slave to the lender to whom are we the slave to. That money has to come form somewhere and it is not a printing press.

Next, deregulation has not lead to this down ward spiral. Regulation was put in place to govern a system of “limited liability”. Why does one incorporate their new 1 man business? For limited liability. In other words to protect themselves from having to take responsibility for their own actions. We have built a legal system around this principle of making sure no one is actually held accountable for their deeds. And so when you do deregulate you open the door, to some, being down right corrupt, devious and dishonest in their business dealings. And while deregulation is the answer to growing the economy we need to learn to hold people fully responsible for their actions. Let me make myself clear, this is not necessarily a punish the entire company this is punish the specific individuals that took untoward actions that caused these problems. If that turns out to be a huge number of upper management in a company leading to its dispersal so be it.

Also should comment that no company of any real size just up and disappears it will usually be bought up by some other company thereby keeping most of those employees. And even if a company was just gone, all there services and products are still needed. So those they severed will go to other companies that provide those services and those companies will hire the former employees of the company that went under. In reality is works out perfect almost everyone keeps their job and now we have sound companies undergirding our economy.

“That first sentence is a dangerous one to make. Politicians on both sides of the aisle (that includes the president), like them or not, have an enormous responsibility on their plates; they keep the plates spinning. If they all, en masse, left Washington one day and decided not to show up for work because they no longer had the support of anyone, anywhere in the U.S., the country would cascade fairly quickly into chaos.”

That first sentence is not dangerous. That person is saying that what our representatives are telling us is at best half truths and there solutions are void of understanding and it is time we stop listening to them and set about to make responsible solutions ourselves.

I would agree with you in that they have a lot on their plate, but guess what 90% of it is not permitted by the constitution thereby their extra work load is illegal. If they don’t like the extra stress return the task to those who were suppose to over see those matters. And if they should decide to not show up for work one day, great, the individual states can easily take on the task of keeping this country going. And very likely do it for less $$$.

Next to new taxes. Yes he said he wouldn’t raise the “income tax” on anyone making under $250K. Unfortunately there is an infinite number of other taxes and potentially new taxes he is considering. As well you look at the amount he wishes to grow the budget the math doesn’t add up even if he took 100% of all the money of those making more that $150K it could not pay for his budget. Its the 1 + 1 problem, ie. simple math.

I must concede the point on Americans living within their means. Your are right a large majority are in debt up to their eyeballs. An interesting side note a year ago a report indicated on average Americans were gong into debt faster than they were saving. I heard a report just last week were that trend had completely reversed and people were now getting out of debt and saving. Nothing like an over emphasized example to make us wake up.

Next debt is not something our children have to live with. We have lost the art of hard work to acquire what we desire. Those that become rich are rich because they stay out of debt and learned to work hard and live within their means.

“Taxes are necessary to continue funding the many services we enjoy on a daily basis”

Outside of (maybe) the postal service it is unconstitutional for the government to provide or fund any of those services without a constitutional amendment granting them that power.

“Stop spying on us and stop intruding on our fundamental rights. Give us back habeas corpus and stop even thinking secret tribunals and prisons have any place in America.”

It is quite funny the far left and the far right have something in common. Of course if “habeas corpus” is suspended it must mean we are in a state of emergency (per the constitution). Thereby a declaration of the end of that emergency must be made. May need to look into what emergency we are under.

On your checks and balances you neglect the most powerful one. Our founding father knew (Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers) that a federal government could easily over reach thereby it enumerated their powers and clearly stated the states and their people held all power not enumerated. The states were to keep the federal government in line not the three tiers of the federal government. The three tiers just made sure they had to jump through insurmountable hoops to become oppressive, giving the states the time to see and resist such oppression.

I must conclude with the fact that you did raise some valid points and I think many will be more clearly addressed once the “tea party movement” has had time to mature like many other movements.

Also I would wish I had more to counter some of the errant underlying thoughts yourself and many conservatives have about how our nation of nations is to be ordered. But I do hope this is enough to encourage some to learn what our Founding Fathers really envisioned.

Shane Hanson

April 27th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Burlo said:

I will just pick apart a portion of your very institutionalized post and let the rest of the Christian red necked trailer trash Farmer Jones’ stumble over the rest:

“Try putting the state of Texas in Farmer Jones’ hands and see what happens”

- The government does not ‘run’ anything. All the government does is allocate resources without the checks and balances of the most efficient scale; the free market. Do you really think that Coke, Kaiser, Texaco, Mcdonalds, SC Johnson, Pfizer, Dominos, Dell, Macintosh, Microsoft, Kraft, or Kellogs who all use, build, profit off, employ, manage, produce, and distribute Texas’ state economy would allow anything to happen to it’s ridiculously profitable system. No way. All the government does is side with this company/interest group or that and make one un-compassionatly more rewarded than another. The governments sole purpose is to protect us from fraud, abuse, theft, and other torts under a fair legal system with proper jurisprudence and due process… and secure our borders. Don’t get me wrong. One language, one culture, and a tall border is not the kind of paleo-conservative qualities I personally adhere to. I would not mind in the slightest for whites to be the minority.

You are old-school if you think that we need the government stealing money from businesses and the middle class and distributing it to anyone who has not earned it. That is part of the ancient beliefs of Keynes and FDR. You need to modernize your understanding of economics. In a non-taxed non-minimum waged economy, employment is unlimited. There is ALWAYS a job. Take my old boss, Tim. Tim makes about $500,000 a year. If he didn’t get taxed 40% of his wages, he would have $200,000 dollars extra in his business to hire people with. That is like 10 unskilled jobs! Do you honestly think that the government creates 10 jobs with that $200,000? No it squanders it away with useless wars, useless subsidized schooling, and useless wealth redistribution and supports a class of useless bureaucrats and lame-duck government employees that never needed to exist and are not subject to the scrutiny of the free market.

Please don’t tell me that we need to get taxed to pave the roads. The roads are peanuts in the big picture.

There are countless innovative and profit motivated ways to sort out social problems. You can always make a profit out of someone. Even mentally disabled people have a use. THEY ALL NEED TO WORK. EVERYONE NEEDS TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES. You think I sound uncaring, but in actuality you are the thief who punishes production and destroys incentive and thus is the sole instigator of poverty.

What about the sick? Charities are ridiculously more efficient than government, and inefficient charities will be phased out without government meddling. Listen.. Nobody wants bums outside their door or sick people dieing in the streets, people will pay them to stay away.

Charities are big money makers, you will see charity sales representatives or donation rounders going to meetings with every rich business owner you can find and working out schemes to solve the poverty that is all around us with real solutions, and real profit, not band aids of food stamps and government owned and subsidized slave housing with private mafia style contractors reaping the rents.

Many hospitals are financed partially by charity funds now with a 40% tax rate.

The socialites tell me that I am un-compassionate for not wanting to support the unskilled without profit incentive. The socialites should be allowing corporations and businesses to take ‘advantage’ of unskilled labor. If a person chooses not to work for their free market price, then that person should not survive. I am not entitled to live for free, but I am entitled to live free of burden, especially if I produce a surplus. No person can compassionately say that a man who produces is entitled to support the man who refuses to support himself.

You know what is directly related to unemployment? The minimum wage.

You are bamboozled by a false hope in community organizers and ex-POWs who are expert equalizers. Equalizers of conversation, equalizers of wage, equalizers of principle, equalizers of wealth, equalizers of oos and ahhhs. They say anything to make scum happy, while they slowly leech off ability and pretend they are aiding the ‘disenfranchised’.

I am done ranting. I liked some of what you had to say but the synergy of it is straight from University of Some Kool-Aid Drinking Campus. I can tell you got a master’s degree in English- A master’s degree in equalizing - to make what your saying look dressed up in a suit.

Mccain couldn’t run an internment camp. Obama couldn’t run a citizenship bureau. They can just work the fine line of theft and subsidy better than anyone else, they are men of ability, ability to fake reality, herding the sheep to what they think is the alpha and omega, the truth the light and the holy gate of prosperity based on a fraudulent morality and selfless social agenda. Kinda like Jesus without the hocus pocus the bible tries and bewitch upon us.

-I guess your babblefish article is a breath of fresh air to some of the ‘conservatives’ I see on this site who have masters degree’s in Bush Apologetics and Exceptions to the Constitution based upon religious morality.

April 27th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Ron said:

“Today, our taxes are levied with the understanding that we are represented, even if it’s by people we may disagree with on some issues.”

Pray tell, who are the duly elected “representatives” representing the interests of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, since they will be the one’s shouldering this massive debt we are leaving them? I’d really like to hear who you believe the names of their representatives are.

The “instant gratification” generation wants their massive government goodies, but they don’t want to be the ones to massively pay for it. They want their art centers, basketball courts, race tracks, football arenas, luxury airports, ad nauseam. But we don’t want to be the generation paying for it. Instead we are forcing that financial servitude onto the next generation and numerous generations after that.

This nation’s elected officials are currently no different than Bernie Madoff in that respect. Their massive deficit spending being done is one giant Ponzi scheme. Pay off the current generation today, while trying to find more “investors” for tomorrow’s payoff. Only Bernie Madoff used victims who were willing to part with their money for his Ponzi scheme, while our government is outright stealing that financial capital from people who haven’t even been born yet.

So please, tell us Mr. Styron, who their duly elected representatives are? If it is no one in government, then it must be US. You know, those “racist,” “redneck” TEA partiers, who are representing them, since it sure isn’t the spend-happy gangsters who have been running our nation into the ground under a mountain of worthless paper money, propped up by hereditary bondage left to our progeny to pay off.

That is why many of us are supporting TEA Parties. Taxation without representation is happening, and it is happening right now. It is US, those TEA Partiers who are speaking for the future generations who have NO SAY in how their money is being thrown away by OUR government. Why can’t you folks understand this is taxation without representation, and it is happening under our watch? Is it that you see what is happening, but you just don’t care, because, “you got yours?” Is it because you want your children, my children, their children and their childrens’ children to start out their lives thousands of dollars in debt owed to the government as soon as they take their first breath? Is it that you just can’t grasp the concept of hereditary bondage that you are tacitly advocating committing upon them?

It boggles my mind that Mr. Styron and others like him are still trying to claim there is no “taxation without representation” going on, when in fact, there very clearly is. It is just that they have had no voice, except for our TEA party voices that are now starting to be heard on their behalf.

April 27th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Cheryl said:

The Tea Parties are about COMMUNITY!

April 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Cheryl said:

Not what Barack OBama and Hillary Clinton want to do. They drew over 50,000 people into downtown Orlando, so we are in an up hill battle. This calls for drastic action; displace the Republican party with all of us independent minded conservatives! It is the only way!

http://www.meetup.com/Let-s-Take-Back-Our-Country

April 27th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Evette Simone said:

These modern day “tea parties” are not just about taxes, but also policies, out of control spending, and corrupt government. All you need to realize what the tea parties are about, is to read the signs and talk to the people. These are normal everyday-hardworking people (as opposed to the window breaking anarchists in the leftist ralleys) who feel as if they absolutely DO NOT have representation on any of the issues. These are the silent majority who want their voices heard. There’s no need for a 20 paragraph essay. Talk to the people.

April 27th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Thomas Sbrega said:

I agree with Cheryl. The whole reason I took an interest was because the main goal seemed to truly be about organizing the people, not instituting agenda. General principles (do not kill people, do not oppress others, do not knowingly inflict harm, do not enslave one another, honor contracts, etc.) are necessary to reinforce and easy to apply to specifics on an individual basis. Although I’m an advocit of logical arguments, I’ll be the first to admit that it has it’s flaws. Humanity often suffers as a result. Basic, general statements, like “it’s about the COMMUNITY” sums the tea-party agenda up nicely…

April 27th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Jim Fraser said:

The writer of this article does not get it. He is offering the same garbage that the CNN reported does. He offered up Obamas talking point of tax cuts for those making less than $250k. He believes we should simply slop at the trough for the $8.00 per week.

Has this so called news editor missed the news on the cap and trade(poor mans tax). Has this so called news editor missed where Obama has said “adjustments” (paraphrasing) will need to be made in the future to combat the huge deficits. These “adjustments” are almost certain to be higher taxes on some making less than $250k per year.

See this so-called news editor cannot understand why we will not simply “shut up” cause we are going to get $8.00 per week. BTW this so called tax cut is due to expire next year last I heard.

Also this so-called news editor cannot understand why we should be concerned about the balloning debt. Has this so-called news editor ever heard of what happened in Zimbabwe or Germany.

Then this so-called news editor says all these economists say we needed to spend all this money to help the ailing economy. This is true although no mention of the equal number of economists that say we do not.

A message to this so-called news editor. We do not want big Government period. There it is in a nutshell. And yes, we feel Bush was Big Government and Obama is Gargantuan Government.

April 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Doug said:

Seriously… This has to be the worst article I have seen on the topic. Just keep making the Kool-Aid Pal…

I am certain that the Obamanoids are drinking it up.

April 27th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Sheridan Folger said:

I feel quite strongly with all semblance of circumspection you should have read this article more closely before printing it with your warning: we request that you provide him the same respect for his differences of opinion that he has. When he so obviously has not.

This is nothing more than an uneducated and ill-researched opinion article, not worth of being reprinted her and certainly not worthy of countering in any way.

April 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Lost Plot said:

The use of “tea bagger” is insulting. The rest of the article I could have heard by
simply tuning in CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC.
One of the best qualities of TEA Parties is the diversity of issues and people. That is
what you get when you have a real “grassroots” movement.

April 27th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Mike said:

I would argue that the movement does have focus, ie, the federal government is corrupt. Our founding fathers did not agree on a number of issues, but they nevertheless created a great country.
TEA party protesters know they are being lied to and their money stolen and WE are letting the government know we intend on doing something about it.
Good enough for me.

April 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
mattyb said:

I am a Tea Partier, NOT a “tea bagger”
Thank you

April 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Erin said:

We don’t need another Tea Party! We need a MARCH ON WASHINGTON.

April 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

I will get to as many of these comments as I can, separately.

Shane,
Thanks for taking the time to write an in depth reply and for the courtesy. Some haven’t seemed to concerned with that.
I’ll address as many of your comments as I can. First, of course, I can’t imagine the Sons of Liberty organizing like you guys are and calling them tea parties at the time. But they, in fact, did not have representation in Parliament. They have some sort of nebulous representation at best. It is called virtual representation, that is, that which is good for the British Empire is good for the colonies. But no, they did not have direct representation.

It’s, of course, Ok to say, “These tea party are so spontaneous and put together so rapidly in most cities if you had to ask who was in charge you would get the run around as they don’t even know.” But in the meantime, advocates shouldn’t complain, or even point out, the nonsense they see on TV. And by the way, one poster here suggested I was spewing nothing but what one could find on the major cable news channels. In actuality, I’ve barely turned on TV news in three weeks or more. I’ve only read news Web sites, blogs and sites like this one on this subject.

Next, deregulation has not lead to this down ward spiral. … We have built a legal system around this principle of making sure no one is actually held accountable for their deeds. And so when you do deregulate you open the door, to some, being down right corrupt, devious and dishonest in their business dealings. And while deregulation is the answer to growing the economy we need to learn to hold people fully responsible for their actions.

Exactly. So deregulation, or should I say, rampant lack of regulations, hasn’t done us any favors. It’s positive to a degree, I suppose, until the Wal-Marts and Microsofts and AIGs pop up, and with their potential failure, send the economy into a tizzy.

Next debt is not something our children have to live with. We have lost the art of hard work to acquire what we desire. Those that become rich are rich because they stay out of debt and learned to work hard and live within their means.

I think it is. Our entire system is built on debt. Debt when you buy a house or a car. Credit card debt. In fact, some college kids get credit cards or take out small $1,000 loans to “establish credit,” thus, they are going into debt to better their chances of getting a larger loan (more debt) later in life. The fact that we have lost the art of hard work to acquire what we desire is neither here nor there. It’s unfortunate that this has happened, but reality isn’t that the tenets of self-sufficiency are going to make a comeback any time soon.

Outside of (maybe) the postal service it is unconstitutional for the government to provide or fund any of those services without a constitutional amendment granting them that power.

There’s no “maybe” on the Postal Service. It’s in there (Article 1, Section 8). As for the others, first, clearly Congress can, by the Constitution, pass bills, as we see by language like, “No bills should be passed …” that … or “Any bill …” Such was the Social Security Act, which is codified as law. So if none of those services or the myriad others the government now offers is constitutional in your view, we would then be at square one, would we not? How would the country ever get anything meaningful accomplished? We would not have 27 amendments, but many more.

At least one piece of reasoning behind the justification of something like Social Security as Constitutional is:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There may be others. Since this group and others like to summon the Constitution on some of these issues, I’ll end with this. None of us really know, as if we were their best friends, what was on the founders minds at the moments they were debating how to best pen the Constitution. It is a great document indeed. But it is terse and it’s simple. Sure, we can read books and even their letters and notes, but to attempt to read our modern set of circumstances back on to founders, their writings or even back on to the Constitution seems like a fallacy to me. They lived in a vastly different America and to attempt to recreate the America they envisioned is anachronistically unsound, probably not even possible and doesn’t even make sense.

Again, thanks Shane for supplying your thoughts.

April 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Jim Fraser,

Thanks for the feedback, although the way it was presented was less than courteous. But I will return with the latter all the same.

Actually, it’s $13 per week this year and $8 next year. I have not turned on TV news in at least three or four weeks, and while I’ve heard about the CNN reporter “going off” on the Tea Party supporter, I have not seen it myself. So accusing me of spouting nonsense from CNN, FOX or wherever is specious, like many of your other claims about me.

as this so called news editor missed the news on the cap and trade(poor mans tax). Has this so called news editor missed where Obama has said “adjustments” (paraphrasing) will need to be made in the future to combat the huge deficits.

Who said anything about cap-and-trade or future “adjustments?” I clearly ceded the point that parts of the stimulus plan were over the top. I’m not an Obama lackey. Parts of his policies will, most likely, make my life and yours harder. But something had to be done, don’t ya think? Or should we have sat on the sidelines and watched the ship sink, as P.G.T. Beauregard sat out on the Charleston coast and watched the Fort Sumter bombardment? (He was supposedly sipping on a drink on some oceanside balcony when the bombing started right there overlooking the sea near the battery.)

See this so-called news editor cannot understand why we will not simply “shut up” cause we are going to get $8.00 per week.

So, you would rather get nothing then, I presume? You make it sound so trivial. That’s 416 bucks a year, which isn’t much, but it’s something. Thirty-two bucks will pay a water bill or something. Again, you would rather get nothing? Is the $13 per week (and later $8 per week) an insult to your honor or …?

Has this so-called news editor ever heard of what happened in Zimbabwe or Germany.

Are you seriously mentioning Zimbabwe? We aren’t ruled by Robert Mugabe, bro. That fellow has crushed everything good that might have come out of Zimbabwe for at least the next generation or two or three or four. We should all celebrate the day of his death. He has sent his country into ruin, amid crushing poverty and disease, and then when election time came, he hijacked it.

Then this so-called news editor says all these economists say we needed to spend all this money to help the ailing economy. This is true although no mention of the equal number of economists that say we do not.

I cited one economist who said the stimulus would not be enough and provided the link. I could have cited more, but only cited one because the post was quite long as it was. You have cited no one.

A message to this so-called news editor. We do not want big Government period. There it is in a nutshell. And yes, we feel Bush was Big Government and Obama is Gargantuan Government.

Don’t bother trying to belittle me. I think I’ve made my case. Yours was a rant about one paragraph in my lengthy post that was, predominantly about the Tea Party’s seeming lack of identity or lack of specificity.

That said, I do, for real, appreciate you reading and taking the time to write.

- J.

April 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Burlo,
Thanks for your comments. You seemed to careeen into a bit a stream of consciousness there, I think, but I enjoyed your post.

let the rest of the Christian red necked trailer trash Farmer Jones’ stumble over the rest:

I enjoyed this bit. And it was a bachelor’s in English, but, thanks for the upgrade!

I wouldn’t say it was institutionalized. My main point was about the Tea Party and its seeming lack of specificity and identity at this juncture. The portions about the stimulus and the government were parts to a larger whole, but I’ll attempt to address those too.

No, I, of course, don’t think we need government stealing money from businesses, as you so termed it, but it’s so very, very easy to be on the anti-tax side, isn’t it? I mean, it’s easy to gather up a bunch of folks and say, ‘Hey, let’s go hate on the government over taxes.” It’s really easy to do that. I would like to know who gets taxes 40 percent of their wages? I get taxed about 23 percent of mine. I agree with you that government, at least the last administration, squanders much tax money on useless wars and the like, but one main point that I would like to make is this: Folks in America, and this doesn’t seem to be the case in other progressive countries, seem to think we in America have some birthright. That we are privileged. That we deserve to live in a country with no or very, very low taxes, and yet, still be able to maintain and equip the very best and brightest scientists, soldiers, educators and doctors. How can that be possible? How can we be among the best and the brightest and still have the lowest taxes among the developed countries? It takes money to fund research, education, boot camp and medical breakthroughs. This map paints a vivid picture.

You are bamboozled by a false hope in community organizers and ex-POWs who are expert equalizers. Equalizers of conversation, equalizers of wage, equalizers of principle, equalizers of wealth, equalizers of oos and ahhhs. They say anything to make scum happy, while they slowly leech off ability and pretend they are aiding the ‘disenfranchised’.

I am, in fact, bamboozled by false hope, not just in community, but false hope in general. Many on this site, I would bet, hold a false hope that a religion is going to save them from the crime of original sin. The claim, of course, is that we are all born into original sin, thus, if we do not turn to Jesus or God or whoever, depending on who you talk to, we will suffer for eternity in an unending separation from God. But I ask, does the crime fit the bill? We oftentimes give murderers the death chair and rapists life in prison for their crimes, but for being born, God gives people eternal punishment. Does this sound reasonable or fair or even ethical? So yes, wishful thinking only gets one so far. I’m a huge adherent or personal responsibility, but there comes a point, like wishful thinking, that precepts and ideals only get us so far. Some people are in over their heads. Should we let them drown, financially? Yes, probably. But conscious tells us otherwise (Here I am not talking about automakers or bankers, I’m talking about those who might benefit from the stimulus bill).

-I guess your babblefish article is a breath of fresh air to some of the ‘conservatives’ I see on this site who have masters degree’s in Bush Apologetics and Exceptions to the Constitution based upon religious morality.

I’m glad my babblefish article was a breath of fresh air. That’s what it was intended to be. You have some didactic talent yourself. Thanks for your reply.

April 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Doug said:
Seriously… This has to be the worst article I have seen on the topic. Just keep making the Kool-Aid Pal…

I am certain that the Obamanoids are drinking it up.

Doug,
Saying “This has to be the worst article I have seen on the topic” is a lazy attempt at arguing nothing and doesn’t actually prove anything. To which topic are you referring? I raised several. Just because you disagree and say you disagree means nothing. Where is your proof that any or all of it is true or false based on the Constitution or Tea Party ideals? The Obamanoids are probably not here, so they aren’t drinking anything up. I posted this exclusively here, not even on my own blog. So, you are free, Obamanoid-free, to reply as you wish.

April 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Evette,

I think it’s an important movement at this juncture, and it needs to be talked about and evaluated. That’s the reason for my lengthy essay.

J.

April 27th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Sheridan Folger,

What about my article led you to say this:

I feel quite strongly with all semblance of circumspection you should have read this article more closely before printing it with your warning: we request that you provide him the same respect for his differences of opinion that he has. When he so obviously has not.

This is nothing more than an uneducated and ill-researched opinion article, not worth of being reprinted her and certainly not worthy of countering in any way.

It was not a warning but a request. If it’s unworthy of countering, what about it was unworthy? Simply because you may not agree does not make it unworthy or even because you say it’s unworthy does not make it unworthy since that’s your sole opinion. Numerous folks have countered it, and I replied to them in kind and in courtesy. So, I encourage you to reply. Calling mine an uneducated (which it is not) and an ill-researched (which it is not either) opinion article is a smug and proof-less way to reply. Say what you want to say. Educate me. I’m ready to reply. Thank you for reading.

J.

April 27th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Thomas Sbrega,

I agree with Cheryl. The whole reason I took an interest was because the main goal seemed to truly be about organizing the people, not instituting agenda. General principles (do not kill people, do not oppress others, do not knowingly inflict harm, do not enslave one another, honor contracts, etc.) are necessary to reinforce and easy to apply to specifics on an individual basis. Although I’m an advocit of logical arguments, I’ll be the first to admit that it has it’s flaws. Humanity often suffers as a result. Basic, general statements, like “it’s about the COMMUNITY” sums the tea-party agenda up nicely…

Which communities? Local communities? Which local communities? Those of certain towns or those of certain counties? What about the concept of “community” sums up the Tea Party movement?

April 27th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Kay Harrison said:

It seems that the Media and the Left are determined to try to marginalize who we are, painting us as elitists, racists, etc. In an
effort to combat that picture, if you could help spread the word about Tea Party Demographics http://www.teapartydemographics.com we would greatly appreciate it!

Initially, we’re trying to get the ball rolling by sharing our link with as many sites as possible, but would like to incorporate more
information on our front page - perhaps interviews with Tea Party organizers from all across the country that might give a bit
more depth to the face of the Tea Party Movement.

Thanks for your help!

Kay Harrison

April 28th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Rafi said:

I agree with Burlo and I just want to add two points.

Mr. Styron, when you write: “I dare say that if Americans weren’t so anti-tax, our standard of living, our educational system, our technological development and our ability to treat illnesses and find cures would increase exponentially. But we will simply have none of that.”

You are implying that government agencies will bring prosperity and increases in production to the masses and improve our standard of living. That’s both structurally false and historically false. Planned economies don’t work, and there are excellent reasons why they don’t. Americans are anti-tax for a number of reasons, but a big one is that no one will spend other people’s money as carefully as they will spend their own. Being anti-tax is being pro-individual and pro-private property. You are free to use your earnings in the manner you see best fit for you. If you’d like me to go into more detail I will.

Secondly, I think a tremendous amount of this countries problems would be solved if the State’s had more power. I’m not sure how much people can twist the words of the founding father’s to mean that we weren’t supposed to have a bunch of competing states. If more power was given to the local regions as opposed to federal government, you could have socialist states and basically pure free market states. As long as people were free to move from one state to another, all the people who want socialized health care could move to California, for example, while those who prefer not to be forced into paying for someone else’s health care can move to Montana.

The Federal government is out of control in my opinion. It is overstepping its boundaries and negating the function of States. I think this situation arises in times of crisis, where instead of being prudent and restraining their power, politicians use the fear and insecurity of the masses to promise them bread and circuses. Medicare, medicaid, the New Deal, nationalized health care, the EPA, all of these Federal institutions and agencies should not exist *on that level*! However, as my good friend says, “The ship has sailed.”

I agree with you that the tea parties need a little bit more focus, and I think the general refrain of smaller Federal government should be emphasized and contrasted with more powerful Local government. If the tea parties emphasize this idea I think many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can come together.

April 28th, 2009 at 7:16 am
jefferson said:

In response to the original post, a few of my objections are:
1) Referencing us as “Teabaggers” is unfair and derogatory
2) “Automakers and bankers offer services that we can buy into or not”. While in large part that is true, the bailouts have proved that false. Additionally, the Treasury secretary, who is accountable to no one, has ceded the right to control the most powerful country in the world’s money supply and the ability to control interest rates, which directly affects the value of money. We do not have the choice to “buy into it or not”. Jefferson, Jackson, and many others recognized this as something our government should never cede to a central authority.
3) “Politicians offer ideas that we can buy into or not”. Regardless of the ideas a politician may offer, they take an oath to the Constitution and must put it ahead of their wonderful ideas.
4) If you claim that someone is too big to fail, should you not ask how they got that big in the first place? The federal government has been providing artificially cheap dollars via manipulation of interest rates to big banks and have been protecting big auto through legislation (largely lobbied by big auto unions) for decades.
5) Yes, Obama has said that people making less than $250K will not see higher taxes. However, when the government can’t borrow money, it prints it. When more dollars are printed, each dollar you own and make is worth less. That is a hidden tax. This doesn’t even address the indirect taxes we witness through higher prices on goods that result on taxing upper income earners, businesses, goods, and services.
6) Even if some tea partiers have lived beyond their means, you miss the point. No one who has lived beyond their means should force someone else to pay for it.
7) Our children should only learn to live by the debts they create themselves. No one should be born into debt.
Taxes are necessary. However, did you know we didn’t even have an income tax until 1913, when we were still the envy of the world? We have over 150 taxes in this country. Taxes should be paid on goods and services that reflect what the taxes are being used for. For example…the gas tax pays for roads. Most services, like public schools where this is more difficult, per the Constitution, are to be funded by local governments where decisions are made closer to home, should that community wish to have them.
9) NOT ONE lawmaker read the last bailout bill before it was passed.
10) Our government is not a pure democracy. It is a Republic, for, of and by the people. “The People” are supposed to have a say through their representatives. However, if all our decisions are ceded to a central government, our ability to self-govern is quelled by the planners and unconstitutional legislation. This does not mean that the average person is writing legislation. This means the average persons support or opposition to decisions that are made actually means something. As witnessed by FISA legislation, the Patriot Act, the use of Presidential signing statements, and so on, our system of checks and balances is hardly balanced. The job of a President is not to initiate legislation or have a political agenda. A Presidents job is simply to ensure that the Constitution is being respected. Obama, Bush, and many Presidents before have all gone way beyond their job description.

April 28th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Todd Kading said:

Jeremy,

I have read the Constitution. Apparently you have as well since you are able to reference Article One, Section 8. This is the enumirated powers of the Congress of the United States. It is a very concise list of powers. It is not broad or general in any way. Some courts may have interpretted a few of those powers in a broad manner (examples being a few rulings in the 1930s); however, that does not change the fact that the authors of the Constitution were fairly clear in their desire to have a limited Federal Government.

Of course many argue that the Constitution says that the federal government shall provide for ‘the general Welfare of the United States”. Correct, Article I, Section 8 states that the powers of Congree are intended to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This appears to give the Congress an unlimited set of powers to be exercised at whatever political whim decided was the definition of “general welfare”. Obviously to those that research the reasons for the Revolutionary War and the formation of the United States, no one can accrately conclude that the framers of the Constitution would have any interest in granting unlimited powers to any government. This is why the backers of the Constitution gave us a series of essays explaining the Constitution and its intentions.

This is where the “Federalist Papers” help our understanding. In “Federalist No. 41,” James Madison explains that the “general Welfare” clause itself gives absolutely no power to the federal government. It is, Madison explains, just an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow it.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted,” Madison asks, “if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

On top of Madison’s argument, we have the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution; it reaffirms that the federal government may exercise only those powers specifically granted to it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So what we have in the United States is a series of unconstitutional activities that can be traced back to everytime Congress usurped the intent of the Constitution. No where do I see the power to do the following:

- nationalize companies
- hire and fire executives at private firms
- redistribute income from one group to another for no direct gain by the original party
- dictate salaries at private companies
- force private companies to accept government funds
- refuse to let private companies payback those funds

Too big to fail — No where in the Constitution did the framers give the Federal government the mandate to save companies that were “too big to fail.” I don’t even know what that phrase means. No one and no company is too big to fail. That is the natural flow of an economy and business cycle. When one company fails, another has the opportunity to succeed. I have searched and searched and have not found the power for the governement to arbitrarily decide which companies are allowed to fail and which are allowed to succeed. It is not a valid argument to simply say we “can’t let the beast perish. If she does, the ship may not be able to right itself.” Why can’t we let it fail? Why would the ship not right itself? Why is it the government’s job to keep the “ship” upright? Some sight economists that say this is all nessesary. I can sight just as many (if not more) economists that say that government intervention in the economy is more damaging than it is helpful. Either way, it is irrelevant. The government doesn’t have the enumerated power to intervene. This idea of “hands off” capitalism does not lead to a “wormhole” or another “Great Depression”. I recommend that everyone take a look at the work of Milton Friedman. He made a spectacular case that the Federal govenment and the Fed actually caused and prolonged the Great Depression.

Tax issue — Despite what we are told, taxes are going up for everyone. It is unavoidable when the government borrows so much money and promises so many new programs. The taxes may be in the form income taxes, dividends taxes, capital gains taxes, regulatory fees, excise taxes, cap and trade taxes, etc… They will hit everyone in some form or fashion. The biggest tax that is coming is the hidden tax of inflation. You can’t just print money at unprecedented levels and not expect there to be inflation. Believe me it has been tried. The Weimar Republic is a great example of printing money and hyperinflation. Inflation robs from savers and rewards debtors. Basically, the printing of money is encouraging us all to go out and borrow as much money as possible in order to live the high life now; we can then just repay the debt with cheap money later. unfortunately, those that save and those that live on a fixed income get evicerated by inflation.

Debt — Debt is smething that the Congress is allowed to foist upon my children because the power to borrow money is an enumerated power; however, it is being borrowed and then used for items that are unconstitutional. Stop the unconstitutional behavior of our governemnt, and you solve the debt problem for my kids and future grandkids.

In summary — I do not ask anyone to pay my mortgage or my bills. In return, I demand that my income and assets not be seized - by use of governmental force in the form of taxes, debt and inflationary policy - in order to pay someone else’s mortgage and bills. I am a fan of charity; charity can be a good thing for those that provide it voluntarily. When it becomes a government mandate then, by definition, it is no longer charity. We call it theft.

The proper duty of a government is to maintain a society free from aggression, a society in which no human being can can threaten by use of force to take away the liberty or pursuit of freedom and happiness of any other individual. Government all-to-often uses threat of force through excessive taxation and inflationary monetary policy in order to take from one and to give to another. In doing so, it is no longer the referee of a free society, insuring its citizens their personal liberty and freedom. It becomes a forceful advocate for some to the detriment of others. This is morally wrong and is unacceptable in any instance. Theft is theft, whether it is done by an individual or a government. I simply am asking the government to stop stealing.

Thanks,
Todd Kading
http://www.taxpayerteaparty.org

April 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Jim Fraser said:

The is a response to the so-called news editors response

First of all you refer to us a Tea Baggers and we understand the meaning of this. Do not take the moral high ground on being courteous.

Yes, you can keep your $13.00 per week. It is trivial. It does nothing. The so-called stimulus package spent 787 billion of which $550 billion are for Government programs and they give us this $13.00 per week to shut up. Just the fact that you and that CNN reporter use this to belittle our movement makes this $13.00 per week worse
than getting nothing. You want to see the breakdown of the so-called stimulus plan look at wikepedia.

$550 billion for government programs meaning more bureaucrats. I am a Civil Engineer and understand the need for the infrastructure improvements but it is only about 10% of the package. Much of this infrastructure money goes to the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)which is a huge bureacratic waste of money. (It would be safer to give this money to Al Qaeda LOL) If you have no experience as I do with ACOE then you should not argue but should be aware they designed the New Orleans Levee systems among countless other boondoggles. All this for $13.00 per week as you say.

That argument that “something had to be done” I disagree with completely. I personally agree with the economists at the following link.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/

I may have been wrong on the country Zimbabwe but there was a country recently that started printing money and made that money worthless. That was what I referred to. It happened in Germany in the early 1900s as well cause I remember seeing pictures of the wheelbarrels full of money when I was a kid. That is what I mean. Our government to pay for this so-called stimulus boondoggle and massive budget has started printing money according to what I hear.

April 28th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Peter beale said:

Okay, I am just an average fella leading an average life - I was raised by a a set of parents that had victory gardens during WWII and grandparents that both lived through the Great depression and tried very hard to instill in me the lessons they learned the hard way. I think that yes there may be huge disparities among our little group of “Teabaggers” (my favorite moniker is “those of the Tin Foil hats”) but I honestly think you could boil down our giant vat of opinion to simply a fundamental sense of wrong.
Spend trillions- to correct a problem that was caused by spending trillions? this feels good and correct to you? To me this feels fundamentally wrong.
Give the government new and sweeping influence in our lives because we petulantly refuse to face our own problems as ones that we created for ourselves? This feels good and correct to you? To me this feels fundamentally wrong.
I think the one thing you said that really struck me was your quick comment about how our children will just have to learn to live with debt, how it is a part of our lives etc. Ask your parents if Credit cards existed when they were in their youth. Ask them if there was such a thing as an adjustable rate mortgage or even a student loan. The fact is none of these “debts our children will learn to live with” even existed just a short time ago in our country’s history.
Here is the truth of it - Debt is bad in any form, whether you swipe a card or legislate it, and because of it the country is essentially bankrupt. I have heard plenty about how the stimulus bill will get the economy moving etc. but I have yet to hear one specific concrete plan as to how we are going to pay for all of this. I ask you, how are we going to pay for this? How do we solve a debt problem by tripling its size? If you can answer this one question to my satisfaction I will take off my tin foil hat and type up a letter of apology.

I have a four year old son, his name is Parker and I love him more than my own life. Since he was born I have seen the world diferently, I feel the wrongness of what is going on - I have pointed my finger at an earlier generation for sowing this mess, I have pointed a finger at my own generation for wallowing in it, and now I look at his generation and I am supposed to say “you fix it!”? I can’t do it. I won’t do it. When my son turns to me as an adult and says “why did you let them do this?” I want to be able to tell him that I did concrete things on behalf of common sense.

I think a lot of us really feel that party politics are for suckers - I for one am over the both of them. In summation, I think that if someone announced their candidacy for any type of public office and placed his ENTIRE platform as two things: 1. I will do everything I possibly can to Monkey wrench as much spending as I possibly can 2. I swear I will leave after the first term and endorse the next candidate I think is the best to do the same as I did. - I think you would be suprised at how a simple message like that will resonate.

I am tired of avoiding this problem - we need to stop this now and take our lumps (soup kitchen or not!)
Mr. Styron I appreciate your effort at honest discourse - your attempts to converse with us and understand our motivaions gives me reason to believe that there might be other Journalists out there who also have a desire to figure us out. I don’t think for a minute any of our little replies will do anything to sway your opinion - But some honest coverage of our opinion in a non-dissmissive manner (Teabaggers?…really?) would be pretty sweet. For once, I feel like there is an honest discussion going on here…any ideas on how to widen the audience of this discussion? Our Candidates get to have town hall discussions on T.V., how about us? You pick five in favor of the spending and we pick five opposed, you provide us a little primetime…might make for a good half hour of T.V.
Regards,
Peter Beale

April 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Shane Hanson said:

Jeremy,
I hope in skipping over some of the responses my reply to your reply doesn’t cause you to have to repeat yourself.

First let me say I am surprised that in the face of such venomous responses you have taken the time to reply and unlike some, in your shoes, you have refrained from name calling and personal attacks. Nothing beats a good civil discourse on a matter.

As to our founding father having representation. There is a difference between the two systems, I will grant you that. But, most people feel just as disconnected from those that say they are representing us (just look at congresses approval numbers). The problem we face here is that they represent the constituents that got them in office, generally. Our founding father envisioned a system were the laws were “A” political. Meaning the laws they wrote would never favor one side or the other. Today that’s all the laws do you would be hard pressed to find laws that are other wise. Even criminal laws have become politicized.

I can’t defend someone else’s comments of your repeating what you heard on the cable news channels, as I haven’t had a TV myself in 3 years (and have found life to be much more enjoyable since). I would say that anyone finding your original post to be over the edge to read a bit more carefully as your main argument was on how disorganized we are and that we have not presented a counter solution or agenda. Which is a valid point, that I hopefully explained in my original reply.

I still contend that deregulation is good as the less government over anyone is always the best way to be be free. And in its place I advocate personal responsibility. But I know for you that seems like we all regulate ourselves but that is not so. Our founding fathers setup the grand jury and jury system to deal with a persons lack of personal responsibility. I know from many that look at those two institutions they see more corrupted and hence may not understand this. But our founding father envisioned a legal system were very few laws existed and if someone failed in there responsibility individually or to society a grand jury could be summoned on a valid complaint to see if a person had neglected their responsibilities. This would mean if, Wal-mart (as you mentioned them) did something that was irresponsible a grand jury in Arkansas (as I think that is were they are based) could be summoned and there executives made to answer for wrong doings. Just the treat of that would keep them in line I bet.

Debt is not something you have to live with. I personally know a large number of families that do not borrow. Not for a house not for cars not anything, they pay cash. I have in the past had a credit card and that is as far as I ever went. I plan to die never having gotten any further loans. Think about it, imagine if 5% (at best) of all you ever make is paid in interest on loans. Do the math even at 50,000 a year at 60 years old you will have paid 100,000 in interest. Of course credit cards and car loans are usually higher so it could be more. That money invested could have been worth 1,000,000,000, quite a nice sum to retire on I would say (plus whatever else you put into investments). Debt is the modern slavery, you spend all that you earn to pay a lender and they may leave you with a bit of it. But most live pay check to pay check and if they weren’t paying interest they may not feel like it was an vicious cycle.

The reason I said the maybe the postal service was that postal service has been made an corporation separate from the US government. I can’t seem to find when they law was passed at the moment. And while the constitution did make the federal government responsible for it they decided to ditch there one “constitutional” duty. And in a slap of defiance they did it with a legislative act not an amendment.

As to passing bills yes they can but only if they have the jurisdiction to do so. The Constitution enumerated specific duty to the federal government. If they are not give the specific obligation of a matter they are not allowed to pass laws in regard to it. You referenced the Social Security Act, the constitution nowhere grant the government authority to establish such a thing. I say “thing” as it now encompasses so many various social ills it is hard to say what it is.

As to how would it ever get anything done, it wouldn’t that was the point of Founding Fathers. They made sure the government was so restricted that they would have a hard time becoming the monstrosity it now is. All these duties that our federal government now oversees were to reside with the States (if state constitutions allowed it). Yes, to you it seem odd that was what they wanted but it does make sense. This would have kept Bush form over stepping his bounds (as some calimed) and it could keep Obama from over stepping his bound as well. I find it to be very ingenious as I think both sides could live in a much more harmonious existence if we better understood our founding fathers vision. But as absolute power corrupts absolutely both side are fighting for a power that was never granted to them by our constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I could spend hours explaining that phrase. let me start with the grammar. I find our founding father grammar skills exceed what is taught by almost any current curriculum. It says they were to collect taxes and duties. Those taxes and duties were to be Impost and Excises. Meaning they were to be import and export taxes, only. And that last line they were to be uniform. Meaning there were no loop wholes and no one was to pay more than another (it indicates Obamas tax plan is unconstitutional).

As to knowing exactly what our founding father envisioned we can get very close. They knew what they had made was fragile and just about every last one had diaries or memoirs as well we have all there debates and speeches plus there is the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. There is enough to come to some very sound conclusions on what they had envisioned.

Now yes they had different circumstance. But remember they were part of the British empire. They thoroughly understood what it was to be a world power. I think we try to discredit them too much. They intentionally avoided certain topics as they intended states and local municipalities to over see those, and not a federal government. For what they knew and understood of despites, tyrants and the monarchies it is amazing what they never ever discuss in the constitution. Either that or they were negligent and irresponsible. But if you read there individual writings, the later is disproven.

April 28th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Todd Kading said:

Oops. here is the spelled checked version of my original post.

Jeremy,

I have read the Constitution. Apparently you have as well since you are able to reference Article One, Section 8. This is the enumirated powers of the Congress of the United States. It is a very concise list of powers. It is not broad or general in any way. Some courts may have interpretted a few of those powers in a broad manner (examples being a few rulings in the 1930s); however, that does not change the fact that the authors of the Constitution were fairly clear in their desire to have a limited Federal Government.

Of course many argue that the Constitution says that the federal government shall provide for ‘the general Welfare of the United States”. Correct, Article I, Section 8 states that the powers of Congree are intended to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This appears to give the Congress an unlimited set of powers to be exercised at whatever political whim decided was the definition of “general welfare”. Obviously to those that research the reasons for the Revolutionary War and the formation of the United States, no one can accrately conclude that the framers of the Constitution would have any interest in granting unlimited powers to any government. This is why the backers of the Constitution gave us a series of essays explaining the Constitution and its intentions.

This is where the “Federalist Papers” help our understanding. In “Federalist No. 41,” James Madison explains that the “general Welfare” clause itself gives absolutely no power to the federal government. It is, Madison explains, just an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow it.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted,” Madison asks, “if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

On top of Madison’s argument, we have the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution; it reaffirms that the federal government may exercise only those powers specifically granted to it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So what we have in the United States is a series of unconstitutional activities that can be traced back to everytime Congress usurped the intent of the Constitution. No where do I see the power to do the following:

- nationalize companies
- hire and fire executives at private firms
- redistribute income from one group to another for no direct gain by the original party
- dictate salaries at private companies
- force private companies to accept government funds
- refuse to let private companies payback those funds

Too big to fail — No where in the Constitution did the framers give the Federal government the mandate to save companies that were “too big to fail.” I don’t even know what that phrase means. No one and no company is too big to fail. That is the natural flow of an economy and business cycle. When one company fails, another has the opportunity to succeed. I have searched and searched and have not found the power for the governement to arbitrarily decide which companies are allowed to fail and which are allowed to succeed. It is not a valid argument to simply say we “can’t let the beast perish. If she does, the ship may not be able to right itself.” Why can’t we let it fail? Why would the ship not right itself? Why is it the government’s job to keep the “ship” upright? Some sight economists that say this is all nessesary. I can sight just as many (if not more) economists that say that government intervention in the economy is more damaging than it is helpful. Either way, it is irrelevant. The government doesn’t have the enumerated power to intervene. This idea of “hands off” capitalism does not lead to a “wormhole” or another “Great Depression”. I recommend that everyone take a look at the work of Milton Friedman. He made a spectacular case that the Federal govenment and the Fed actually caused and prolonged the Great Depression.

Tax issue — Despite what we are told, taxes are going up for everyone. It is unavoidable when the government borrows so much money and promises so many new programs. The taxes may be in the form income taxes, dividends taxes, capital gains taxes, regulatory fees, excise taxes, cap and trade taxes, etc… They will hit everyone in some form or fashion. The biggest tax that is coming is the hidden tax of inflation. You can’t just print money at unprecedented levels and not expect there to be inflation. Believe me it has been tried. The Weimar Republic is a great example of printing money and hyperinflation. Inflation robs from savers and rewards debtors. Basically, the printing of money is encouraging us all to go out and borrow as much money as possible in order to live the high life now; we can then just repay the debt with cheap money later. unfortunately, those that save and those that live on a fixed income get evicerated by inflation.

Debt — Debt is smething that the Congress is allowed to foist upon my children because the power to borrow money is an enumerated power; however, it is being borrowed and then used for items that are unconstitutional. Stop the unconstitutional behavior of our governemnt, and you solve the debt problem for my kids and future grandkids.

In summary — I do not ask anyone to pay my mortgage or my bills. In return, I demand that my income and assets not be seized - by use of governmental force in the form of taxes, debt and inflationary policy - in order to pay someone else’s mortgage and bills. I am a fan of charity; charity can be a good thing for those that provide it voluntarily. When it becomes a government mandate then, by definition, it is no longer charity. We call it theft.

The proper duty of a government is to maintain a society free from aggression, a society in which no human being can can threaten by use of force to take away the liberty or pursuit of freedom and happiness of any other individual. Government all-to-often uses threat of force through excessive taxation and inflationary monetary policy in order to take from one and to give to another. In doing so, it is no longer the referee of a free society, insuring its citizens their personal liberty and freedom. It becomes a forceful advocate for some to the detriment of others. This is morally wrong and is unacceptable in any instance. Theft is theft, whether it is done by an individual or a government. I simply am asking the government to stop stealing.

Thanks,
Todd Kading
http://www.taxpayerteaparty.org

April 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Chad,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’ll either answer your points or cede, one or the other.

1) Referencing us as “Teabaggers” is unfair and derogatory

Cede. I apologize for that. I didn’t know you guys would see it as derogatory. I didn’t know it was that big of a deal. So, sorry for that. I’ll go with Tea Partiers from now on, I suppose.

Regardless of the ideas a politician may offer, they take an oath to the Constitution and must put it ahead of their wonderful ideas.

I suppose, but like I was talking about with Shane, there’s so much that’s not in the Constitution, which appears to give Congress the ability to pass laws and get things done that are not explicitely mentioned in the document. I think the founders probably new that the Constitution would not cover all the bases, so they allowed for the addition of amendments to it and for the passage of new laws, of which, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one.

If you claim that someone is too big to fail, should you not ask how they got that big in the first place?

Absolutely. I think adequate lack of regulation is one reason, and there may be others, not the least of which is lobbying.

However, when the government can’t borrow money, it prints it. When more dollars are printed, each dollar you own and make is worth less. That is a hidden tax. This doesn’t even address the indirect taxes we witness through higher prices on goods that result on taxing upper income earners, businesses, goods, and services.

I’m no economist, but I think you may be lumping actual taxes that show up on our paychecks or at the supermarker in with the economic trends we see when certain conditions are met. We can call it a tax in some way, but our money being worth less isn’t a tax in the traditional sense. The second point doesn’t result in traditional taxes either. If merchants are being taxed more and feel they should charge more for their goods and services, that’s their prerogative, with or without a tax increase. The free market system allows any business to charge whatever it wants. I suppose taxes on higher income businesses or individuals could trickle down to consumersm, but again, that’s more of a theory of economics (or even of one’s own personal business dealings) than an actual tax. In other words, it’s awefully hard to quantify it.

6) Even if some tea partiers have lived beyond their means, you miss the point. No one who has lived beyond their means should force someone else to pay for it.

I agree. I’m not sure if, here, you are thinking about the mortgage crisis or the bailout of banks and automakers, or just credit card debt, this returns to what I feel is the central problem with our economy and the free market: businesses have been, in the past, allowed to balloon to such gigantic proportions that their very failure would mean the very failure of the country’s economy. That’s the hang of it. We have given generally greedy, money-loving people nearly free reign for too long. I wasn’t particularly happy about us forking over billions to rescue these types of folks, but I still contend it was necessary. Step one, as I see it: save their sorry butts. Step two: make damn sure regulations are put in place to put checks on these companies from becoming the giants that got us to this point in the first place. Whether step two happens remains to be seen, I suppose, but that’s the necessary evil, as I see it.

NOT ONE lawmaker read the last bailout bill before it was passed.

Really? How do you know that? I’m not chastising the point, I’m actually curious. How do you know?
RESPONSE:
Jeremy, here is the link to address your last question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

April 28th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Tawnya Wojciechowski said:

Hi All.

I read the very interesting discourse here, and find that while I don’t agree with all, there are some civil minds here. I am an ordinary American citizen who has never been to any protest or rally in all of 43 years on this planet until this tax day - yes, I went to a “anti-tax” rally - we in California have had our taxes raised. I have watched slack-jawed at the events over the past year, and over Rep./Dem. actions, and belive that our American way of life of “work hard, get an education and you can earn money” just won’t exist in another 5-10-20 years. And yes, I am a lawyer (and put myself through school at night), and have watched legislation over legislation come down the pipeline and cannot even figure out what my business clients can do to stay in business. They are getting hammered from the Feds (read: Consumer Protection Saftety Commission new regulations on almost every business -not just that sell children’s products), the new Food Safety Act that has not yet passed but it will, plus many other unknown provisions in the “Stimulus Package”, the state level (Read: California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation - the “Do not Tear Off the Tear Off Tag” on upholstery), to the client that simply wants to open a winery (I just downloaded the 245 page Treasury and Tax compliance provisions to read tonight). It is truly insane. Our businesses are being suffocated, and no one cares.

And the PEOPLE are screaming for more regulation?

My last comment that should find a few friends in all camps. Term limits for Congress. Solves most of the problems.

April 28th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Tawnya Wojciechowski said:

I forgot my comment to Jeremy.

I had a friend send me the Stimulus bill when it was finished, and there was only a couple hours (max) between final print and voting. I only got through a couple hundred “skimmed” pages and I read boring legislation for a living.

Not a single member of Congress could possibly have read the entire bill, start to finish. I’m happy to give you a printout and a three hour hourglass.

Again, term limits on Congress…..

April 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Tawnya,
I don’t see why they would need to read every word on the final print out. You know how it works with legislation and ordinances and what not. One word here, one word there might change, but it’s not as if the act was birthed fresh and anew in one hour and then everyone scrambles to “skim” it within a three-hour window. Now, in all likelihood, many if not most didn’t actually read the entire thing in its prior forms either, and that’s irresponsible (they were likely briefed on it, I suppose), but I don’t think we should pretend that all 1,000-plus pages of content was new news to lawmakers from the get-go. Regardless, we still don’t have proof that “NOT ONE” lawmaker failed to read it. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) claims he read it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Jeremy

April 29th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Mary said:

The tea parties are about the SILENT MAJORITY that have slowly watched our country be taken from us. It began with small things: no nativity scenes in school plays, not Merry Christmas (so offensive) but Happy Holidays, etc, etc for years and years.
Now, the reckless abandon of Congress and the current administration is beyond belief. The stimulus bill, the pork, cap and trade, the global warming hoax, the deliberate destruction of capitalism and our economy, the blatant disregard for our constitution, “A nation of citzens”, not Christians, the NYC flyover that terrorized many (what was that all about???), and on and on. We the people of this great country can scarcely belief what is happening. We speak out for the first time and are branded RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS. So be it. We are here to take our country back.
Yes, it may appear hard to define what the tea parties are about but in reality so simple…Stop the government insanity, remember our Constitution (based on Christianity) and LISTEN to the people. We have a voice. Do not ignore us!!

April 29th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Jeremy Styron said:

Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to write. Here are a few comments I had:

Give the government new and sweeping influence in our lives because we petulantly refuse to face our own problems as ones that we created for ourselves? This feels good and correct to you? To me this feels fundamentally wrong.

The administration was (is) attempting to right the ship that had sailed far, far off course, due, in part, to ignored economic concerns (like subprime mortgages) spawned in prior administrations, to a lack of common sense on the part of borrowers (taking loans they can’t afford), to a lack of common ethics on the part of lenders and to a lack of prudence by heads of banks, insurance companies and automakers … and that’s the annotated list. We could have done nothing, but the auto industry would have failed and huge players in the banking industry would have failed. How could the economy have possibly carried on had those two industries, by and large, went under? How would have have affected our lives? How would that have affected the world economy? I don’t think anyone would admit they are pleased with having to apply such an overhaul to the economy, but would have doing nothing sent us into an irreversible economy spiral? I don’t know, but is it worth taking the risk because we don’t like the idea? And on the issue of whether it is Constitution, one could argue it is because Congress is able to pass bills AND is charged with providing for the “general Welfare” of the country.

Ask your parents if Credit cards existed when they were in their youth.

Probably not, but home loans certainly did. Few middle class or lower middle class families are (or were) able to purchase their homes in straight cash. If credit in some form did not exist, a lot of people would be out of luck. Debt has been around for centuries. It isn’t a new thing. American history is filled with business men, farmers and financiers who were buried under debt.

“The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty. The faith of America has been repeatedly pledged for it… Among ourselves, the most enlightened friends of good government are those whose expectations of prompt payment are the highest. To justify and preserve their confidence; to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources, both to agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the Union of the States; to add to their security against foreign attack; to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy; these are the great and invaluable ends to be secured by a proper and adequate provision, at the present period, for the support of public credit.”

Alexander Hamilton, 1790, First Report on the Public Credit

Public debt is a fact of life. The U.S. has had debt since its inception. Our records show that debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War amounted to $75,463,476.52 by January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew.

Notably, the public debt actually shrank to zero on January 8, 1835, under President Andrew Jackson. But soon after, it quickly grew into the millions again. … — U.S. Dept. of Treasury

… but I have yet to hear one specific concrete plan as to how we are going to pay for all of this. I ask you, how are we going to pay for this? How do we solve a debt problem by tripling its size?

We don’t. We pay for it by either the Treasury borrowing money (apparently its already borrowed about $1.5 trillion, maybe more by now) or the Federal Reserve issues new money. That’s how. Of course, of the latter, it’s a matter of riding the tight rope between not having enough money in the economy or having too much, leading to inflation. But the problem we are trying to solve is not debt; it’s dilapidated infrastructure, failed industries. It’s a decades of ignoring flaws in the economy like lack of adequate regulations that could have been addressed long ago.

When my son turns to me as an adult and says “why did you let them do this?”

You won’t have to apologize to him. At best, the lawmakers or Obama should (if, as you say, such a frightening scenario, as you portray it) comes about.

I thank you for your comments at the end. Unlike those who posted here dismissing my comments because they didn’t like what I had to say, you and a few others took the time to confront the issues, and it means a lot toward a meaningful discussion. As I told Chad, my apologies for the tea baggers thing. I didn’t know it wasn’t acceptable and was derogatory.

As for how to widen the audience on this topic, I’m not sure there is a wider audience than national TV, but of course, once it gets to the talking heads, all hell breaks lose, as you know. There are worthy news outlets that may be willing to entertain such an honest and spin-less dialogue, like PBS or NPR. Other than that, I would say get the word out and get more folks here. I’m more than happy to continue the discussion personally and could, perhaps, drag some more folks over here to engage with you guys.

April 29th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Rafi said:

Jeremy,
“I’m no economist, but I think you may be lumping actual taxes that show up on our paychecks or at the supermarker in with the economic trends we see when certain conditions are met. We can call it a tax in some way, but our money being worth less isn’t a tax in the traditional sense.”

It is effectively a tax. If you make $1000 and the govt taxes 10% you are left with $900, and your purchasing power is diminished because of the tax. If inflation makes your $1000 worth the equivalent of $900, it’s the same thing. But inflation is even worse because incomes go up so people look at their paycheck and say wow, I am making $1300! But if they adjusted for inflation they would really only be making $900. So inflation lulls people into a sense of wealth that they don’t really possess, whereas everyone readily recognizes the loss in purchasing power when a new tax is added. Clearly, inflationary measures are preferred by governments to pay off their debts. It evokes less immediate public outrage than raising taxes. Just because “tax” isn’t included in the spelling of “inflation” doesn’t change the underlying reality that both reduce the purchasing power of individuals.

“If merchants are being taxed more and feel they should charge more for their goods and services, that’s their prerogative, with or without a tax increase. The free market system allows any business to charge whatever it wants.”

It’s not really a question of merchants ‘feeling’ like they should charge more or ‘feeling’ like they should charge less. If you raise taxes on businesses it is more difficult for them to make payroll, retain and/or hire workers. Furthermore, raising the taxes on business increases the cost of production, which will inevitably effect consumer prices. It’s a matter of when, not if. Cap and trade is now being recognized for what it is, a tax that will cause energy prices for everyone to go up! This is basic stuff.

If you want to get to the bottom of this it is useful to look at the Federal Reserve system. We don’t have a free market in interest rates or money supply. The Fed controls the price of credit, and thus the explosion of debt. The Fed buys Treasuries, it loans money to banks, etc. The scale of this economic collapse could not have occurred without the aid of a central bank. Of course D.C. will blame it on a lack of regulation - it makes them look like the good guys coming to save the day. In reality it is this quasi-government institution that controls the money supply and expands/contracts credit at will. Wall St. and Americans in general took the money and went nuts with it, but who gave them the easy money in the first place?

The sub-prime crisis was partially a result of liberal ideologues who believed that every American should own a home - regardless of the standards of lending (and thus of risk) created by the marketplace.

It is a misconception that the USA really operates on free market principles and that is what caused this collapse. Lobbyists/corruption in D.C., and the Federal Reserve allow for huge corporations and speculative bubbles. Was it lack of regulation that led to GM and Chrysler becoming bankrupt? Or was it the result of negotiations between workers and management? How come no one plays the ‘lack of regulation’ card when it comes to those companies and the billions we have thrown at them?

It bothers me that people blame these events on capitalism and the free market when in reality the USA is a mixed economy with a central bank and lobbyists up the wazoo.

April 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Need a light? Have a cow! at Our Daily Train | A blog by Jeremy Styron said:

[...] have been away from my blog for a few days, debating people at this site over my commentary, found here. One of the Web site’s organizers was gratious enough to invite to compose a guest blog on [...]

April 29th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Peter beale said:

I think you and I are in agreement on something - I too believe that the current adminstration is trying desperately to right the ship that previous adminstrations have torpedoed (sp?)I am just not happy with the method. It is easy to dismiss the debt because of our past, but we are talking about spending levels to a rate of GDP that are going to blow the previous WWII highs away. Your explanation of everything being fine as long as the money supply is being tweaked properly by the FED is way too simple even for someone as unsophisticated as me. You have to take in the fact that we are no longer on the gold standard and our money is only worth anything as long as those who loan it to us by buying treasuries have faith in our ability to pay it back. So I ask again, just like the Chinese are asking in more and more urgent tones lately, how are we going to pay it back?
(putting on Tin foil hat now)
If the only goal of this spending bill was to simply stabilize the economy and put it on a better footing then I must seriously question how it is being spent. For example, why is there zero spending on small business? I dont think anyone can argue the fact that small business is the greatest engine for growth our country has, yet we see no programs to create, promote, or even aid small business. The biggest spending bill of all time and the Small Business Administration is left in the cold. Huh? Why nothing but token tax credits for small biz capital spending? With the amount of money we are talking we could cut a check for a half a million dollars to every double digit employer in the country - and still have spent less.

Frankly I think your use of Alexander Hamilton was fairly telling. He endorsed heavy government debt because he endorsed heavy government. In my mind that is pretty much what is happening here. Where are the quotes from Jefferson, Jackson, or Washington in support of government indebtedness. Plus don’t forget what the Hamilton quote says “…friends of good government are those whose expectations of prompt payment are the highest” I am worried that those who are now giving us this credit are NOT our friends, and their expectations of prompt payment are now in doubt, and I really don’t think this spending does a good job “to promote the increasing respectbility of the American name”.
I’m sorry Jeremy, but it is my opinion that we are a ship that has taken a tube below the waterline. I think the Fed has signalled all speed ahead in an attempt to make a run to our destination - instead I think we should be manning the life gear and looking for a nice sandbar to ground this sucker.
You and I are forever going to disagree on this I am afraid. If you want to comment great but I don’t want to dominate this and I think old Rafi here might give you a good run for your money, I am looking forward to your response. Tell you what, my e-mail is bealepeter@gmail.com at the end of the term if you can make a convincing argument that things are fundmentally better I will apologize and send you a nice wine. If I am right, then we will all have more important things to worry about than this argument. Heck, you can come to Florida and stay at the compound - I am gonna build one of those sweet Madd Maxx Dune Buggies….

April 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Jeremy Styron said:

Rafi,
Some comments:

But inflation is even worse because incomes go up so people look at their paycheck and say wow, I am making $1300! But if they adjusted for inflation they would really only be making $900.

Sure, but inflation doesn’t take place automatically. It seems to be a gradual process based on numerous factors. So it can’t be said that on the day the Fed creates new money or the government creates some tax break that inflation immediately happens and the person suddenly thinks he has $1,300, when he, in fact, has $900. And, as another point, I don’t know that the discrepancy would be that large.

I agree that taxes on businesses will trickle down to consumers, but we have some quite low taxes compared to many developed countries.

On your point about cap and trade, I would rather energy prices go up for all of us than to continue to see the ice caps melt and climate change (I hope you at least think climate change is a real concern.) get even worse.

The scale of this economic collapse could not have occurred without the aid of a central bank. Of course D.C. will blame it on a lack of regulation - it makes them look like the good guys coming to save the day.

So, are you’re arguing that this whole thing is a scheme by the Fed to make the government look good or just a tactical error that it made interest rates too low (to encourage borrowing) and the Fed is recanting, blaming it on a lack of regulations? But I don’t think this thing can be blamed on a singular source, even if you try to argue it originated in one place. The fact still remains that lenders and borrowers were both irresponsible, the lenders, perhaps more so, since they were in a position to see the bigger picture. They are supposed to be the professionals, after all, at least in the case of the mortgage crisis.

The sub-prime crisis was partially a result of liberal ideologues who believed that every American should own a home - regardless of the standards of lending (and thus of risk) created by the marketplace.

Partially, perhaps, but that’s as far as we can go. Again, numerous factors contributed to it. Lenders felt they could get a sweet deal, borrowers thought they could get an affordable loan, a spec home developers thought they could just throw up thousands of homes and sell them lickity-split. And with all that money being tossed about to borrowers who couldn’t afford it, spec developers could sell, to a point.

Was it lack of regulation that led to GM and Chrysler becoming bankrupt?

No, it was probably because they make inferior cars (and have for years) and had idiots running the show. I don’t play the lack of regulation card with the automakers because that bunch is clearly incompetent (You have to be to fly into D.C. on a private jet, all the while knowing that soon you will appear before lawmakers and plead for money to bailout your incompetent arse!)

It bothers me that people blame these events on capitalism and the free market when in reality the USA is a mixed economy with a central bank and lobbyists up the wazoo.

The Fed is a group of banks, not just one bank, and comprises numerous private member banks across the country. We can blame the collapse on any number of factors, deregulation being one part. But there’s also mismanagement, tactical errors, as stated earlier, or sheer greed by people in power. Take your pick. But I don’t know how anyone can say it’s skewed to one or two issues like liberal idealogy or the central banking system.

May 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Rafi said:

“Sure, but inflation doesn’t take place automatically. It seems to be a gradual process based on numerous factors.”

Yes but that doesn’t change the ultimate source or the end results.

“So, are you’re arguing that this whole thing is a scheme by the Fed to make the government look good or just a tactical error that it made interest rates too low (to encourage borrowing) and the Fed is recanting, blaming it on a lack of regulations?”

I’m not saying there is a conspiracy, but there are special interests at work and at the very least there seems to be a consensus that a tactical error was made. There are also structural, fundamental problems with fiat currency and government power that I suggest you investigate. The fact that the Fed is recanting means little to me because we don’t have a free market so it’s pointless to blame the crisis on free markets.

“But I don’t think this thing can be blamed on a singular source, even if you try to argue it originated in one place.”

Good point, there is plenty of blame to go around. Nevertheless the severity and scope of the bubble is tied to the looseness of money supply, which is a result of Federal Reserve monetary policy. So in my opinion the greatest generator of risk and moral hazard is the Fed. Do away with them and the bubble would not be anywhere near as devastating.

“And with all that money being tossed about to borrowers who couldn’t afford it, spec developers could sell, to a point.”

Yup I agree and where did that money - or debt - come from?

“Was it lack of regulation that led to GM and Chrysler becoming bankrupt?
No, it was probably because they make inferior cars (and have for years) and had idiots running the show.”

Yes I agree but don’t you think the union is at least partially to blame by demanding higher wages and benefits? Why isn’t Honda facing a similar crisis? And since you agree lack of regulation wasn’t the issue, why should we be bailing them out? It wasn’t a market failure, the automotive bailout is sadly a political issue.

“The Fed is a group of banks, not just one bank, and comprises numerous private member banks across the country. … I don’t know how anyone can say it’s skewed to one or two issues like liberal idealogy or the central banking system.”

The Federal Reserve bank is the central banking system of the USA and comprises numerous private member banks. The main central bank is itself private in that it doesn’t fully disclose its balance sheet or monetary policy. I never said that the blame is skewed to one or two issues, but there are root causes. Moral hazards created by government intervention are the root causes. Primarily the easing of credit by the central bank, but additionally the political agenda of putting subprime borrowers in homes created a deadly mix. Everything else is simply after the fact.

May 6th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Our forward-thinking Founders at Our Daily Train | A blog by Jeremy Styron said:

[...] The book’s conclusion, which included a brief explanation or thesis about how the axioms presented in the U.S. Constitution fit into and implicate how we conduct business as a nation in modern times. It’s conclusion reminded me of a discussion I had with (seemingly) the entire bloc of Tea Party supporters, of which, that post can be found here. [...]

June 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Alonzo said:

I must ask, \Where were these so called \Patriots\ when Georgey and his band of NEOCON Religious Right-Wing Republicans were trashing our Contitutional Rights and Privacy, sticking the Government’s nose in matters that belonged to the individual or their families and spending money like there was no tomorrow?\ Sorry Tea Baggers, you are just another arm of the hypocritical Right-Wing. I see no difference between you and the Radical Left-Wingers. If you can’t be a part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem. I recall that Right-Wingers often called those who disagreed with them \Unpatriotic\. When I see some of the people in the Tea Baggers demonstrations using vulgar signs and pictures to degrade those with whom they disagree, well I just see an unhappy and prejudicial mob. A video of a Tea Bagger trying to strike down a females’ opposing sign speaks volumes of the the anger and hate your group tolerates and thereby condones. The old saying of the 60’s comes to mind, \America, Love It or Leave It!!\

September 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm