Articles on the Tea Parties
Here's a few interesting articles about yesterday's tea parties across the country.
I'll have more to say about the Tea Parties in my weekly Ezine next week. I already have this week's pretty well ready to go. Commenting later, after the passion has blown past, will enable a more reflective and (hopefully) productive outlook.
Know this--the problem is not one party over another, it is the interaction of both parties. The issue is not that taxes are too high. The issue is either we spend too much for the taxes we collect, we are not collecting the taxes we owe, and/or the taxes we collect are too low for the services we demand.
Meanwhile, enjoy the articles.
Here is one from Common Dreams.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/16-2
Here is what the NY Times had to say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16taxday.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Here's some commentary from CNN. I'm tempted to comment on this, but I'm on deadline and need to finish this. Read it now and remember it. I'll comment later.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/feehery.budget.questions/index.html
Media Matters corrects analysis concerning a Gallup Poll result.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904160024?f=h_latest
I'll have more to say about the Tea Parties in my weekly Ezine next week. I already have this week's pretty well ready to go. Commenting later, after the passion has blown past, will enable a more reflective and (hopefully) productive outlook.
Know this--the problem is not one party over another, it is the interaction of both parties. The issue is not that taxes are too high. The issue is either we spend too much for the taxes we collect, we are not collecting the taxes we owe, and/or the taxes we collect are too low for the services we demand.
Meanwhile, enjoy the articles.
Here is one from Common Dreams.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/16-2
Here is what the NY Times had to say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16taxday.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Here's some commentary from CNN. I'm tempted to comment on this, but I'm on deadline and need to finish this. Read it now and remember it. I'll comment later.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/feehery.budget.questions/index.html
Media Matters corrects analysis concerning a Gallup Poll result.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200904160024?f=h_latest
Posted by Larry Bradley at 4/16/2009 2:12 PM 
Categories: Politics, Fiscal Prudence
Tags: Bailouts Tea Parties President Obama Tea Party
Categories: Politics, Fiscal Prudence
Tags: Bailouts Tea Parties President Obama Tea Party
Larry,
I have one major pet peeve,and that is when someone presumes to speak for me. You know, try to put their words in my mouth.
That's my sense when I look at the four articles you present here. Considering the sources you chose, I doubt if any of the authors actually attended one of the tea parties. What that means to me is these articles are at best second hand accounts presented from the author's idealogical perspective. Where is an account from an actual participant?
I attended a local tea party on April 15. It was very different from how I see the tea parties described in most of the media, or in these four articles.
There appeared to be two organizers for the event. One organizer was the wife of a military man at a nearby Air Force Base. The second main contributor was a retired former city councilman. My sense was that the military wife had done most of the organizing.
The attendees were respectful, peaceful, and sometimes angry. I didn't see any extremists or wackos. Just regular people concerned enough to stand on concrete for two hours. The overriding concern was the general incompetence of our national government and the seemingly unlimited spending being proposed. There was anger toward the Bush Administration for starting it and the Obama Administration for making it worse.
The concerns were about bailouts for banks and Wall Street, the huge questionable stimulus package, and plans for huge spending for new programs based on ideology.
The big question is how do we pay for all of that? There is no good answer to that question.
Some sources, like the Media Matters article, parse whether current taxes are too high. Or I hear that 95% are getting tax cuts. What the tax structure is now is beside the point. The point is the future effect of the increased spending.
By the way, if the Bush administration was so bad on spending, wouldn't a fiscally responsible response be to offset that with prudent spending?
I know, we hear that the spending is necessary to avoid catastrophe, provide stimulus, increase this or reduce that. For many of us who have to make hard decisions on our personal budgets, that is just not believable. We want our elected officials to set priorities and make the hard decisions, too.
If anyone wants to know more about the tea parties, I would be happy to respond.
Just my opinion
Reply to this
Jim,
Always appreciate your input.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Here is a link to the column by Robert Nelson, who was at the tea party in Omaha.
If you want to keep this article, my advice is to print it out or write down the url. The Omaha World Herald makes it hard to find their articles the day after publication.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10612305
Larry
Reply to this
Larry,
I wrote: "I attended a local tea party on April 15. It was very different from how I see the tea parties described in most of the media..........".
That reference to media also applies to columnist Robert Nelson.
Later I wrote: "The concerns were about bailouts for banks and Wall Street, the huge questionable stimulus package, and plans for huge spending for new programs based on ideology.
The big question is how do we pay for all of that? There is no good answer to that question."
Let's skip the side issues ans talk about the big question.
Reply to this
Jim wrote this other comment and I may have inadvertantly deleted it. I have been having problems with spam postings to my comments section. Used to be I only got it in the form of trackbacks, which I deleted. Now I'm getting it in the comments. I apologize and I'm deleting them as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, here is Jim's latest comments.
Larry,
You may have missed my main point concerning the articles. There are at least two sides of opinion about the tea parties. One side, that you presented, presents the negative view of the protests and the protesters. Much of the media, including Robert Nelson, joined in this view. You've heard about it, the media bias thing.
Another view is that of the great majority of the attendees, that government is broken and spending is out of control big-time. That side of the discussion was what was lackiing here.
On new programs based on ideology, you could start with the recent $787,000,000,000 stimulus package. Any open-minded observer can see what is actually for stimulus and what is new spending for the politicians.
Another example of ideology spending is the upcoming discussions on the new budget. We will be able to watch this unfold in the coming days and weeks on C-SPAN. For those who object to out-of-control spending, if you didn't like what the last administration spent, you will hate the new administration's plans. It will water your eyes.
The tea parties were about average people coming together in frustration over the performance of our government. Who knows what will become of it. It seems to me that there is a silent majority out here waking up to finally speak their mind.
Some will say that this is a case of the herds being psychologically manipulated by outside forces, like political parties, special interests, big business, etc. For those who accept that theory, and are critical thinkers, the oppposite must be considered, that opposition to the tea parties is manipulation driven by political parties, special interests, etc.
The trick is for each of us to look at our world with open eyes, and then support what we believe is the truth.
About the big question, which is how do we pay for it all? There are some who consider themselves fiscally responsible, who are reasonable and smart and involved, who do not seem to be bothered with the implications of the gigantic spending proposals. I do not understand how that could be. Can someone explain that contradiction to me?
Just my opinion
Reply to this