When will the Republicans recover from Bush?

[SH3RL0CK]

When will the Republicans present their detailed budget plan with numbers,

Considering how BOTH parties spend, spend, and spend some more, what is the point of a budget which will not be even remotely close to the actual financials at the end of it all?

 

I, for one, commend the Republicans for at least being honest and clearly stating by their actions that Congress (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) has lost all financial restraint.

[padren]

As far as "spend spend spend" goes any tax cut is spending and not "giving people their money back" for as long as the national debt has any balance at all. So when I hear any republican talk about a "tax cut" I hear "stimulus spending" by another name, just a less honest one.

[jackson33]

 

The link you shared is the exact document we've been criticizing for lack of detail and specifics.

 

Seriously, they may as well have written it using crayon and construction paper.

 

I suppose your looking for a Republican version, (Plan) similar the the proposed 'US 2010 Budget' which is an Executive obligation, a proposed budget for the operation of government. There won't be one and this is not the responsibility or obligation of either Party in Congress. They both, the Republicans and Democrats can propose amending/changes/altering or refuse to accept as offered, in total. The executive in turn can revise there plan, make changes and resubmit to Congress. They (Congress) refused to accept (tabled) the Bush budget for 2009, offering no explanation, funding government operations for the duration of his term, with out a budget...

 

Both sides the isle, in the current debate are questioning the 2010 proposal and will go through the process, neither submitting a formal budget to compare. I don't know any other way to explain the process or what your want to see and the arguments for change are well documented, whether in crayon, use of 'White Faces or circles'..............IMO.

 

 

Neither party is standing on high ground, with regards to fiscal responsibility.

Both playing politics and probably fearing a backlash from any perceived cuts in the Obama Budget. As I recall, an accusation was made on NASA, NSA or programs in the name of science, which Obama was said to increase and is just not true.

[SH3RL0CK]

When will the Republicans present their detailed budget plan with numbers, does anyone know?

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/budget_battle_r.html

 

I am looking forward to the details when they become available; though I still belief in my previous statement that all government budgets are artificial "wish lists" and have little bearing on the actual financials of the government. Not that this matters, the Democrats are currently running the show and until their unity breaks and/or poll numbers drop significantly (both of which will almost certainly happen at some point...) they will be pushing their agenda without any inclination for compromise.

[ParanoiA]

When will the Republicans present their detailed budget plan with numbers, does anyone know?

 

Still don't know, but I thought this bit was interesting...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/01/house-republicans-stimulus-repeal-budget-plan/

 

The GOP plan also proposes major changes to the tax code. It would allow taxpayers to either file under the current system or choose a simpler option: Individuals earning $50,000 or less, and couples earning $100,000 or less, would be taxed at 10 percent. The rate for income above $100,000 would be 25 percent.

 

Still no real detail, but if I apply the above to my income taxes this year, I'd have paid double. As it stands, I got money back. I paid about 5% or less in taxes, and I'm plenty over the median income for the nation. This is under the Bush tax code, I presume. That's awfully progressive for someone with my income to owe so little - the rich must be getting soaked here.

[Mr Skeptic]

The problem with that suggested tax idea is that it is stupid. For example, people would prefer to earn $99,999.99 than $120,000.00. For another, it penalizes people who have dependent children compared to the current system (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but to suddenly change to such would be catastrophic).

 

The idea in that article of a non-defense spending is as cute as Democrats not in power demanding a defense spending freeze.

[ParanoiA]

The problem with that suggested tax idea is that it is stupid. For example, people would prefer to earn $99,999.99 than $120,000.00. For another, it penalizes people who have dependent children compared to the current system (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but to suddenly change to such would be catastrophic).

 

Actually, I heard some republican talking about this on the radio, and he made it clear that the intent was to tax the first $100,000 at 10%, and anything over at 25%. So people will still rather earn $120,000 over $99,999.99.

 

That said, there may be some other detail on dependent status too. I don't know. I hope not, though, because it shouldn't matter. Your verbiage is questionable to me: Penalizes? Or rather, refuses to grant special privilege? I get what you're trying to say though, but I don't agree with any notion that choosing to have kids earns one more right to their property than some single person has to theirs.

 

I have two kids and I don't deserve more of a break than my neighbor who has none. Sure I like it. And I'll keep claiming it while all of you single people out there take a screwing over it by making up the difference I don't pay.

 

Thanks all, and sorry, but it's not my idea.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, OK then the system is not that crazy. As for the deduction for dependents (or rather lack thereof), I said the change would penalize parents compared to the current system and that suddenly changing to it would be disastrous (because suddenly many parents may not have enough money to do anything if they were counting on these deductions).

 

Having no deductions for dependents does not so much penalize the parent as it does the dependent (whose "income" is taxed as part of the head of household's income, rather than at the lower level). Alternately, if you consider like a business, children could be considered an expense and taxes ought to be on profit not on revenue. It all depends on how you look at it.

[jackson33]

Still don't know, but I thought this bit was interesting...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/01/house-republicans-stimulus-repeal-budget-plan/

 

Still no real detail, but if I apply the above to my income taxes this year, I'd have paid double. As it stands, I got money back. I paid about 5% or less in taxes, and I'm plenty over the median income for the nation. This is under the Bush tax code, I presume. That's awfully progressive for someone with my income to owe so little - the rich must be getting soaked here.

 

The way I read it; Any couple making 100k can either pay a FLAT 10% rate or up to 10k (another means to EZ Forms) or use deductions where taxes are paid on what bracket you end up in.

 

Example; A person earning 50k, using EZ would pay 5k or given the Standard deduction. In order to equal that 5k due, filing with deductions he/she would have end up with a taxable amount (after deductions) of about 36,500 (using 2008 brackets and tax. Most filers would be better off filing with deductions and I am sure both Capital Gains & Dividend income would eliminate using the Standard deduction, as it currently does.

 

Mr. Skeptic; As today up to 100k for a couple would be 10k and then 25% on any amount over 100k. Since not mandatory to take the Standard Deduction, there is no discrimination. So much already depends on what deductions are available. If you and your wife earn a total of 120k per year, do not own a home or have many deductible expense, that 15k tax debt, could sound very appealing. Today tax on brackets over 32550 are 25% having already owed 4k on the 32K. So if your Gross Adjusted income was 90k, most likely under the above scenario, you would owe 18788, saving 3788.00.

 

Keep in mind no one is talking about payroll taxes, which are neither deductible or counted in income are based from the first dollar earned up to 97k per PERSON. So if you and your wife earned 120k, neither over 97k, you or your employer had already paid about 19k in taxes, if self employed all by you if both employed no less than 9k.

 

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

[bascule]

I'm sure Pangloss dislikes me pasting some Rachel Maddow stuff, but:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30145811#30145811

 

The Republicans (and Fox News) are organizing a "teabagging" protest of the Democrats' budget.

 

Is this a joke or have we just stepped into bizzaro world?

[ParanoiA]

The Republicans (and Fox News) are organizing a "teabagging" protest of the Democrats' budget.

 

I couldn't watch the vid, but that's bullshit. Mailing tea bags in protest to the spending is a nonpartisan effort that's been building up for months. In fact, we were talking about how none of the news media was covering it. Apparently Fox is claiming credit, or trying to hijack the cause, I don't know.

 

I will be attending a tea party here in KC and I can't wait. I hope to get a chance to roast your president and the previous occupant as well.

 

 

Edit: Ok, so now I've watched the vid and I'm pissed. Fox has hijacked and soiled what was an honest message. They just outright stole it, branded it with FNC and I guess Glenn Beck's going to host their illusion. The republicans are going to act like they're a part of this and soil the remaining honesty in whatever's leftover of the message. Let me be clear: Glenn Beck is insane. The 912 project is my evidence.

 

This is also too focused on Obama. I know we don't need another chance to blame Bush for something, but Bush and the congress began this entire landslide with their drunken spending.

 

Oh and great reporting MSNBC, how the hell do you stay in business? I love how they alluded to the movement being non-partisan, after about 5 minutes into it, finally pointing out how Steele was rejected the chance to speak. This is more of a Ron Paul crowd folks. A libertarian thing. There have been conservatives mixed in from the beginning, but this is not driven by Bush republicanism.

Edited April 11, 2009 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

I guess Rachel Maddow omitted noting why "teabagging" is funny, assuming her audience would know. Her entire report is effectively an inside joke that only people who understand the colloquial definition of "teabagging"

 

If you are not easily offended and would like to know the answer, click here:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging

[ParanoiA]

Actually she did joke about that toward the end.

[bascule]

Actually she did joke about that toward the end.

 

Yes,

 

The entire report implicitly touches upon the topic that the Republicans are out of touch (although I find it hilarious that they want people to teabag Obama through Twitter)

 

I can't help but interpret it the same way through your response... I have nothing against trying to allegorically protest evoking the theme of the Boston tea party. "Teabagging" was just a terribly poor choice of words, given its colloquialism... Rachel Maddow's report, which does not directly introduce the intended interpretation, perhaps flies right over the heads of anyone who isn't familiar of how out-of-touch the people they're criticizing are.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't know what teabagging is. I mean, I suppose older folks might not know, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

 

Other than that, I just thought it was an inevitable term. When mailing tea bags as a protest, it's only a matter of seconds before someone thinks of the humor in 'teabagging' and it naturally follows that would be the shortcut term when referring to it - who wouldn't love the duplicate meaning in that phrase? It just fits nicely. I guess I just thought that was obvious.

 

I'm not thinking it's Fox news and the tea bag protest that's out of touch here. Sounds to me like Rachel is slow to the draw, just realized the funny, and then does a report on it as if it never occured to the organizers.

[jackson33]

There is a 'Boston Tea Party', Party and was on several State ballots in 2008, but don't think affiliated with this movement. This appears to be self organized (grassroots) from many locations, gaining strength from local to now National coverage, including Fox. Point being their objection is taxation as a pending result of current and planned spending...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/tax-day-tea-party-planned-to-protest-government-spending-78505.html?showComments=true

 

Just one of thousands of articles, ALL claiming no political affiliation to any party, in particular the Republicans. Democratic pundits are trying to place it as Republican Protest against Obama and some individuals trying to jump on board for whatever reason. Roger Ailes, head of Fox News Channel and several commentators are known Conservatives and it would follow they cover a story compatible to their philosophy. However they have covered Democrat Conventions, Million Man March and other events as news stories, they may not agree with. I think you'll find every major newspaper in the US has been covering some aspects and will cover local events on 4/15, 7/4 and Beck's 9/12 may draw legs from these outcomes.

 

Side note; Rush Limbaugh has been preaching for a couple years (since 2006 Democrat taking Congress) that Republicans to become a viable party again, must begin at the local level. Winning City elections, State Houses mayors and then back to the Federal Congress, which he feels has been ignored, since the 1994 victories.

[Pangloss]

Sure, because he think the Republican platform is just fine the way it is. He thinks the only problem is the lack of grassroots support. On the second point he's not even wrong -- with sufficient support from the religious right John McCain would be in the White House right now.

 

Of course, I happen to think he's entirely wrong on the first point, and that the religious right is best serving the country when it is sitting quietly at home stewing about lost opportunities. But hey, that's me.

[bob000555]

I believe I’ve posted prognostication on this board regarding not when but if the republican party will rise agene; and I think there is a fair chance that the answer is no. My reasoning begins with some personal experience; I was in third grade in 2000 when Bush “won” the election. I therefore have only some vague memories of the Lewinsky scandal, most of my formative political memories are of Bush’s actions of varying degrees of stupidity, deceitfulness and open blissful ignorance. Not surprisingly I have grown to be a solid democrat and when I come of voting age before the next election I would have a hard bringing my self to vote for a republican candidate weather he/she is Palin, Pawlenty, Romney or someone else. If the republicans thought the “young people” where tough on them in the last election they have another thing coming next time; my peers who grew up with Bush are probably the most solidly democratic generation since the hippies. (P.S Michal Steel’s “hip-hopification” of the republicans wont help)

 

The division within the republican party itself isn’t going to help either. As I see it there is a deep rift in the party between economic conservatives and social conservatives. The party, which was historically based on fiscal conservatism. has for quite along time(since Reagan inserted an antiabortion plank in his platform for purely political reasons to be specific) been hijacked by socially conservative bible belters. The two types of conservatives are increasingly becoming strange bedfellows. The two are increasingly relying on different people for leadership; Palin and Ron Paul respectively. Neither side seems to have any qualm about being openly critical of the other with Paul calling his opponents not true conservatives and Palin claiming her opponents aren’t “real Americans”. I can only foresee the two side feuding more under the pressure of the next primary.

 

The republican party over the last eight years has shaped itself into the party of ignorance, ideological rigidity, exclusion and reactionaryism, an image not easily broken in four years. I therefore predict the two sides of republican party feuding on a massive scale in the 2012 primary, much like Clinton and Obama in 2008 but this time there will be significant ideological differences between the two feuding parties. This feud will be one that will not easily be settled by the time the general elections roll around and , in combination with the “youth problem” and the parties image problem, the republicans will lose. The feud still going on and both sides blaming each other for the loss the republican party will tear itself apart. The resulting parties will be the crude uneducated hyper-populist party of Sarah Palin and the ideologically rigid libertarian party of Ron Paul which will be mush like the republicans before the incorporation of the social conservatives. Neither side will be able to garner enough support to beat the democrats and will vanish into obscurity leaving a power vacuum to be filled by a new opposition party to the democrats.

 

Before you pooh-pooh this please view this thread:

http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.700341/browse_thread/thread/d21b6732da54b129?hl=en

Where I correctly predict many events of the recession before the recession even got started.

edit: i am the one going by chris.resnick... in the above google finance thread

[The Bear's Key]

Boston Tea Party?

 

If only the modern "conservatives" would meet the older Tea Party era of Founding Fathers, they might be vocally informed/reminded of the Boston Tea Party's main goal....

 

No taxation without representaion.

 

Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay".

 

And they might be scolded about neglecting a duty to fund the system with resources necessary to keep established a Government by the People, For the People.

 

Then, after the scolding, our nation's forefathers might continue....

 

Anyone who'd preach such neglect might be thinking to remove your freedom by getting you to accept weak logic. Now, responsible spending by the government is essential -- thus you'll need to monitor waste, corruption, and budget trickery. And finally, you'll want to beware secrecy in government: it's the only way they'd be able to escape notice in wasting your much hard-earned tax money.

 

Would the time voyagers heed the lesson and wisdom imparted by our forefathers? Stay tuned...

 

 

P.S.

 

Also, did the voyagers learn that merchants back in the birth of our nation had already fought the battle against a central government, and lost it? Well I'm not sure how long (or if) the voyagers had stuck around to explore the original 13 states. You gotta ask them.

 

 

P.P.S.

 

When researching some of our nation's early mixed views, I see that perhaps government isn't necessarily too big....it just might've overstepped some bounds. And I think we're able to reach a compromise, for the two views to be reconciled. There are merits to in both the original schools of thought.

 

 

http://history-world.org/history_of_the_united_states2.htm

In the Revolution, most locals had served in militias rather than in the national army, and they preserved a localist, rather than nationalist, view of politics. They also preserved a distrust of any government not subject to direct oversight by citizens.

 

.....

 

In September 1786 delegates from several states met at Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss ways to improve American trade. They decided instead, with the backing of the Confederation Congress, to call a national convention to discuss ways of strengthening the Union. In May 1787, 55 delegates (representing every state but Rhode Island, whose legislature had voted not to send a delegation) convened in Philadelphia and drew up a new Constitution of the United States.

 

.....

 

Thus the Constitution carefully separated and defined the powers of the three branches of the national government and of the national and state governments. It established checks and balances between the branches—and put it all in writing. The stated purpose of the document was to make a strong national government that could never become tyrannical.

 

.....

 

The Confederation Congress sent the completed Constitution out for ratification by state conventions elected for that purpose—and not by state legislatures, many of which were hostile to the new document. Thus the Constitution—which began "We the people"—created a government with the people, and not the state legislatures, as the constituent power.

 

.....

 

Opponents of the Constitution, who called themselves Anti–Federalists, were locals who feared a strong national government that would be run by educated and wealthy cosmopolitans who operated far away from most citizens. They were particularly distrustful of a Constitution that lacked a bill of rights protecting citizens from government attacks on their liberties.

 

.....

 

The new national government was dominated by men who had led the movement for the Constitution, most of whom called themselves Federalists. They were committed to making an authoritative and stable national state. This became clear early on when President Washington asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to offer solutions to the problems of the national debt and government finances. Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume the revolutionary war debts of the states and combine them with the debt of the United States into one national debt. The federal government would pay off the parts of the debt that were owed to foreigners, thus establishing the international credit of the new government.

 

.....

 

Hamilton’s measures promised to stabilize government finances and to establish the government’s reputation internationally and its authority in every corner of the republic. They would also dramatically centralize power in the national government. Many citizens and members of Congress distrusted Hamilton’s plans. The assumption of state debts, the funding of the national debt, and stock sales for the Bank of the United States would reward commercial interests, nearly all of them from the Northeast, who invested in the bank and the bonds to pay the debt. Also, establishment of the bank required Congress to use the clause in the Constitution that empowers the legislature "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" to carry out its specified powers—a clause that some feared might allow Congress to do anything it wanted.

 

.....

 

Jefferson became the leader of a group that called themselves Democratic Republicans. They wanted the United States to remain a republic of the small, property-holding farmers who, they believed, were its most trustworthy citizens. Democratic Republicans envisioned a central government that was strong enough to protect property but not strong or active enough to threaten property or other republican rights.

 

.....

 

The Jeffersonians then abolished federal taxes other than the tariff, reduced the number of government employees, and drastically reduced the size of the military. They did, however, retain the Bank of the United States. Internationally, the Jeffersonians had no ambitions other than free trade—the right of Americans to trade the produce of their plantations and farms for finished goods from other countries.

[bascule]

No taxation without representaion.

 

Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay".

 

That's pretty much what I gathered as well. They have representation, it's just their preferred candidates for representatives lost. So now it's something of "we don't feel like paying taxes because Republicans aren't in power anymore"

 

Glenn Beck "channels" Thomas Paine

 

...and we have Faux News personalities (one who arguably have mental problems) comparing the Obama Budget to Pearl Harbor. This teabagging meme certainly is hilarious is to watch.

 

"I'm not paying taxes anymore. I quit. [...] You've got kids in college? Get them out of college. They're brainwashing them. [...] BURN ALL THE BOOKS! [...] Understand we've got an enemy here. This is not just an election. It's a battle for survival"

 

Wow. What's wrong with these people? 10 weeks of Democrats in power and they're ready to skip paying taxes.

 

I think Jon Stewart put it best when he said that Republicans are confusing tyranny with losing.

Edited April 12, 2009 by bascule

[ParanoiA]

If only the modern "conservatives" would meet the older Tea Party era of Founding Fathers' date=' they might be vocally informed/reminded of the Boston Tea Party's main goal....

 

No taxation without representaion.

 

Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay". [/quote']

 

That's pretty much what I gathered as well. They have representation, it's just their preferred candidates for representatives lost. So now it's something of "we don't feel like paying taxes because Republicans aren't in power anymore"

 

Two things...

 

1) The conservatives don't deserve notice, actually. They should organize their own protest. They are on the hit list of tax and spenders as well. They've got NO business showing their faces in all of this. Makes me sick. They are the worst. At least the democrats are proud to stand behind their propaganda and fool everyone into giving them more money, more power. The conservatives, apparently, are hoping we all forgot about the last 8 years, inside of a few months, and ruined this whole thing.

 

I'm not even going now. The organizers didn't fight the republicans and Fox well enough at all. Now the republicans will likely benefit, in perception, from this movement, which is the LAST thing we want.

 

2) We're talking about protesting taxes and spending, not mirroring the Boston Tea Party. Taxation without representation is nice detail, but hardly invalidates using "tea" as a tax protest prop. Otherwise, we'd dump tea in a harbor wouldn't we? But no, they're mailing tea bags, which is a GREAT deal different. Just like the detail behind Boston's tea party was a great deal different.

 

However "tea", works as the device to use for protesting taxes, a subtle similarity, given the detail is only subtely similar. Works great. Unless you pull a strawman and misrepresent the movement as if they were trying to make the identical case to the grievances that lead to the Boston Tea Party. I haven't even seen the conservatives do that.

 

No we're bitching about spending more money than ever, without even reading the damn bill (which apparently bothers NO ONE here) and then manipulating the lower classes by using their natural resentment for those who achieve and outperform them to increase taxes on the rich. (Because the rich are all AIG, Wal-Mart and Haliburton execs that steal money from babies and enslave their parents... )

[Lan(r)12]

It bothered me that no one read the bill!!!!

Oh wait...you meant amongst democrats...

[abskebabs]

Was one of the issues that led to the American revolution the British outlawing of alternative currencies like the gold backed spanish dollar, forcing the American colonies to use some kind of paper scrip instead?

 

Also, do you suppose the high tariffs they were charging on goods imported into the American colonies could have a much higher impact than simply ordinary taxation?

 

I'm not really sure, I'm not that knowledgable a historian, much less an American one. You guys might want to check out the following article on the subject:

http://mises.org/story/2110

[The Bear's Key]

Unless you pull a strawman and misrepresent the movement as if they were trying to make the identical case to the grievances that lead to the Boston Tea Party.

Nope.

 

From my post...

 

Boston Tea Party?

 

If only the modern "conservatives" would meet the older Tea Party era of Founding Fathers, they might be vocally informed/reminded of the Boston Tea Party's main goal....

 

I'm saying you both things couldn't be any more different. Like you said. But you might agree the tea bag's imagery has enough symbolic umph to be misinterpreted easily.

 

Heck -- Washington, DC should put tea bags on their license plates, it'd be more relevant to their cause.

 

 

But the right-wingies are pricks for stealing the tea bag mailings idea, regardless.

 

 

No we're bitching about spending more money than ever, without even reading the damn bill (which apparently bothers NO ONE here)

 

 

I care if any bill hasn't been read, as stated in a previous thread....

 

Part of an open government process should be that every law or action by government is displayed to the citizens beforehand for their inspection, searching out loopholes and unforeseen possibilites.

 

So while they couldn't force the government to iron out any big holes, it'd be an election risk for leaders to ignore the general public -- especially if citizens had also produced a solution.....one that unties the loophole in a productive, down-to-earth, and generally agreeable manner.

 

Then finally, the process should require that any government legislation is under 20 pages and be written in clear language. Thus, if the public were able to rate each one for clarity (1-10), this would allow us to base our votes partly on how well the lawmakers express their intentions to us. Loopholes be gone.

...and I do offer solutions, rather than just pinpoint what's broken.

 

 

...and then manipulating the lower classes by using their natural resentment for those who achieve and outperform them to increase taxes on the rich...

You're missing a sense of perspective, maybe. The rich would ever rarely attain material success if all the less well-off people consisted of top notch achievers and performers.

 

But if you think a lot of big players don't accumulate wealth mostly by knowing how to play the system, rather than by pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent -- also, if you belive the free market always gives us exactly what society needs -- then let me bring up a post you just made to refresh...

 

I just hate that shit. That's pretty much my impression of all FM radio. Even during the day, it's just too damn much dumbed down commercialized plastic everything - personalities, music, slogan, the FX - it's just one long, never ending advertisement for everything meaningless and the DJ's just sound pathetic as they pretentiously try to be "young and hip" in their 30's.

 

Where in there do we see pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent?

 

Some childish people might, wrongly, feel the rich deserve to be taxed more....just because it's not going to make a dent in their wealth, and/or because "they just deseve it" -- however, a lot more people see an injustice of the power brokers setting up things so the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the lower 90% of people's combined wealth.

 

Not to mention how the power brokers hijack our government with a flood of lobbyists.

 

The stream of mindless commercials, garbage products, studid fads, Amercian Idol, bad music, which helps the $$ flow to the richest, also helps keep many of the consumers from over-achieving. They're only asking the richest 1% pay a bit more to for the dandy $$-raking system that's mostly funneling the nation's $$ into the fewest pockets.

 

Nothing wrong in being rich, fabulously wealthy. I like that people can do it. Yet if not for this nation or system of government, which belongs to us (not the companies), they'd have to do it elsewhere, and work much harder. They do owe to fund the system, which is set up to benefit them the most. If 20-35% were only richer than the lower 50%, it'd be a far different, healthier society. Until then, I'd not cry for the whiners sitting on the biggest pile of $$ imaginable.

[bascule]

The conservatives don't deserve notice, actually. They should organize their own protest. They are on the hit list of tax and spenders as well. They've got NO business showing their faces in all of this. Makes me sick. They are the worst. At least the democrats are proud to stand behind their propaganda and fool everyone into giving them more money, more power. The conservatives, apparently, are hoping we all forgot about the last 8 years, inside of a few months, and ruined this whole thing.

 

I'm not even going now. The organizers didn't fight the republicans and Fox well enough at all. Now the republicans will likely benefit, in perception, from this movement, which is the LAST thing we want.

 

Who are the organizers? The only one I've been able to find, besides Fox News, Glenn Beck, and his 9/12 project, is Citizens for a Sound Economy:

 

http://mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=395

 

Though perhaps less known to many, another major foundation grantee, Citizens for a Sound Economy, is no less active as a policy actor in Washington and in many states. Founded in 1984, it openly and aggressively advocates market-based solutions to the nation's economic and social problems. [Formerly] Chaired by C. Boyden Gray [current Chair, 2004: Dick Armey], former counsel to President Bush, CSE's self-described mission is "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation."

 

Former Bush counsel? Sounds like it's being funded and run by a bunch of Republicans.