Now that the Tea Bag party had their first convention and Ex-Governor Sarah Palin has become their central celebrity I think the organization has grown big enough that a counter-Tea Bag party can be launched on the fringe.
The Counter Tea Bag Party, in order to succeed, must attack the Tea Bag Party on basic American Political Party Grounds.
1) Be more Patriotic.
2) Be more Christian.
3) Be more like John Wayne.
Here are my ideas for slogans for this new party.
"Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Again Thy Neighbors." This would be followed by a Fact Check list of all the false hoods various Tea Party members have used to make their points. By False Witness I would include spin, bad logic, insinuations, and guesses that are merely outrageous claims made up to sound like suggestions.
"Americans are too brave to be ruled by fear." Repeat this loudly every time one of their fear based assaults are made--"Oooh, giving accused terrorists a trial will invite terror attacks at the trial." Yeah, like that is the only reason terrorists are plotting against us.
"True Patriots Don't Abuse Our Founding Fathers just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes." This one is too long. I need to work on it.
"Logic vs Screaming--Logic Wins."
"Freedom of Speech means you are free to yell and scream. I am free to ignore you."
"Democracy = 1 person, 1 vote. Audicracy = He who yells the loudest gets to vote. Which do you want to live in?"
What I really need is a good name for this anti-Tea Bag Movement (or is that anti-Tea Bag Movement movement?).
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I want to use John Adams or the trail of the Boston Massacre some how. His defense of the British soldiers and their release in that trial is a grand display of the anti-Tea Party Movement's ideals in a far more telling way than the Boston Tea Party is a display of the Tea Party's ideals. However, I can't come up with a good name out of that.
Is there a soundbitized version of "The Defense of the Boston Massacre Soldiers" that would work well for a political movement?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Repeating the media's ad hominem doesn't make you cool. It just makes you look like a clod.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm more of a loose tea kind of girl anyway. There should be a Loose Tea Party. Because teabags kind of don't give the same flavour you get from a nice cup of loose tea.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I'm not sure that name would go over well. To the younger generation, "Loose" is an alternate spelling of "Lose", and I don't think a party would want that word in their title.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I have my own loose tea party every day.
I have a drawer here at my desk that is filled with small glass jars filled with green leaves. I have a system for precise measurement and consumption rates. They modify my brain chemistry in ways that I find both enjoyable and helpful.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait, are you talking about reefer?
I can't think of any other name for loose tea than loose tea...Maybe the Oolong Party or the Earl Grey Party. But folks might not get that. It's just that teabags are mostly only good for making iced tea. Plus I wish I had a kettle. Maybe they could be the Kettle Party. I'd join that party. I don't like the Tea bag party movement anyway as they annoy me.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Come to think of it, I would have thought the "Tea Bag" party was a name that a party would want to avoid.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
why is this thread acceptable?
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Because it attacks a religion other than Jewdaism.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
not helping, dude.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
not trying to, man.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Syn, it's green tea. Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I want to join the Coffee Grounds Party. I'm American, I don't drink that pansy tea stuff, doggonit!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Darth, seriously, I've enjoyed your posting for years. Why do you feel this is ok?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've been in the anti-tea-bagging party in Halo and WoW for years. That behavior is unwarranted!
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I've been in the anti-tea-bagging party in Halo and WoW for years. That behavior is unwarranted!
Unfortunately that puts me squarely in the It's-hilarious-to-tea-bag-party. That behavior is great.
I think either calling it the Sons of Liberty would be good. That is pretty patriotic if I do say so myself.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Syn, it's green tea.
Oh. OK. Green tea is always too bitter for me. But I drink black tea with just milk and no sugar...
I say Sons and Daughters of liberty would be cool. More PC.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
OR Sons and Daughters of Liberty (And Jesus!)
For another slogan we can have "Against Racism but still for John Wayne!"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Syn, it's green tea.
Oh. OK. Green tea is always too bitter for me. But I drink black tea with just milk and no sugar...
Are you ready to have your life changed forever?
Green Tea: The Secret:
1. Boil the water until little bubbles just start to form (~180 F).
2. Seep for ONLY 1-2 minutes.
3. Bliss and happiness.
Coda: Re-seep 2 - 3 more times at slightly higher temperatures, and for slightly longer times, each time (follows the law of diminishing bliss and happiness returns).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
excuse me if I offended anyone. I don't see how.
I was not against any religion, in fact I am trying to save what I see as a truer Christian ideal from the politician and fanatics who are abusing it to make some cheap press.
I always used the Tea Bag name, and none of the offensive derivatives that the trolls use.
And I am not recycling the media's ad hominem attacks. I have heard Tea Party activists spread lies--claiming President Obama is a Nazi since Nazi has socialism in their name and they claim his politics is socialist. How is that honest? I have heard oft repeated calls for fear and for reacting in fear that I find offensive in anyone claiming the legacy of our history. We don't run from fear. We stand up to it.
I witnessed Tea Party meetings where they tried to press with volume what other, more dignified people were debating with logic and common sense. I have seen people dressed as our founding fathers all trying to get out of paying their tax bill. I find that a slap in the face of our founding fathers, as much as a President's Day White Sale.
I think the "Loose Leaf Tea" party could work. Loose Leaf Tea drinkers represent people who understand tea. A true grass roots organization. Tea Bags are mass produced corporate copies of true tea. Perhaps we could use that as a slogan--"Real TEA doesn't come in a bag."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Lapsang Souchong. Tea with a real kick.
A loose tea party is anti-bag, but not anti-tea. Does that satisfy the requirement? I'd say the coffee grounds party was a better idea, except I hate coffee, and I like tea. I bet SArah Palin doesn't even drink tea. She looks like a coffee drinker to me.
Jim-Me: there's nothing about Hatrack that says you can't be opposed to a particular position. You have every right to be offended, I guess, but DM hasn't done anything that violates the TOS.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Tea Bag" *is* the offensive derivative that the trolls (and the media) use. The members refer to themselves as the "Tea Party".
ETA: by all means go off on the tea party. But if you want to inherently lower your level of discourse by making the thread title a sexual slur against your opponents...
Well... let's just say I find it ironic given the wailing that has recently gone on about how bad the forum has gotten.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: excuse me if I offended anyone. I don't see how.
I was not against any religion, in fact I am trying to save what I see as a truer Christian ideal from the politician and fanatics who are abusing it to make some cheap press.
I always used the Tea Bag name, and none of the offensive derivatives that the trolls use.
And I am not recycling the media's ad hominem attacks. I have heard Tea Party activists spread lies--claiming President Obama is a Nazi since Nazi has socialism in their name and they claim his politics is socialist. How is that honest? I have heard oft repeated calls for fear and for reacting in fear that I find offensive in anyone claiming the legacy of our history. We don't run from fear. We stand up to it.
I witnessed Tea Party meetings where they tried to press with volume what other, more dignified people were debating with logic and common sense. I have seen people dressed as our founding fathers all trying to get out of paying their tax bill. I find that a slap in the face of our founding fathers, as much as a President's Day White Sale.
I think the "Loose Leaf Tea" party could work. Loose Leaf Tea drinkers represent people who understand tea. A true grass roots organization. Tea Bags are mass produced corporate copies of true tea. Perhaps we could use that as a slogan--"Real TEA doesn't come in a bag."
Dude, you're just calling a spade a shovel. It's ridiculous to compare Obama to Hitler. It's totally illogical on every single level. And some of these folks seem so... rude. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with them and stating it. THIS IS AMERICA! You're supposed to be able to do that. Count me in.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Jim-Me, see, I didn't know that.
I knew turning Tea Bag into a verb was wrong, but all the media that I've seen, liberal and conservative, have called it the Tea Bag party, not the Tea Party.
I will change my description from now on.
I would edit the title, but I don't think that would be fair to all the bag comments already made.
I guess part of the problem was the Tea Bags used to symbolize the Boston Tea Party that the Tea Party threw on various occasions.
My other criticisms of that party stand.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
And that explains a lot, DM. As I said, I've enjoyed your posts, serious and humorous both, for years.
And I certainly believe you about everyone calling it the tea bag party. From the very first Tea Party protest, no major media outlet has been able to resist the tea bag jokes. I am not a member (for the record, other than being kinda pretty, Sarah Palin does nothing for me), but my father and brother were both at the Dallas iteration of the very first event. The 5 o'clock news that day was already using the joke. I think that speaks a great deal towards journalism today and just how much attention it warrants.
While I don't necessarily agree with your other criticisms, I certainly find them legitimate and proper discussion.
ETA: not all tea party members like the idea of Sarah Palin, either. I've seen them refer to Palin's recent speech as "the death of the tea party movement."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
FYI, I also had no idea that wasn't the group's real name, and wondered what you were upset about.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think that a lot of people use the name "tea baggers" not realizing the real meaning of that phrase or how it came into existence as a way to make fun of the tea party movement.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My understanding was the tea bag party was used a few times by those in the movement, not knowing what it meant. And then everyone else though it funny and went with it. The initial people then learned about its other meaning and then tried to backpedal and claim they never used it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know if I'm really glad or really sad to find out that you guys didn't know that that's not the real name of the party. I was flabbergasted at how low this conversation started, and how nobody (except JM) seemed to have any problem with it. I'm glad to know that's not the case.
I find it really sad, however, that people who are obviously interested in the subject only know it by the derogatory term.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm pretty sure I've heard members of the Tea Party describe themselves as "tea baggers", at least early on.
This is not a group with great clarity of message or organization. It just isn't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was under the general impression that they got the moniker because they sent actual tea bags to government figures as a protest. e.g.
quote:As part of a nationwide tax rebellion, protesters, in a nod to the Boston Tea Party, have been sending tea bags to their representatives. The trouble is, the tea keeps getting mistaken for a hazardous substance.
In Boulder, Colo., the district office of U.S. Rep. Jared Polis recently called for help after a lumpy white envelope with no return address arrived in the mail. The Boulder County Hazardous Materials Response Team found a tea bag and a note reading “We the People, 1773.”
Stands for Taxed Enough Already.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In that case, sign me up for the coffee party.
Can Only Feign Faint Emotional Envolvement.
These Quasi-parties are boring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I was under the general impression that they got the moniker because they sent actual tea bags to government figures as a protest.
This. The "bag" part was pounced on by the media and it stuck (despite efforts to change it), but it didn't start with the media.
[ February 10, 2010, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The name is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, hence "1773" in the Tribune article above. Always has been. A few scattered protesters put "tea bag Washington before they tea bag you" and similar sentiments on their signs, possibly wittingly, possibly in reference to the original protest idea of re-enacting the Boston Tea Party by sending a tea bag to congress.
From Salon, 4/14/09:
quote:Truth be told, though, for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left, which seems to have adopted the joke en masse during an earlier round of these protests back in February.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: FYI, I also had no idea that wasn't the group's real name, and wondered what you were upset about.
Same here.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
You know what's funny about the Tea Partiers? They're all about no taxation. The Boston Tea party was about no taxation with out representation. The Tea Partiers have representation. As far as the Founding Fathers are concerned, they've got nothing to complain about.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: Probably a quote tag issue?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I dunno, this doesn't seem like a parody site to me.
Urban dictionary (and other google hits) was enlightening. Thing is, for all the apparent brouhaha, the teabag reference isn't something you can explain on network TV, so the jokes aren't well understood.
I particularly liked this definition of teabagger from urban dictionary though:
quote:2. n. A conservative activist who is so ignorant that they protest against tax cuts (that benefit them) by throwing tea into a river.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kmbboots: Probably a quote tag issue?
Yes. Trying to post from my phone in the wee hours. I didn't think it went through at all. I will fix. Thanks.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Didn't the Democrats already try being an anti-Republican party in '04?
Hobbes Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The salon article I quoted traces the beginnings to the blogs "instaputz" and "wonkette" (neither of which is familiar to me) making fun of a particular sign, which basically said what I referenced above.
I know I saw the newscasters on the local and national evening news calling them teabaggers the day of the first event.
Glenn, I agree that site looks legit, but it's the first time I've seen anyone refer to themselves as being part of a tea bag party and I hang around a lot of these people.
Anyhow, I'm not particularly interested in defending them, I just wanted to ask for a modicum of respect. Now that we've established that no disrespect was intended, feel free to carry on... though at this point I kinda feel like Forrest Gump: "sorry I broke up your Black Panther Party"
<exeunt pursued by a bear>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now that was a party name to take seriously! Nobody giggles at panthers! Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Actually I think what I want is less fantasy in the TEA party, and more of what is real.
So the naming should be "The Real TEA Party."
Except that sounds like we are selling property. How about we ad an I which stands for Intelligence. We want Intelligence in the discussion as well.
So lets call it the "Real I TEA" party.
oh. it breaks all connections with any other political party because you pronounce the I as the soft i sound.
In other words its pronounced the "Reality" party.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I like the Reality Party. Though it is awfully close to Realty Party... Hmm... I still think we can do better. And I want to leverage Adam's somehow. They like to leverage the Founding Fathers so much, I feel like we need to fight back on that level.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is it necessary to call it the Tea Bag Party? To get that extra sexual slur in? To make sure your listeners know that you have nothing to say and must resort to schoolyard insults?
The entire enterprise would be respectful if you didn't start out wearing a sign that says "No Intelligence or Ideas Here: Only Sex Jokes"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, I posted that without reading the thread. Having read the thread, I am pleased that the name has been recognized as inappropriate and better one is being sought.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
It's also not unreasonable to call at least portions of the Tea Party the Tea Bag Party - because that's what they are calling themselves! Follow the link previously posted in the thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If any non-zero percentage of a group refers to themselves with an insulting sobriquet, it becomes fair game.
This should be interesting. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If any non-zero percentage of a group refers to themselves with an insulting sobriquet, it becomes fair game.
This should be interesting.
I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out that it's an understandable mistake. Using the name they are calling themselves with out thinking about its implications or realizing that it's only a portion of the group or a subset of it is a perfectly reasonable mistake.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Teabaggers" is insulting. "Tea bag party" is just a misnomer. The most common/likely association for "tea bag" is that little pouch of leaves you steep in a cup of hot water.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not saying that, I'm just...
How dare you try to ruin my funny with the facts!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
But... But... But... meep
*hides*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Considering how often the media uses the immature "teabagger" epithet as an obvious sexual-based slur, I'm amazed at how many people have assumed that's the legitimate name for the group.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed. I guess this means the media has succeeded. By exclusively using a sexual slur to describe a legitimate grass roots protest movement, they've got regular people using that same slur in ignorance. As this thread has demonstrated, this makes reasonable discourse between the two groups even more difficult.
Which, I think, is one of the goals of the slur in the first place. To preemptively delegitimize the movement.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dan, the term "teabagger" was not introduced into this thread until after you were already outraged. "Tea bag party" might be inaccurate but it's not a "sexual slur."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have heard it used as a deliberate sexual slur.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have heard it used as a deliberate sexual slur.
The only way I can imagine that you can be sure it was deliberately suggestive is with additional contextual hints that simply didn't exist in the OP.
(I'd like to know specifically how you knew it was deliberately sexual and insulting, but I figured it would not be appropriate to post. So the above is not so much an unwitting argument from ignorance as it might appear; I just don't know how to hash that out without getting into the unsavory details.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Until much later in this thread, after Jim-Me's numerous objections were discussed, I had never seen anyone use the term "tea bag" in relation to the tea party and not intend it as a sexual slur. And I have been following the Tea Party coverage pretty closely. Whether they called them teabaggers or said it was the teabag party or the teabagging party, the intent of the message was always clear. So yeah, I found it outrageously distasteful.
The fact that people in this thread didn't intend it that way is great, but it certainly wasn't apparent to me until it was explicitly spelled out as such.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I did wince when I've heard the term "Tea Bag Party" used in the media before, but I always assumed the the people saying it were unaware there was any slur going on. I had been under the impression that tea bagging was only a phrase used in video games.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm sure the the folks who started out calling themselves the Tea Bag Party were unaware of its other meanings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The first time I heard the term "teabagger" used outside of the "usual" context was when my mother called to tell me that she now considered herself one. I nearly choked.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I will reiterate that http://teabagparty.org/ is a website that goes to great lengths to point out that the tea bag is the symbol of their protest.
Next I will reiterate that I had never heard, and didn't even suspect that the term had any other meaning than to describe a filter bag with tea in it. It seems to me that it's the teabag party that is making the public aware of it, more so than those criticizing them.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:I nearly choked.
Too...many...jokes...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I guess the takeaway here, for me, is that it's somewhat heartening that nobody watches MSNBC, then. Because every clip and soundbyte I saw them release in the days leading up to and following the 4/15/09 tea party protest were rife with all kinds of thinly veiled sexual innuendo coupled with calling the Tea Partiers "teabaggers."
Conversely, I wasn't aware of that site till you linked to it earlier in this thread, Glenn.
I also think it's worth mentioning that googling "tea bag party" brings up a lot of results and as far as I can tell, aside from the one Glenn has provided, all of them are from extremely anti-tea party groups labeling them the Tea Bag Party. For example, the second link is to an article featuring a photoshopped picture of Sarah Palin dressed as a Klansman. Charming.
I will go ahead and reiterate that I think it's disingenuous to say they call themselves the Tea Bag Party. They're the Tea Party.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The first time I heard the term "teabagger" used outside of the "usual" context was when my mother called to tell me that she now considered herself one. I nearly choked.
Yo Mama...I don't know... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, she was thrilled. She was so excited that people were going to show all those know-nothing politicians what-for. And she heard my silence over the phone, and said, "What?"
And I said, "Teabaggers? Really?"
"You know," she replied, "like the Boston Tea Party? So everyone brings a tea bag."
"And they call them tea bag parties?"" I managed. "Not just tea parties?"
"Why is that funny?"
I paused. "When you told me that you'd gone teabagging just now...." I didn't quite know how to break the news. "Teabagging has, um, another meaning."
"Some obscure innuendo, again?"
"I wouldn't call it obscure, per se. There may be a generational gap involved. Do me a favor and promise me that you'll never Google it. But also that you will never, ever, call yourself a teabagger around anyone under the age of 40."
An instant later, I hear typing. Then silence. Then angry silence. And she says, "Why do you Internet people always have to spoil everything?"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I wouldn't call it obscure, per se."
Ah, this was hilarious.
"Then angry silence."
This also.
I love the fact that it was angry silence.
I'm not even sure who I'm rooting for there...my daughter gives me so much crap these days, I almost sympathize with the beleaguered mother...OTOH, she and I are probably 100% diametrically opposed on politics, so, whatever, I'm on Tom's side. Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
When the Oxford word of the year came out, USAToday's article included the word "teabagger" with a definition of someone from the Tea Party. Ironically, anyone trying to use that word in the comment section got blocked for using inapporiate language.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My theory is that the teabaggers know damn well the "other" meaning of the term, and this is all just an elaborate ruse for some older folks to have sex parties while they pretend to protest taxation.
Old people are perverts!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: I'm not sure that name would go over well. To the younger generation, "Loose" is an alternate spelling of "Lose", and I don't think a party would want that word in their title.
And to some of them, tea bagging means something completely different. Still something I'd be against, myself, but you may not be sending the message you THINK you are with that name/ Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm sure many in the Tea Party movement are embarrassed by things like that, but many of their own brethren are fueling the fire.
This reminds me a of a video I saw from early on in the Tea Party movement(can't find the video at the moment). It was one of the first tea party meetings taking place in some sort of bar. After one speaker finished talking about taxes or spending or something relatively legitimate, another guy got up and started talking about how Obama has put devices in all our televisions(i think it had something to do with the digital switchover) to infect our brains with his socialist agenda(subliminal messages and the like). The problem with the Tea Party is that it has embraced wackos like that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Strider, the problem you're referring to has a direct correlation to the fact that the Tea Party started as, and has remained, heavily oriented towards Protests. And as a rule, any time you have a Protest, for anything, you're going to draw a certain percentage of freaking nutballs. And for whatever reason, other people at the protest usually take said nutballs in stride.
This is absolutely not restricted to any political affiliation. Every protest I've ever seen, on any topic, was rife with ranting, nonsensical wackjobs.
I personally think the Tea Party actually manages to have less wackjobs than, say, the Anti-Israel or Anti-Bush protests that were common over the last ten years in my home (the San Francisco Bay Area). But, I'm a libertarian, so there's probably some portion of Tea Partiers you see as nutcases that I actually agree with. Or maybe I'm somewhat blind to nutcases who share my views.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm with Dan on this. I wish there was video of some of the separationists back in 1775, I'm certain they would yell with me, "No taxation without representation!" Then in the very next sentence say something like, "Keep your dirty government hands off my negro!" and I'd be like, "Wuhhhh...?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know, when you've got Tom Tancredo getting a large round of applause for suggesting they bring back literacy tests for voting and Sarah Palin and Glen Beck being the most prominent standard bearers, I don't think you can count the nutballs as fringe.
The idea of the Tea Party is very appealing to me. I don't regard myself as actually having actual representation in congress. But the reality of them is that they are way too stupid, manipulated, and bigoted for me. They take issues that I believe need to be held in a complex understanding and turn them into facile emotional arguments that seem crafted towards whatever purpose the people directing them want. The biggest thing they've done is be a significant part of an effort to destroy open consideration of the problem of health care through shouting, lies, and ignorant anger. And this not only hurts me somewhat, it hurts our country and it especially hurts the people who belong to the Tea Party. The rising costs of health care is the thing that is taking more and more out of their paycheck, not taxes, and they are standing directly in the way of anyone doing anything about this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I personally think the Tea Party actually manages to have less wackjobs than, say, the Anti-Israel or Anti-Bush protests that were common over the last ten years in my home
We could do a sort of a Wackjob Prominence Index. I saw some pretty nutty BU$$$$H=HITLER puppet shows back when but it is really, really, really hard for me to imagine that the tea party isn't succeeding valiantly in this category.
I mean, this is a movement that would willingly let Tom Tancredo in as a speaker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I dunno, I think a literacy test might be fun, it'd have the same problems the last slew had, it would disenfranchise some of their fellow conservatives.
Of course it would take the vote away from immigrants, so I'd never actually approve of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Better to be a teabag than a scumbag!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There is a certain amount of irony of them cheering a political literacy test that would likely disenfranchise a significant section of the people cheering for it, and quite possibly their preferred candidate for President (Sarah Palin), but yeah, not only is it a really bad idea, but they were cheering "Yeah, we hate them stupid blacks and immigrants!"
It's disgusting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I dunno, I think a literacy test might be fun, it'd have the same problems the last slew had, it would disenfranchise some of their fellow conservatives.
Of course it would take the vote away from immigrants, so I'd never actually approve of it.
Part of the problem with the literacy tests is that they were administered at the discretion of the election judges. Not everyone had to take them. White people didn't generally have to take them.
[ February 15, 2010, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
The more I read about the Tea Party movement the more I think we need to get serious about some sort of moderate counter movement. I don't even mean a liberal or progressive counter movement, but a counter movement that focuses on good governance - dialog, discussion, nuanced understanding of issues. Yeah... less with the fire. But when you consider what the other guys doing... that might add some fuel.
The Tea Party is really beginning to scare me. That movement is talking about the federal government as a threat to this society... the irony is, they are probably a much bigger threat!
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
The more I read about the Tea Party movement the more I think we need to get serious about some sort of moderate counter movement. I don't even mean a liberal or progressive counter movement, but a counter movement that focuses on good governance - dialog, discussion, nuanced understanding of issues. Yeah... less with the fire. But when you consider what the other guys doing... that might add some fuel.
The Tea Party is really beginning to scare me. That movement is talking about the federal government as a threat to this society... the irony is, they are probably a much bigger threat!
I was actually there for the rally. It was fun. Theatrics abound, but it was largely a coherent push saying that we need more revenue (taxes, I'm not afraid to say the word) and less cuts. It just wasn't a coherent organization. We had unions, colleges, progressive organizations, and others all show up. But being there I can actually attest that yes, the rally WAS quite a bit larger than the Tea Party's that was held shortly beforehand. They may have under-estimated the tea party and over estimated the 'new revenue coalition' but we had an undisputably larger number of people. (Though some of the spin I've heard is that we were just a collection of students, the jobless, and hippies and not real tax payers. But because Washington State goes by a sales tax, I think that argument is largely bunk, being as we do pay for things.)
Anyway, I agree that there needs to be more work done on a movement of nuanced dialogue and understanding. I've gotten involved with some groups that do that, and the difference it makes for the legislators is amazing. The look of relief on their faces as we give them words of encouragement and support is wonderful. They tell us stories of the hate mail and death threats they get (the legislative assistants) and reaffirm how glad they are that they've got some folks out there willing to stick with them through the tough fights. Some of their horror stories are terrible. Tea partiers have stormed their offices, screamed at them, left the vulgar messages, damaged their personal property, dropped wet teabags on their desks, and did other forms of disrespect.
And to be fair, our "side" (Those being anyone non-tea party. Moderate republicans included.) has still been fairly disrespectful. Granted, less disrespectful, but they still come into their offices with lists of demands without alternatives, make careless assertions without a respect for the process, and leave the representatives feeling like they've been put between a rock and a hard place. Either they infuriate their supporters and lose them or they further the invective of the tea party.
So in short, yeah. I'm completely down with a counter-movement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The more I read about the Tea Party movement the more I think we need to get serious about some sort of moderate counter movement. I don't even mean a liberal or progressive counter movement, but a counter movement that focuses on good governance - dialog, discussion, nuanced understanding of issues. Yeah... less with the fire. But when you consider what the other guys doing... that might add some fuel.
The Tea Party is really beginning to scare me. That movement is talking about the federal government as a threat to this society... the irony is, they are probably a much bigger threat!
I was actually there for the rally. It was fun. Theatrics abound, but it was largely a coherent push saying that we need more revenue (taxes, I'm not afraid to say the word) and less cuts. It just wasn't a coherent organization. We had unions, colleges, progressive organizations, and others all show up. But being there I can actually attest that yes, the rally WAS quite a bit larger than the Tea Party's that was held shortly beforehand. They may have under-estimated the tea party and over estimated the 'new revenue coalition' but we had an undisputably larger number of people. (Though some of the spin I've heard is that we were just a collection of students, the jobless, and hippies and not real tax payers. But because Washington State goes by a sales tax, I think that argument is largely bunk, being as we do pay for things.)
Anyway, I agree that there needs to be more work done on a movement of nuanced dialogue and understanding. I've gotten involved with some groups that do that, and the difference it makes for the legislators is amazing. The look of relief on their faces as we give them words of encouragement and support is wonderful. They tell us stories of the hate mail and death threats they get (the legislative assistants) and reaffirm how glad they are that they've got some folks out there willing to stick with them through the tough fights. Some of their horror stories are terrible. Tea partiers have stormed their offices, screamed at them, left the vulgar messages, damaged their personal property, dropped wet teabags on their desks, and did other forms of disrespect.
And to be fair, our "side" (Those being anyone non-tea party. Moderate republicans included.) has still been fairly disrespectful. Granted, less disrespectful, but they still come into their offices with lists of demands without alternatives, make careless assertions without a respect for the process, and leave the representatives feeling like they've been put between a rock and a hard place. Either they infuriate their supporters and lose them or they further the invective of the tea party.
So in short, yeah. I'm completely down with a counter-movement.
Just to be clear, Alcon said there needed to be a moderate counter-movement. What you attended could not, by any stretch of one's imagination, be considered a moderate movement. More power to you for expressing your opinion and exercising your right to free speech and public assembly. But it's clearly a progressive/liberal counter-movement.
Whether or not that's actually what Alcon meant, I certainly don't know.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: we need more revenue (taxes, I'm not afraid to say the word) and less cuts.
Would a good way to show you are in favor of higher taxes be to show up with a large amount of money collected from the group and say please take this from us and use it for whatever you want? or even mention a specific program? You would definitely get a lot of press coverage if you did that
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Personally, I'm in favor of higher taxes on the rich. They pay a remarkably small share of their total wealth in tax.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: They pay a remarkably small share of their total wealth in tax.
Yet they pay an overwhelming share of taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of taxes, the top 25% pay 86% of taxes, and the top 50% pay 97% of taxes. How much of their wealth should we sieze and redistribute? Anything above $500,000 should be taxed at 100%? EDIT: and you did mention 'wealth' which is different than income. My parents have owned their home for over 40 years and have set aside a large chunk for retirement. If you consider their 'wealth' then they would be taxed at a very high rate even though their actual income is relatively low.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yet they pay an overwhelming share of taxes.
That doesn't matter. If they're paying an overwhelming share of taxes and still pay fewer taxes as a percentage of wealth than the middle class, they aren't paying enough taxes.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That doesn't matter. If they're paying an overwhelming share of taxes and still pay fewer taxes as a percentage of wealth than the middle class, they aren't paying enough taxes.
You keep saying wealth, do you mean wealth or do you mean income?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He means wealth. I don't think he's actually done the calculation of what that would entail. He probably also hasn't read the studies of the serious detrimental effects even small wealth taxes have had.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Yet they pay an overwhelming share of taxes. The top 1% pay 39% of taxes, the top 25% pay 86% of taxes, and the top 50% pay 97% of taxes.
Your post must have been cut off. Surely you see that those figures make little sense without the percentage of how much total wealth the top 1% and so on have. Surely it must be a technical error with the board, and not you leaving out necessary information.
Because if the top 1% owned 30% of all the wealth, then paying 39% of the taxes isn't all that outrageous. You need to show the numbers where the top 1% only have 5%, or whatever you claim they possess.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Your post must have been cut off. Surely you see that those figures make little sense without the percentage of how much total wealth the top 1% and so on have. Surely it must be a technical error with the board, and not you leaving out necessary information.
Your tone isn't necessary. I am guessing you mean income, we don't tax wealth. You can be very wealthy yet have a much smaller proprotional amount of income. Such as a married couple, who were middle class their entire lives, saved and invested wisely, own their home, and created a sizable nest egg. They could have a great deal of wealth yet much smaller income.
quote: Because if the top 1% owned 30% of all the wealth, then paying 39% of the taxes isn't all that outrageous. You need to show the numbers where the top 1% only have 5%, or whatever you claim they possess.
I didn't make any claim on how much wealth is in the hands of the top 1%. Wealth is not income.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wealth is not income.
No, true. That's why I'd rather tax wealth, to be honest with you. But until we get around to doing that, I'm okay with taxing the heck out of the income of the people with the most wealth.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: No, true. That's why I'd rather tax wealth, to be honest with you.
How much wealth is enough to qualify for your 'tax the heck out of' rate?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: Could you outline a little a way of taxing wealth that you think would work?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Your post must have been cut off. Surely you see that those figures make little sense without the percentage of how much total wealth the top 1% and so on have. Surely it must be a technical error with the board, and not you leaving out necessary information.
Your tone isn't necessary.
Apparently, neither is is sufficient for you to post the necessary information. Your figures are meaningless without the context of how much those top % make. If those top 1% earners earned 40% of all the earnings made by the whole country, would you still say that they should pay less than 39% of all the taxes the whole country pays?
If the number isn't 40%, you have to tell us what it is, so we can evaluate the 39% figure in the proper context.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I mean wealth, DK. Because when discussing whether it's "fair" to tax the rich at such a high level, the holdings they already have must be considered in such a discussion. As has been noted, direct wealth taxes haven't always worked out well (not least because of rampant dishonesty). But I think using wealth as a measure of affordability when computing a "fair" income tax makes perfect sense.
If the top 1% has 30% of the wealth and paid just 40% of the taxes in 2007 -- just to use some numbers that were thrown out -- I don't see a problem. Especially since the top 1% of earners made 49% of all income in 2007, according to Saez. In fact, that seems a bit regressive for me, given that (as you've noted) that 30% is certainly a larger-than-fair share of wealth when you think about all those middle-class people who've scrimped and saved for years to buy their assets. (Note, by the way, that the top 1% actually have 51% of all non-primary-home wealth, which again doesn't surprise me in the least. No doubt a fair number of those middle-class scrimpers are "millionaires" because they bought a house for $40K and watched it appreciate.) Let's also note that the situation gets a bit more dire when you talk about the top 5%, instead of the top 1%; the top 5% owns 92% of all wealth in the country, makes 65% of all income, and pays just 55% of the taxes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Could you outline a little a way of taxing wealth that you think would work?
Sadly, no. If I ever think of one, I'll let you know. In an ideal world, though, that's what we'd tax. Money sitting in a yacht is money that's not doing anything useful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that depends on what you mean by ideal world. I am fairly certain that there is no possible world (that can be reached from the current one) where wealth-based taxation as the primary means of taxation would be at all feasible (unless it was subject to a set of rules that made it basically equivalent to income-based taxation).
Simply put, if you tax wealth, people will not accumulate wealth. This means nobody will save very much, because it will be extremely counterproductive to do so. If there's a 10% wealth tax, nobody will ever accumulate more than a small multiple of their income in wealth -- retirement savings, house, et cetera -- since once they hit a few times their income, they're suddenly paying most of their income in taxes every year!
Of course, you have a very strange idea of what 'wealth' means.
quote:Money sitting in a yacht is money that's not doing anything useful.
Almost all wealth is in the form of investments. That is definitionally money that is doing something. Even in your example, every bit of the value of the appraisal value of that yacht was spent to obtain the yacht -- the money is out there doing stuff. What money do you imagine is sitting in the yacht purchase that would be "out in the world" if the yacht were not purchased?
Indeed, your basic premise, that the wealth isn't "doing anything useful" is pretty much entirely defeated by observation: the sum of savings matches the sum of investment within a few percent in first world economies. People are not stuffing money under their mattresses, figuratively or literally.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Because when discussing whether it's "fair" to tax the rich at such a high level, the holdings they already have must be considered in such a discussion.
So we are taxing them when they earn the money and then taxing that same money again the next year (and all subsequent years) because they didn't spend it on things that have no value? Perhaps a 100% inheritance tax would be a way to remove wealth from people that lived a lifestyle that enabled them to amass wealth. Who really owns the 'wealth'? Currently the bank owns more of my home than I do. Does this mean the owners of the bank have most of the wealth in my home? Does the credit union own the wealth of my checking and savings account since it is in their posession?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Almost all wealth is in the form of investments. That is definitionally money that is doing something.
I would have thought that if the last few years had proved anything, it was that money in investments was in no way guaranteed to be tied to anything tangible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bazinga
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I would have thought that if the last few years had proved anything, it was that money in investments was in no way guaranteed to be tied to anything tangible.
You're right, there is another possibility: some investments are partly illusionary, or more commonly, are more risky than presumed, so it makes even less sense to tax them (since they're tying up possibly much less money than their nominal value).
However, this is quite wrong:
quote:t was that money in investments was in no way guaranteed to be tied to anything tangible.
All of those housing loans and instruments built on top of housing loans ultimately represented money that had been leant for houses. The loans were bad because the values of those houses went down in a way that was not properly anticipated, given the structure of the instruments, but there definitely was something extremely tangible behind all the investment: all those houses (many of them excess houses) that have been built.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:All of those housing loans and instruments built on top of housing loans ultimately represented money that had been leant for houses.
Including the derivatives and the investment instruments built off of the insurance? That's contrary to my understanding.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The most common MBS definitely yes: they were effectively mortgage purchases, sliced differently.
Mortgage CDS were pure risk swaps; they represent no money in and of themselves, only a transfer of risk. The outcomes are zero-sum. (edit: this sentence is an aside with no impact on the conclusion; They have high notional value, but they are pretty much always part of packages that have low total possible upsides or downsides (as turned out to be the case in most institutions after the dust cleared -- few actually lost all that much money on CDS)). So, while they didn't represent money that had been leant for houses, that's only because they didn't represent any money in the first place. Just risk transfers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Currently the bank owns more of my home than I do. Does this mean the owners of the bank have most of the wealth in my home?
Yes. And, as a result, the individual shareholders in that bank own tiny pieces of your house.
I see nothing fundamentally objectionable in the concept of "double taxation." Why do you?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends on if I am the one being double taxed....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Double taxation isn't really relevant, of course. Any part of the house owned by the bank wouldn't be owned by the person -- that is, it would not increase their wealth, because their mortgage debt would offset it.
All moot, of course. Wealth taxation is a stupid idea that could only work if people were angels, for the reasons I outlined above.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)