Friday, January 14, 2011

Drink the Tea, Live the Lies

Article submitted
by Mangani 
     libocon.blogspot.com, "The Liberal Conservative"

So, I know it's been a while...                                  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimb4ORSzk2BNFm_GseKYR90FeIxQPkdb-d8j_ChnS1ACtWSvFhyphenhyphenUVf7rIfyrmx0QgFNlHT7ftFaCxi1eXW42hyphenhyphenWAG4b4DOh5xkNyiKWfCe9EQXi1R9eaWfsSZIDUfgzye-ZWQ3Rkl47g/s1600/mad-hatter-21.jpg

A few weeks ago, Republicans took the house by what many consider a large margin- the largest Midterm gains in history, they say. I have a completely different perspective- more like 14 Million voters aged 18-29 who voted in 2008 not showing up to vote, or the fact that even if they did, that would still only account for about half of eligible voters in that age group compared to over two thirds who show up above aged 60, or how voters in that age group more closely represent the American populace, and how age groups above 44 over-represent whites by as much as 85% (the share of whites among voters above 60), and how whites account for more than two thirds of the Republican electorate... but I digress... That's not what this post is about...

For some reason, America has been drinking this "Tea" of lies. Let me put it simply, and point by point:

1- The "Tea Party", as the "new" "ultra-conservative" "libertarian" "movement" likes to call itself, is named after the Boston Tea Party. We can trace the name back to CNBC's Rick Santelli, who on February 19, 2009, said the following:

(From Infoplease.com)
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.

Here's the problem- The American colonists weren't protesting the same thing. Santelli was going off about subsidizing mortgages- something that, had it been done fully and with less concern about "Capitalism", would have ended the financial crisis once and for all. I wrote a piece a while back on Blacktino.net that lays out what would have been MY "Stimulus".

What the American Colonists were protesting was a much more complex situation. The corrupt East India Trading Company monopolized all tea imports to the colonies. When local officials in Boston refused to send back to England a shipment of taxed tea, a group of colonists dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. This protest was the culmination of colonial opposition to the Tea Act.

Opposition to the Tea Act was for a variety of reasons, but, basically, the colonists were protesting being taxed by other than their own elected representatives. So you got that? The mantra wasn't "Taxed enough already", as the new "Tea Party" would have you believe, rather "NO taxation without representation". Sound familiar?

2- The "Tea Party" is not a group of revolutionary progressives- like the American colonists who started the Revolutionary War, rather, they are backwards conservatives who want to "take the country back." This is not what the Boston Tea Party represented, and the Revolutionaries are surely turning in their graves.

3- The Boston Tea Party (BTP from now on, ok?) was not "funded" by anyone, nor was it instigated by commercial interests. In fact, the Tea Act favored capitalism, while opposition to the Tea Act favored democracy. For those of you who thought they are one and the same, think again. Democracy is a system of government, usually in the form of a Republic, or other form of democratic government. Capitalism is an economic system. One does not require the other, though we have been led to believe otherwise. But, again, I digress...

Who funds the Tea Party Movement (TPM)?
-Rupert Murdoch via the Fox News Channel:

Karl Frisch of Media Matters wrote that Fox News "frequently aired segments imploring its audience to get involved with tea-party protests across the country."

Glenn Beck, a Fox News host, led the Tea Party in a gathering in Washington, DC on MLK's birthday, of all dates.

Media Matters also noted that "While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."

-David and Charles Koch, Koch Industries: The Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, and other libertarian/conservative groups were founded by Koch Industries. David Koch ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980 (Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian, as well as his son and Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul). Republicans tied to Koch include former attorney general John Ashcroft, President George W. Bush, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Governors Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal, among others. Koch also runs Americans For Prosperity, a think tank that has, from the beginning, disrupted every Obama Administration policy agenda.

I was going to list Freedom Works (the Tea Party's larges backer, and, arguably, Tea Party, Inc. Headquarters), but I learned that it was formed after a merger of Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy, and Empower America.

Basically, the TPM is not "grassroots" as they love having the American ignorant populace believe, rather it is a multi-billion corporate backed continuation of 30 years of conservative opposition to common sense policy.

4- TPM candidates have been touting cutting spending, while also cutting taxes. Now, I'm not an economist, but I've played enough real world video games to know this is impossible. Cutting taxes IS RAISING SPENDING. Let me say it again- CUTTING TAXES= RAISING SPENDING!!! AGAIN! IF YOU CUT TAXES, YOU RAISE SPENDING!!! If you don't get it yet, let me explain WHY:

If you save 100 per month, at the end of the year you would have saved $1,200. Now, let's say this is a payment on credit for $1,000 with 5% APR interest. By the end of the year, you would have owed $1,500. You would be $300 in debt by the end of the year. You do this for YEARS, until someone points out, "hey, you're never going to pay this off if you keep ending with a $300 debt every year".

So what do you do? Do you raise your monthly payments (taxes)? Lower your credit limit (spending)? Or do you lower both??? Let's see what happens if you cut spending by 1%, and lower taxes by 4%, as many Tea Partyers like Rand Paul have suggested:

$900 per year with 5% APR= $1350
Annual payment = $1152

Hmmm... that lowers my annual debt by nearly $100, but I'm still in the hole.

Ok, I can play with numbers all day, but I think you get the point. It just doesn't work.


I would love to make this post a lot longer, but I have to go to work :/

Basically, don't drink the Tea. If you did, now bear the intoxication! We need a Liberal Tea Party NOW!!!

1 comment:

  1. The substance of this article is exactly the type content we (the masses) need in order to combat the never-ending downloading of elite propaganda... Let's keep this sort of truth coming.

    ReplyDelete