Teabagging and A Farewell
I tried to submit this as a comment on on the Reno News & Review site but there was an Amazon-like “glitch” and the comment was never submitted. So I am posting it below with a few minor adjustments.
I’m sorry to see that Amanda, like most teabaggers, doesn’t actually know what she is protesting tomorrow. You are actually protesting the federal government’s lack of fiscal responsibility, not the Obama Administration’s agenda as you state above. Unfortunately, corporate GOP interests like , , and are using you for their own gain. For more on how Republicans are using their supporters once again, . But the reason I am commenting here is to point out the numerous inaccuracies in your editorial.
- Republicans have short fuses indeed if they are already fed up with the Obama Administration which has been in power for 4 months, not 6 months. My advice, pace yourself–you’ve still got several years of the Obama Administration ahead of you.
- This recession (now called a depression by some economists) is compared to the Great Depression because its the best historical comparison. This recession is much worse than Reagan’s recession. Perhaps the reason you don’t seem to know this is because the Obama Administration has done a fairly good job of protecting those who would rather remain oblivious to the seriousness of the situation. And to be fair, the Bush Administration started propping up the banks and corporations that are still too big to fail first–and with virtually no accountability.
- If I didn’t know better, I would swear that you have not taken a U.S. History class. That’s the only way you can make an outlandish claim like this: “Whether the New Deal actually worked has yet to be determined.” But since you are in college, I know you’ve taken a U.S. History class at some point in your life. Sadly what this means is that you are an ideologue who eschews facts. I hope you grow out of this. I mean that sincerely.
- Reagan ended the recession you mention by, wait for it…! That’s right–Reagan cut taxes in 1981 but was forced to increase taxes a half-dozen times in the years that followed. Reagan also grew government and created a huge national debt. Facts are sometimes inconvenient.
- And the socialism thing again. If you have such objections to Obama’s agenda, you should go ahead and petition the federal government to remove your eligibility for social security and medicare. Also, in case Obama successfully implements his health care plan, you should make it clear that you refuse to be enrolled. Also, have you sworn off any future unemployment benefits for which you might become eligible? Have you made it abundantly clear that you will not, under any circumstances send your children to public schools? I wouldn’t want anyone to question your anti-socialist beliefs. Something you might not realize is that by continually labeling Obama and his administration as socialist, you are actually shifting the (the range of acceptable public policies, frames, and arguments)and making “socialist” a more acceptable label among Americans. So, keep up the good work. !
You are right about one thing. People are angry alright, but they’re angry because Republicans and Democrats in Washington have sold them a bill of deregulated goods and when it all went to hell, they bailed out the very corporations responsible while people like us are losing their jobs and homes.
People are angry because they don’t feel like their government officials are accountable. Case in point: Senator , the bill that would force him to do what members of the House and the POTUS already do–electronically file his campaign finance records. Why? Because he doesn’t want to make it easy for us, his constituents, to find out where his campaign funds come from. Senators and Representatives and corporate elites often act as if they are above the law.
People are angry alright.
Interestingly enough, in a , a majority of Americans report that they feel fine about the amount of taxes they pay and some even reporting feeling they don’t pay enough. That’s because in a civilized society, we pay taxes in exchange for services that we deem necessary like law enforcement, health care services for the elderly, disabled, and poor children, education, the military and national guard, to build and maintain infrastructure like roads and bridges, etc., etc. In other words, we pool our resources to make sure that our little nation state can function well.
I wish you good luck in your next venture. Remember, it’s not important agree with everyone, but it is important to agree on the facts.
Similar Posts:
- For Once, Broder Has A Point
- Who Lost The First Presidential Debate? The Middle Class
- Nevada’s E. Coli Conservatism
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or . You also can sign up for email delivery by .
love it. History is soooo inconvenient!
Seriously, the history vacuum in Amanda’s columns is staggering. They’re having a tea party to remind folks of the sentiment behind the Boston Tea Party (wasn’t that taxation without representation?) — how does that apply to a popularly elected President?
Won’t miss her.
Hi, I came across your blog while googling Awful-Awful, and I saw this post. I think the RNR published your comments in their print version, because I read something similar to that and was mentally applauding. I’m glad Amanda is going, I was about ready to start a letter writing campaign to try and get Mike Lafferty to return.
The whole thing behind the tea party is out of control spending and we have no say on how this is spent but we have to pay the the tab anyways. Taxation without representation. If your house is in a financial crisis you don’t combat this with a shopping spree, you find things you could live without and cut it out of your budget. Teabagging? Did you get this from CNN’s Anderson Cooper or from one of those other “unbiased” media outlets. Do you know what it means? If you wish to live in a liberal utopia move to California, we all know how well its doing.
I think you’re missing the point of the post which was more about accuracy than anything, but I’ll address your comment anyway. First I said right up front that the tea party protests were about fiscal responsibility and that the problem was that so many people participating didnt seem to know that. Second, technically you do have representation, you just dont like it which is something entirely different. I has representation I didnt like for 8 years. That’s they way things work. The bigger context is that no one seemed to be getting upset enough to have tea parties when the Bush Administration and investment bankers were defrauding us, telling us all the while that deregulation was good for us–good for the “free market.” What a crock. Nope, the outrage came later–beginning a few months before Bush left but then exploding after Obama was elected. This is no coincidence and to pretend otherwise is silly. Like it or not, what the tea parties were really about was protesting the Obama Administration, not fiscal irresponsibility. That was an afterthought for most.
Thanks!
I think you missed the point. I think it started when congress and the senate passed a trillion dollar bill and nobody bothered to read it. And in this bill it allowed AIG associates to garner a bonus after loosing billions of dollars in investments via a convenient loophole made possible by our one and only Chris Dodd. And what about Barney Frank telling banks to loan money to high risk individuals and to not do so would be racist. And don’t delude yourself if you think he had nothing to do with this housing crisis, he is the chairman of the financial services committee. And when these high risk individuals could not make their mortgage payments, they defaulted and the houses were forclosed. I also liked it when Barney Frank and Maxine Watters were telling us that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing great and people should continue to invest in the company and after doing so lost a whole lot of money. Remember, there is a whole lot of blame to go around, so don’t limit yourself when you’re pointing your finger.
Not only does your comment have almost nothing to do with my previous comment. When all I read are talking points in your comments—why waste my time? But for others reading, look to Bush appointee Paulson as the architect of the bailout. Clinton and his appointee Richard Rubin deserve more of the blame than Dodd and Frank. Give me a break already. Yes, congress absolutely shares some of the blame but to try and blame if on Chris Dodd and Barney Frank is just laughable. Seriously. But that’s the difference between you and me. I’m interested in facts and solutions. You’re interested in ideology.
Wow, Myrna. stu did state the facts….I couldn’t say it better myself. Every time when somebody proves you wrong, you state they have no facts and is all ideology.. THAT IS CRAP!!!! Your so called facts is blogs from wacked out liberals or liberal biased reporters. You are so one sided its a joke.. Your propaganda is making your web site a joke….Its funny that everytime you mention the republican party, the only person you mention is bush. When all us true conservatives know bush was republican but was not even close to being a conservative.. If you want facts, don’t assume just because somebody is republican dosn’t mean they are a conservative.. Bush was a fiscal socialist just like obama…obama is worst. Thats a fact!! The country is finding that out and will show during the 2010 election..
Yeah, no.