Thanks a lot, you motherfucking Yanks

[Razgovory]

The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.

How does your Jewish wife feel about being married to an Arab?  I imagine that's awkward.

[Neil]

The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.

How does your Jewish wife feel about being married to an Arab?  I imagine that's awkward.

She's going to be pissed when Siege takes a twelve-year-old for his second wife.

[11B4V]

All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.

Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.

Shut your cock holster

[Princesca]

I shudder to even take this thread seriously, but as I was specifically called out, I can't resist. 

First off, let's establish two facts:

1) There is no singular Tea Party entity. If I refer to Tea Party in the singular, I'm talking about the movement as a whole. You cannot vote for the Tea Party, there is no national organization of the Tea Party into which all the disparate entities feed, and a Tea Party organization in one city probably varies quite a bit from one in another city. The Tea Party issues relevant to Louisville, for example, are probably not the same in their entirety as those in Arizona.

2) As Caliga aforementioned, I no longer consider myself aligned with the majority of Tea Party organizations. When the movement began, it was an effort to scale back government and increase fiscal responsibility. It was a direct response to TARP and other government bailouts, not Obama, because it started even before Obama took office, and most people I've met in the Tea Party are just as derisive about Bush et al as they are about Obama. The movement originated to deal specifically with financial issues. One thing that most voters seem to agree upon, no matter the vast array of things that they disagree on, is that it's been a long time since we had a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our government is of the privileged, by big money, for the perpetuation of itself. THAT status quo is what the Tea Party was started to fight. These are principles espoused by the likes of Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Rick Santelli, whose now-infamous rant against mortgage bailouts kicked the whole thing off. The day that I began to distance myself from the overall Tea Party movement was the day I got an email asking whether I thought a particular Tea Party organization should take a stand about the Arizona immigration debate. Obviously, anyone true to the original intent of the Tea Party would answer that with a resounding "No", which I did. That they were even asking the question, however, indicated to me that the movement had lost its focus. So I left all the groups I was subscribed to for email updates, and stopped going to events.

Both of the main parties have lost their way... they no longer serve the people who elected them. We are in this position today because of years of fiscal mismanagement, of unchecked growth of federal power and government policies that favor behemoth companies and create a hostile environment to smaller businesses. This is not limited to either Democrats or Republicans. In the end, we've been duped to believe there's a difference. There isn't. These two books may have different covers, but the plots are the same - screw over the individual taxpayer in favor of paying back the financial favors given to them by big business and special interest lobbies.

For example...

Imagine if the government had taken all the money invested in TARP and the stimulus (on non-shovel-ready projects) and returned that money to the taxpayer. The point of TARP was to recapitalize the banks, right? If you gave the taxpayer $10,000, one of several things would happen:

1) The taxpayer would buy stuff. Money goes to retailers, retailers either create jobs, invest in expansion, or bank the capital. Money back to banks.
2) The taxpayer would pay off debt. Banks hold debt. Money goes to banks.
3) The taxpayer would save. Savings TYPICALLY go into banks and investments. Sure, some people might bury it in the yard, but that's a tiny minority.

Banks would have been recapitalized, but the taxpayer (and in some cases, retailers) would have benefited first. The average taxpayer would have been in a healthier position at the end of the crisis than they were at the beginning. So why not give it to the taxpayer first and let it have exponential benefits? Instead, we're spending millions to, among other things:

Send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants. ($1.9M)

Study improvised music. The project will involve jamming with "world-renowned musicians" to "hopefully also create satisfying works of art." The project "seeks to understand, model, and support improvisation, or real-time collaborative creativity, in the context of jazz, Indian classical, and avantgarde art music." (Approx. $750k)

Develop a computerized choreography program that its creators believe could lead to a YouTube-like "Dance Tube" online application. (Approx. $750k)

In the grand scheme of things, $750,000 may not seem like much. But that would support 25 people at a $30,000/year salary, above what people get on unemployment. We have a government that believes that the above projects (with limited employment created, if any, and likely completely unsupervised in their progress/use of funds) are worthwhile, job-creating investments during a crisis.

The inmates are running the asylum. Blaming the status quo on the Tea Party is a hilariously irrelevant and poorly-conceived notion.

[Princesca]

Er, why are there lines through my post? 

[Barrister]

Probably a formatting error on your part Prin. Go back and edit it, and take out the {s} code (though it would be "[" instead of "{").

You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants?   It's such a miniscule part of government spending, and it gets trotted out annually by some right-wing analyst or another as the source of all government spending.

[CountDeMoney]

You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants?   It's such a miniscule part of government spending,

Ironically, it's perhaps the best value-added government spending there is.

[Princesca]

I didn't see anything weird in there when I went to edit it. Anyway, it's still legible.

On the whole, in a good economy, I agree with you that sponsoring academic research is a good idea. But in an economic crisis, no one is ever going to be able to convince me that spending almost a million dollars on studying improvisational music by conducting "jam sessions" is a good idea. That's just ridiculous.

[Malthus]

Probably a formatting error on your part Prin. Go back and edit it, and take out the {s} code (though it would be "[" instead of "{").

You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants?   It's such a miniscule part of government spending, and it gets trotted out annually by some right-wing analyst or another as the source of all government spending.

Heh, in this case, it's a teapot in a tempest. 

[Josephus]

All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.

Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.

For once I'm in total agreement. Although not the last part, since I don't know her personally. Just with the general seniment.

[MadImmortalMan]

All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.

Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.

We tanked because of Italy. So thank your Euro bretheren.

[Razgovory]

First Tea Party rally occurred in 2009.  http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/  There were no Tea party rallies that occurred during the Bush administration.

[Barrister]

I didn't see anything weird in there when I went to edit it. Anyway, it's still legible.

On the whole, in a good economy, I agree with you that sponsoring academic research is a good idea. But in an economic crisis, no one is ever going to be able to convince me that spending almost a million dollars on studying improvisational music by conducting "jam sessions" is a good idea. That's just ridiculous.

You have a [-s-] (without the dashes) right where the strikeout starts.  That's what causes the line.

Good to see you posting here.

You just lose credibility when you take such a miniscule example.  Your suggestion on TARP was also pretty, err, no offense, laughable.  The TARP money was almost entirely repaid - while direct grants to citizens would not be, and thus would be 100% borrowed money.  I didn't think a tea party supporter would support Keynesian economics.

[Malthus]

Heh, Princessa brings out the socialist in BB. 

We need you here more often, P. Keep posting!

[Princesca]

First Tea Party rally occurred in 2009.  http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/  There were no Tea party rallies that occurred during the Bush administration.

Right, because organizations usually hold a rally the day they start up. Wikipedia states that the first rally was held 1/24/09, but that the movement is often credited to the momentum of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. I first started hearing these things gen up during TARP - and I was in a position to notice, since my job at the time was to track the economic downturn. It may be that the first rallies weren't held until 2009, but the movement began to coalesce in 2008.