HOUSTON TEA PARTY!

[Jeebus]

I think its the naive fear that we're just "one step away" from _______ism. I know that we are no where near any form of _______ism, but at the same time, giving the government more power and allowing it to go further in debt is not going to solve our problems, IMO.

On a personal level, it seems that every example of a successful comeback from bankruptcy I've ever seen has been to cut spending, save money, and slowly climb back out of the hole you got in. Many of us that are fiscally conservative in that sense, don't understand how doing the opposite (bailing out failing companies who aren't making any changes) is going to work.

I'm open to educated explanations of how the current plan is going to work though. Before you bother, please adhere to the Redscare litmus test. Thank you.

[HtownWxBoy]

Why is it whenever anybody talks about regulations and oversight, some conservative brings up the Soviet Union?

Conservatives like to use scare tactics. It's one of the few things they have been good at... though Americans are catching on to this and don't fall for it as much as they used to. They like to scream words like "socialism" and "communism" and "redistribution of wealth".... they scare people by telling them Blacks are going to rob them, gays are going to kidnap their children and brainwash them (funny, I always thought churches did that), Mexicans are going to take their jobs, blah blah blah. They know a large portion of the populous won't research what they are saying... they will just here "Obama... socialism" in the same sentence and they will get scared. The funny part is, the Conservatives who do this, the ones who claim they just love America, are actually playing Americans for fools. They play Americans like puppets b/c they know they can, and Americans fall for it.

[Jax]

I'm open to educated explanations of how the current plan is going to work though. Before you bother, please adhere to the Redscare litmus test. Thank you.

Basically the idea is that companies are doing poorly because less people are buying their products.

Less people are buying their products because many people have lost their jobs and don't have any disposable income.

When nobody is buying things, companies do poorly and they lay people off, and that creates a larger pool of people who aren't spending money, therefore leading to more layoffs in other companies.

If the government creates jobs for some of these people who are out of work, these people will make money. When people have money they will buy things from other companies thus stimulating the economy. Plus if the money is spent on something like infrastructure, we're left with tangible things that can benefit society like better public transportation, better roads, bridges, power lines, etc.

If the government simply cuts spending, then there is nothing to create jobs and the cycle of layoffs will continue. Obviously we eventually want to decrease the deficit but if we just cut off all spending now, the country will likely end up deeper in recession.

Some people claim that if we simply cut taxes, companies won't have to lay as many people off, but that doesn't help people who are already out of work. And if companies use the money they save from tax cuts to give out bonuses or buy corporate jets or send people on fancy vacations, it might not even prevent layoffs. It might just be wasted.

A combination of targeted tax cuts and spending is most likely the best solution in my opinion.

Spending is basically how we got out of the great depression. Besides the New Deal there was a world war in which the government spent vast amounts of money to buy warplanes, bombs, guns, boats etc from companies. These companies employed people who built the planes, bombs, guns, boats etc and they used the money they earned to buy stuff from other companies thus stimulating the economy and ending the depression.

The idea now (like during the great depression) is to spend in the short term (similar to what was done during World War 2 and the New Deal), and once the economy shows signs of recovery, to begin cutting the deficit.

You're right that a person or a company has to cut spending and save money to come out of bankruptcy, but that's a completely different situation than trying to bring an economy out of recession. If the government just completely shuts down and stops spending, do you think that will help anybody who is out of a job? Most likely not. It might stop the deficit but it won't help the economy.

[Jeebus]

Well, that seems to make sense on a certain level, but the stimulus package seemed riddled with pork, and not job creation. I guess this would seem like a more viable solution had it better been enacted?

Once again, politicians got in the way with their agendas.

[Jax]

I'm not even sure what pork is, but it seems to have a lot of job creation in it. Whether there is enough to make a big impact is a matter of opinion, and only time will tell.

Many liberals and progressives wish there was more job creation (spending) and less tax cuts.

Many conservatives wish there was less job creation and more tax cuts. Their counter proposal was basically zero job creation and 100% tax cuts. Obviously nobody took that very seriously.

It seems to be hard to come to a good compromise, and I think the stimulus package got watered down a bit too much. Anyways, only time will tell...

This diagram shows what we ended up with. Definitely more tax cuts than infrastructure spending (which is the primary source of job creation I think).

[RedScare]

The Houston Tea Party. Brought to you by your friends at Westinghouse!

Tea Party 'Sponsors'

[HtownWxBoy]

.... omg only a conservative would let their kid hold up a sign like that and not see anything wrong with it!

[RedScare]

.... omg only a conservative would let their kid hold up a sign like that and not see anything wrong with it!

So they're against gay marriage, but they are for tea bagging? Seems a bit contradictory.

[sheeats]

Alright, so who's going tomorrow?

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/20...osuton.php#more

And who's stealing the "all your butts" meme?

[HtownWxBoy]

So they're against gay marriage, but they are for tea bagging? Seems a bit contradictory.

Seriously... also sad they are using American kids as pawns... sick.

[Marksmu]

Seriously... also sad they are using American kids as pawns... sick.

I guess were just taking extreme photos and calling that mainstream now. You work for the Chronicle dont you?

Every "conservative" is for tea bagging the gays clearly - the sign says so. And really I dont see why the gays are against it - seems to me to be something they should enjoy.

[sevfiv]

Over 300 in Friendswood:

FRIENDSWOOD — More than 300 people gathered in a city park Tuesday to rally against “out of control” government spending and to ship protest tea bags to Washington, D.C. Whether the first of what will be a series of tea party protests across the country is the start of a grass-roots political movement or just another form of political theater is yet to be determined.

“I think it is too early to say,” said Rice University political science professor Bob Stein. “There is a good deal of partisanship, but for an event the Republican Party would normally put its stamp on as the loyal opposition there really isn’t a (party) spokesperson on this.

“To me, the story is why the Republican Party is not jumping on this. (Republicans) are supportive of this, but not sounding the trumpet.”

In fact, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was denied a request to speak at the Chicago Tea Party by organizers who said he had “ignored” the movement until it had garnered national attention, primarily through the Fox News Channel and conservative radio talk show hosts.

On the county level, though, Republican Party Chairman John LeCour was front and center at Tuesday’s rally in Centennial Park in Friendswood.

“We are having a revolution against taxes and out of control spending,” LeCour said. “It is not a Republican event. It should be an event for everybody.”

http://www.galvestondailynews.com/story.la...62a478418677815

[sevfiv]

And ~450 in Pearland:

At today's "tea party" rally against government spending in Pearland, speaker Cliff Schoeffler took his cue from the setting at Independence Park.

"Today I renounce all political labels," the Vietnam War veteran said. "I will no longer claim to be a Democrat, I will no longer claim to be a Republican, I will no longer claim to be a Libertarian. I'm an independnet citizen with a mind of my own. I'm simply tired of what's happend to us as a nation."

Many of the estimated 450 people in attendance applauded.

The hourlong tax-day gathering was one of many designed to invoke the spirit of the Boston Tea Party set at parks, state Capitols and other places across the nation and around the Houston area. The main event locally was set for 4 p.m. at Jones Plaza in downtown Houston.

Demonstrators particularly focused on government spending under President Barack Obama.

Carolyn Rainwater, of Pearland, said the flow of tax dollars out Washington, D.C., is alarming.

"I'm just tired of government spending our money, taxation without representation," she said. "We can't spend our way out of a recession."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6374948.html

[Subdude]

I'm thinking it's time to drop the sniggering jokes here. This isn't South Park.

[rsb320]

Judging from the size of the crown that is already gathering, the turnout at start time (4:00) will be LARGE.

Sorry, this one is in Jones Plaza, downtown.

[JLWM8609]

Someone should dress up as a late 19th century British guy, and go there walking around with an empty teacup asking people where the Earl Grey is.

[Marksmu]

I'm thinking it's time to drop the s______ing jokes here. This isn't South Park.

Do you like fishsticks?

Just could not resist!

[ProHouston]

Setting aside the presentation of this cause by the OP, I believe this is a worthy cause. This is the only place I've seen it presented in such a right-wing, nutjob fashion. When I've heard interviews on the radio, all are invited and the event is purported to be party agnostic. It's simply to bring attention to the over spending in Washington that doesn't appear to be in line with what Americans are saying. It's also good news that the media appears to be covering this story and not covering it up.

[Jeebus]

So the news is reporting that in over 2000 cities "large" groups gathered today. So what does that mean? Is this an isolated conservative event, or is it a nationwide movement now?

[rsb320]

Setting aside the presentation of this cause by the OP, I believe this is a worthy cause. This is the only place I've seen it presented in such a right-wing, nutjob fashion. When I've heard interviews on the radio, all are invited and the event is purported to be party agnostic. It's simply to bring attention to the over spending in Washington that doesn't appear to be in line with what Americans are saying. It's also good news that the media appears to be covering this story and not covering it up.

A co-worker noted this morning that the Chronicle had no coverage of these events Stories did turn up during the day, though. The TV stations (online) covered it from the get-go, this morning.

I just walked over. Jones Plaza is packed.

[RedScare]

While I would agree that supporting responsible government is always a good cause, I am still a bit confused as to what trigger this outrage. Looking at this year's budget versus last year's, the increase was tiny.

2008 budget - $3.1 Trillion + $190 Billion = $$3.29 Trillion

2009 budget - $3.5 Trillion (includes war spending) 6.77% increase

Once inflation is figured in, it is even smaller...

2008 budget - $3.1 Trillion + $190 Billion = $3.29 Trillion

2008 adjusted for 3.8% inflation = $3.42 Trillion

2009 budget = $3.5 Trillion 2.33% increase

Call me crazy, but a 2.33% increase in the budget to fight the biggest recession since the 1930s seems to be very reasonable, certainly nothing I'd organize a protest over. The bigger issue may be the size of the deficit, predicted to be over one Trillion dollars. But the deficit is the result of lower tax revenues. Why are people protesting for lower taxes, when tax revenue is already plummetting? The protest does not appear to be in line with reality. It appears to be protesting an idea.

But, more power to them. If they are still around in 2010, they can put their muscle to some use in the midterm elections.

[TheNiche]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I don't want to go item-by-item through the federal budget, but there's more to the story than just comparing the changes on the bottom lines, and I'd point out that Red is smart enough to understand that.

[Gooch]

While I would agree that supporting responsible government is always a good cause, I am still a bit confused as to what trigger this outrage. Looking at this year's budget versus last year's, the increase was tiny.

Could be the projected baseline defcits...

Clearly the future is going to include some mix of higher taxation, reduced spending, inflation to monitize the relative effects of the national debt, or default by the government on its bonds. None are easy options...

[RedScare]

That seems to be an argument for increasing taxes. Why are they protesting to lower them?

EDIT: By the way, I agree with your edited comment at the bottom. If the protests were demanding that, I'd be on board.

[Jax]

Could be the projected baseline defcits...

But the same (or similar) deficits projected when Bush was in power, but nobody protested them then. It makes me feel like this protest is more about Obama winning the election and less about the deficits.

At least Obama says he plans to reduce the deficit once we're out of the recession. Bush never even addressed how he planned to pay for the war in Iraq. I wonder if the war would have been as popular if he had proposed a tax hike on the middle class to pay for it...

I'm a believer that the government needs to spend to get us out of a recession/depression (think about how World War 2 helped us get of the the Great Depression, through government spending), and later focus on the deficit.

If the government were to just suddenly reduce spending by 50% or 25%, how would that help the economy? It might cut down the deficit but a lot of jobs would be lost, and a lot of services would be cut. How would that help people who are out of work?

In a way, I feel like patriotic Americans be at these protests be saying we should raise taxes in order to pay back the cost of the war in Iraq that many of them supported, and reduce the deficit that way, although personally I am very happy with Obama's tax policy. My paycheck at Rice just went up because of his reduction in payroll taxes for my income bracket. My lab (which is a Rice lab but it's actually in the medical center at TCH) also got a funding boost as part of the stimulus package that is going to let us start some new projects and hire some more students.

[Geoff8201]

But the same (or similar) deficits projected when Bush was in power, but nobody protested them then. It makes me feel like this protest is more about Obama winning the election and less about the deficits.

Seems to me like that's really the underlying passion in all these protests lately. These people (almost all Conservatives) didn't hold protests like this until after Obama's win. Of course Bush's promise was to lower everyone's taxes, and this made everyone, particularly conservatives very happy. Obama's promise is to extend those cuts for those who make under $200,000 a year. Everyone else will see their taxes go up. How many people in that income bracket and up are attending these tea parties? Hmmm.

At least Obama says he plans to reduce the deficit once we're out of the recession. Bush never even addressed how he planned to pay for the war in Iraq. I wonder if the war would have been as popular if he had proposed a tax hike on the middle class to pay for it...

I'm a believer that the government needs to spend to get us out of a recession/depression (think about how World War 2 helped us get of the the Great Depression, through government spending), and later focus on the deficit.

It's either that or let the Free Market correct itself... although letting it correct itself on it's own doesn't address the cause, doesn't hold the greedy accountable, and would be significantly messier than Government intervention trying to soften the blow.

If the government were to just suddenly reduce spending by 50% or 25%, how would that help the economy? It might cut down the deficit but a lot of jobs would be lost, and a lot of services would be cut. How would that help people who are out of work?

Agreed. I'm not for always having big Government or always having small Governemnt. I think the size of Government should adjust for how it is needed. In times like these we need big Government. It offers more jobs and more oversight in the midst of tough times.

In a way, I feel like patriotic Americans be at these protests be saying we should raise taxes in order to pay back the cost of the war in Iraq that many of them supported, and reduce the deficit that way, although personally I am very happy with Obama's tax policy. My paycheck at Rice just went up because of his reduction in payroll taxes for my income bracket. My lab (which is a Rice lab but it's actually in the medical center at TCH) also got a funding boost as part of the stimulus package that is going to let us start some new projects and hire some more students.

I'm going to be very happy if I get all my sales tax on the car I just bought back as part of the stimulous. As far as reduction in income tax, every little bit helps I guess, but honestly it's not significant enough to really do anything when you only make $34,000/yr. Most likely I wont even spend the extra I save, but rather just save it and have a few extra bucks for a rainy day.

[TheNiche]

But the same (or similar) deficits projected when Bush was in power, but nobody protested them then. It makes me feel like this protest is more about Obama winning the election and less about the deficits.

I seem to recall there being a lot of opposition to the bailout and stimulus measures passed under the Bush administration before Obama took over and basically just continued with much of the same, so no, I don't think that the "bitter Republicans" justification for any kind of opposition to any kind of government action whatsoever holds water.

I'm a believer that the government needs to spend to get us out of a recession/depression (think about how World War 2 helped us get of the the Great Depression, through government spending), and later focus on the deficit.

There are plenty of instances of economic vitality following a major die-off of labor without a corresponding loss of durable capital. In Europe, the Renaissance period follows the Black Plague. After each World War, there is an American economic boom (bear in mind, our cities didn't get bombed into oblivion); vastly increased government spending did little to pull us out of the Great Depression between 1929 and 1941, however.

If you want an economic solution like the post-World War II period, then we need a labor-intensive foreign war which poses little physical risk to the continental United States. ...or we could just keep it really simple and euthanize the elderly.

If the government were to just suddenly reduce spending by 50% or 25%, how would that help the economy? It might cut down the deficit but a lot of jobs would be lost, and a lot of services would be cut. How would that help people who are out of work?

Is anybody in the mainstream seriously advocating that as a short-term solution to recession!? That'd be crazy; I believe that you are misrepresenting a couple of viewpoints that you don't really understand.

A smaller and more efficient federal government is an amiable goal, however it would be a process that would take years to successfully transition into. This has nothing to do with Keynesian approaches to deal with business cycles. And a slash-and-burn approach to the federal budget would be self-defeating.

As for the short-term considerations, if we need to effect an increase in the velocity of money, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and some of those methods have absolutely no effect on the level of supply of social services, nor do they result in arbitrary redistribution of wealth.

In a way, I feel like patriotic Americans be at these protests be saying we should raise taxes in order to pay back the cost of the war in Iraq that many of them supported, and reduce the deficit that way, although personally I am very happy with Obama's tax policy. My paycheck at Rice just went up because of his reduction in payroll taxes for my income bracket. My lab (which is a Rice lab but it's actually in the medical center at TCH) also got a funding boost as part of the stimulus package that is going to let us start some new projects and hire some more students.

Your accounting is wrong. Funds that we have spent in years past using money that was taxed, borrowed, or printed no longer apply to this fiscal year's deficit.

If you want to raise taxes to pay down the part of the national debt that was created by the war, well that might make sense under some circumstances except that the interest rates on treasury debt are still so low that it really isn't smart for the government not to continue to borrow or print to finance its expenditures. Taxation also tends to reduce the velocity of money, going against the immediate needs...although it may be more appropriate 365 days from today. There is an equilibrium to the government's mixed capital structure. ...but it must be viewed as entirely independent of the type of spending that it is undertaking.

[RedScare]

Is anybody in the mainstream seriously advocating that as a short-term solution to recession!? That'd be crazy; I believe that you are misrepresenting a couple of viewpoints that you don't really understand.

A smaller and more efficient federal government is an amiable goal, however it would be a process that would take years to successfully transition into. This has nothing to do with Keynesian approaches to deal with business cycles. And a slash-and-burn approach to the federal budget would be self-defeating.

As for the short-term considerations, if we need to effect an increase in the velocity of money, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and some of those methods have absolutely no effect on the level of supply of social services, nor do they result in arbitrary redistribution of wealth.

In the MAINSTREAM, no. However, two identifiable gripes of the protesters are "out of control spending" and taxes. So, the clear implication is that they want a drastic reduction in spending, and often it is stated that the preferred reduction come from social programs.

Frankly, most all of the protests are of vague notions of spending, deficits and taxes. There is an expression of frustration by the protesters. The vagueness and frustration by many may well be explained by the fact that they know much of what they would like to see happen would have a negative effect on the economy. In the case of some, I don't believe that they even care what effect it would have. As I've said before, while I am concerned about many of these same issues, I am not about to go protest for policies that may make it worse.

[TheNiche]

In the MAINSTREAM, no. However, two identifiable gripes of the protesters are "out of control spending" and taxes. So, the clear implication is that they want a drastic reduction in spending, and often it is stated that the preferred reduction come from social programs.

Frankly, most all of the protests are of vague notions of spending, deficits and taxes. There is an expression of frustration by the protesters. The vagueness and frustration by many may well be explained by the fact that they know much of what they would like to see happen would have a negative effect on the economy. In the case of some, I don't believe that they even care what effect it would have. As I've said before, while I am concerned about many of these same issues, I am not about to go protest for policies that may make it worse.

I agree that the precise intent of the protests and individual protesters are vague and probably quite varied. However, my impression was that they oppose the many newly-created trillion-dollar programs (including the many new or expanded social programs) and oppose any further similar outlays, and that they think that we've gone off the deep end with spending. These folks weren't on the scene up until just recently, so it strikes me as though the vast majority of them are not pushing for the kind of reduction in size of the government that Jax suggested.

[Jax]

I'm not sure I agree with you that war spending had little to do with the economic recovery after WWII, and I'm not sure the plague in the 1300s is a good example. The economy of Europe was completely different 700 years ago.

I didn't hear any opposition when Bush went through with the first bailout. Maybe it was there but more quiet or something. There certainly weren't protests on the street where Republicans held up signs claiming that Bush was a Maoist or Hitler.

I've heard people suggest we cut out the department of Education, close down the Federal Reserve, end all forms of welfare (including unemployment insurance), and stop the government from funding scientific research. Maybe those are the fringe people but they seem to be pretty vocal lately.

The idea that all government spending is bad and all government programs are inefficient is as ridiculous as saying all corporations are greedy and all corporations are efficient - and that's what I keep hearing from people at these protests.

What we need is to spend in some places, cut in other places, and make government programs more efficient overall rather than making significant cuts like I keep hearing from most Republicans with the exception of The Niche.