Tea Partiers Maligned
- Print print this page
- Discuss 16 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
We would like to clarify a false rumor that has been published in The Pilot more than once regarding the nationwide tea party movement. We speak from experience because between us, we have attended every tea party event that has been held in Washington, D.C., Raleigh and Southern Pines. It would be interesting to know how many tea party gatherings The Pilot columnist who wrote these false allegations has attended.
The writer accuses tea party members of “sometimes raucous and often hate-filled” behavior and refers to them as “noisy extremists and exhibitionists.” Not once in Washington, D.C., Raleigh or Southern Pines did we who were in attendance witness raucous or hate-filled behavior. There were chanting and periods of silence but absolutely no violence! The overall attitude was one of congeniality.
Tea party events consist of citizens who are exercising their right to freedom of speech. They are concerned about the overwhelming deficit that increases daily and the fact that taxes are being increased. Even with tax increases, the United States does not have the funds to meet current financial obligations, much less address our outrageous debt.
We are critical of President Obama because he has not kept his promise to not raise taxes and to end wars. He has increased the national debt and the number of troops in the Middle East. Incidentally, the tea party was organized in 2009.
Helen Neill
Pinehurst
Jacquelyn Wilson
Whispering Pines
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
coffecreme 3 years ago
Exactly what taxes are being increased?
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Ironic, no? The writer complains about misinformation while spreading it herself. President Obama's stimulus plan cut taxes for 95% of working families. He didn't promise to "end wars." He did promise an orderly withdraw from Iraq, which is happening, but he also promised to send more troop and materiel to Afghanistan, which he's done.
All she's managed to prove is another complaint about TP'ers: they're either lying or willfully ignorant.
JER 3 years ago
I can't decide what the TEA Party stands for. Oh, I know the word "TEA" stands for Taxed Enough Already, which explains why they continue to make statements about the President raising taxes. They have to say that, even if it's not true, because otherwise they would have to change their name. I can't figure out what they want to accomplish. They talk about making government smaller, but I have not seen a list of the areas they want to eliminate. I think they would do themselves and all the rest of us a great service if they would provide a workable solution to each of the following points they find objectionable: 1) Smaller Government: Provide your outline for what you want to reduce (and by how much); what you want to eliminate and show the projected savings for your proposal. 2) Eliminate Debt: Lay out a proposal and a timetable for getting back in the black while maintaining the standard of living you desire. 3)Strict Adherence to the Constitution as Written by The Founding Fathers: Since the founding fathers allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote, explain how far back you want to go in living by the principles of the men who drew up this document. Feel free to pick and choose what you like and what you don't.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Which war, BHO?
Barack Obama on Afghanistan:
-- "I will finally have a comprehensive strategy to finish the job in Afghanistan, with more troops." (Sept. 26, 2008.)
-- "We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. ... I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now." (Sept. 9, 2008.)
-- "This is a war that we have to win. I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan ... We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region." (July 15, 2008.)
--We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq. I have called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. "-Barack Obama, June 18, 2008
He did say he was going to draw down our presence in Iraq.
He's doing both of those things. And you can take THAT to the bank.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Oh, and sorry, but making a claim and telling someone ELSE to Google it is just a red flag that clues people in to the fact that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
All hail BHO! hahahahaha
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Figures Weiselhunden, the pathological liar, would endorse false information.
Obama quotes on Afghanistan:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/12/we-need-to-stop-pretending-that-obama.html
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Wow.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
I'll give you a chance to clarify, then: do you believe, as posted, that "BHO did say he would bring the troops home and end the war."?
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
And sorry...I meant to say flatcem when asking "Which war?"
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
And he's talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan, as I said.
Ever notice how ""calm down," "take a pill" etc, is a standard response from wingnuts caught lying?
I'll take a pill when you people start being honest.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
What's the problem now DR? Geez.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Liars stick together I see.
Obama's actual words on Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Obama's promises on Iraq, rated:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/iraq/
TheNeedle 3 years ago
Rhodes can be a bit of an ass at times. The fact is, though, tefulhunden and his new pal flactem are actually spreading disinformation. You two may actually believe the slanders you're fed, but that just makes you look like credulous rubes when you repeat them.
And then, when you're caught at it and your idiotic pronouncements are easily shown up for the untruths they are, you whine.
Rhodes may act like a jerk, but at least he gets his facts right.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Histrionic perhaps.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Oy, not another one.
Read the thread, flactem. It's all there. I don't have time to keep repeating what I've already said to you and Wieslehunden because you're being deliberately obtuse.
TheNeedle 3 years ago
My, you get incoherent when you're angry.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Let's review the record, flactem,
The letter writer: "he has not kept his promise to not raise taxes and to end wars."
I responded: He didn't promise to "end wars." He did promise an orderly withdraw [sic] from Iraq, which is happening, but he also promised to send more troop and materiel to Afghanistan, which he's done.
You disagreed: "Sorry Rhoades- In fact BHO did say he would bring the troops home and end the war. Then followed it by saying " you can take that to the bank." [emphasis added so that you can't try to weasel away form saying you didn't disagree]
I asked: "Which war, BHO (a typo which I corrected later in the thread when I said: "I meant to say flatcem when asking "Which war?" )
A question which you ignored, both times, and posted a link to a video of Obama. Said video was captioned LIAR LIAR LIAR, and it talked about Obama promising to bring troops home from Iraq--only the video was dishonestly edited so that there was no mention of Iraq.
You keep insisting that President Obama said he "would end the war". You agreed with the letter writer that that promise had been broken and posted dishonestly edited video entitled LIAR LIAR LIAR to support that position.
And you still have not specified "which war" despite being asked. Twice.
In fact, what Obama said is that he would bring troops out of Iraq (which he is in the process of doing) and that he would increase troop level in Afghanistan (which he also has done). He has broken no promises on this issue, he has told no lies, and you are dishonest for posting misinformation stating that he did.
You. Are. A. Liar. And a weasel besides, because you refuse to admit the clear meaning of your own words.
Case closed. We're done.
LucilleGreybone 3 years ago
Obama fanboy.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Flactem-DR is worse than Rep. Joe Wilson...hahaha
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Funny how the people who whine the loudest about "name calling" are the quickest to do it.
maiapinion 3 years ago
I find it amazing that people who are ticked off that they lost a majority in the last election decided that the group in history they have the most in common with is The Revolutionary War Heros who held Boston Tea Party. Those early forefathers had a legitimate concern: they were being taxed with out representation. Remember your School House Rock: "It's called Taxation without Representation, and it's not fair!"
But here, clearly, the self-styled Tea Partiers who wander around and harumph with teabags hanging from their ears and hats and any other appendage that is handy have representation. Being adult citizens of the United States, they availed themselves of the right to vote at every opportunity. They are represented in Raleigh and Washington, and even Carthage, for goodness sake. They just might not be represented by the person for whom they voted. This is not the same thing that the Colonists fought 230 years ago when our struggle to emerge as an independent nation began. Whether or not the original writer of this message has witnesses violence or not, there has been violence implied and encouraged by Tea Party stars. I consider this to be irresponsble. Just because your viewpoint is suddenly in the minority doesn't mean you aren't represented. Regardless of whether Obama promisied this, or didn't prmise that, the very premie oftheTe party is ridiculous and specious. How can we possible take them seriously.
dustyrhoades 3 years ago
Well said, maiapinion.
Mauiman, when your goal, your condition for victory, is that the state you invaded* is able to take care of itself, you do have to set some sort of time limit, else they'll stay dependent forever, and resentful of it.
*before anyone gets their knickers in a bunch over the word "invaded", I supported and still support the war in Afghanistan. This disclaimer should not be necessary, but the Left has nothing on the Right these days when it comes to demanding "politically correct" language.
lachm 3 years ago
Part 1.
Are these some of the reasons now for our nation being in so much debt? Want to cut the USA deficit and our taxes - maybe our Government should cut “FOREIGN AID” and stop aid to the 12 million illegal’s. Why are we supporting, securing and rebuilding other nations while our nation and citizens are in need of help ?
Found on Google website:
Title: The Reagan Myth is not a myth -- it's a LIE and Republicans repeat it over and over
The Reagan Myth is not a myth -- it's a LIE and Republicans repeat it over and over
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986). Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982.
(MILLIONS of ILLEGALs then and now 2010 MILLIONS more) ( Are most of them on welfare and receiving Government aid)?? Or is it that our Government encourages slave labor) ?
Ronald Wilson Reagan is, at once, a deity to conservatives and Satan to liberals. He was the fortieth President of the United States and is arguably the most divisive modern political figure. Conservatives tout his accomplishments as leading to a new Pax Americana they point to what they see as the ending of the Cold War due to Reagan s diplomacy, and believe that Reagan s fiscal and economic policies led to a renewed American economy.
According to conservatives, Reaganomics which represent a sharp turn from the government s fiscal policies of the previous forty years before Reagan is probably the best economic program in American history. They contend that these policies improved living conditions for all Americans and brought the economy out of the stagflation and recession of the 1970s and early 1980s.
Upon thorough examination, however, it is clear that Reaganomics was actually detrimental to the United States, and even ultimately led to the severe late 2000s recession.
lachm 3 years ago
Part 2.
The hallmark of Reagan s fiscal programs that the average American was supposed to rally around was tax cuts. Reagan in many ways tried to forge a war on taxes, which he believed would stimulate the American economy. The first part of his tax cut program was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. President Reagan signed it into law on August 12, 1981, amid a grayish-brown California haze from the waves of the Pacific Ocean crashing onto the coast of Reagan s estate. By signing the bill at his ranch, Reagan tried to create an image of himself as an ordinary American who felt the pains of ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, however, most ordinary Americans did not feel the tax cuts.
The cuts reduced taxes by 25% in all income brackets. This meant that income tax rates for the top bracket went from 70% to 50%. The working class tax bracket saw a much less significant reduction, from 14% to 11%. Despite what looked like a rate cut, those who could have actually benefited from a tax cut really saw their own taxes increase due to bracket creep. As inflation increased salaries, many were forced into a higher tax bracket that did not deserve to be, because their real purchasing power had actually remained the same as the price of goods also went up due to inflation.
Meanwhile, the only people benefiting from the tax cuts were the wealthy, as their tax rates were slashed by the Act. Corporations and other special interests also greatly enjoyed the 1981 tax cuts to the tune of billions of dollars. As Will Bunch wrote, Reagan may have signed the law [the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981] as if he were auditioning for a role in High Noon, but the benefits accumulated for the gray-flannel-suited urban cowboys of Wall Street and high finance.
Conservatives claim that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 led directly to the end of 1970s and early 1980s stagflation, a period of economic stagnation coupled with inflation. They cite the soaring Dow Jones as evidence, as though the Act was the transformative act that caused [this] to happen. In reality, immediately after the Act was signed, America went into a deep economic recession that included a 10.8% unemployment rate by December of 1982. Eventually, however, the economy did recover, but this had little do with Reagan. Instead, the recovery was precipitated by a decline in oil prices and natural turnaround from the poor 1970s and early 1980s economy. Reagan simply could not control those factors.
It quickly became clear that the tax cuts for the wealthy went too far. This is why, less than one year after the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law, Congress passed a tax increase the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which Reagan signed. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1983, 1984, and 1986.
lachm 3 years ago
Part 3.
Even with the incremental increases (although, overall, taxes still decreased the small increases did not make up for the big decrease), the government budget deficit soared during the Reagan years. This is because as Reagan lowered taxes, government spending increased. Despite campaigning on a platform of smaller government, defense spending was dramatically increased at Reagan s behest. A new cabinet agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, was also created. By the end of Reagan s presidency, the national debt had increased from $700 million in the beginning to $3 trillion dollars.
The other major part of Reaganomics was deregulation. Deregulation, Reagan believed, would lead to freer markets, which was a positive American value. However, deregulation of markets had in the past had a bad effect on consumers. Instead of increasing competition, the 1978 deregulation of the airline industry led to increased monopolization of the industry. Consumers felt the crunch for profits as major airlines abandoned routes that involved smaller airports in favor of streamlining schedules. Overall, the airline deregulation before Reagan turned out to be a debacle.
President Reagan could have learned from the mistake of airline deregulation. Instead, he embarked on an even more dangerous trek of deregulation: this time, the target was the financial industry. On October 15th, 1982, he signed a law that deregulated the savings-and-loan industry. He hailed the new law as a jackpot. This led to new industry standards for the S&Ls, including bigger mortgages. High-risk commercial real estate was a common investment made by the savings-and-loans. It was a recipe for disaster.
Savings-and-loans collapsed. By 1989, hundreds of S&Ls failed due to poor management and loan practices, and a lack of good government oversight to prevent problems. Ultimately, the taxpayers were forced to pay the price, as the government bailed out the industry for one hundred and fifty billion dollars. The crisis also caused the housing market to decline, resulting in the lowest number of new homes constructed since World War II in 1991. Overall, it was clear that the deregulation hurt.
The tax changes, coupled with the budget deficits, and deregulation led to a massive economic demographic shift. The number of millionaires in the United States took a huge jump during the Reagan years, but at the expense of the middle class, as their wages barely kept pace with inflation. Wages for those who earned between twenty thousand dollars and fifty thousand dollars during the 1980s increased by 44%--although this figure is not adjusted for inflation, meaning a real increase much lower than 44%. Simultaneously, incomes for the very wealthiest increased by an amazing 2,184%! The fact was, the income gap was sharply widening.
lachm 3 years ago
Part 4.
After these disasters, the American people seemed to reach a conclusion: Reagan s economic programs had failed. By the time George Bush left the presidency in 1993, and most of the last vestiges of the Reagan administration had left office with the notable exception of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan America appeared to be done with Reaganomics.
In 1992, Americans elected Bill Clinton to be President. Clinton attempted to actually mimic Reagan s smaller government ideas, except in a way that actually worked and were real. He began to take down Reagan s failed economic plans. By the end of the 1990s, Clinton s government managed to do what seemed impossible: balance the federal budget. In fact, in 2000, there was a budget surplus of $236 billion.
Americans were, according to Will Bunch, eager, even excited, about paying down the debts accumulated under Reagan. Despite this, Republican George W. Bush ran for President in 2000 on a platform of tax cuts. He lost to Al Gore, but in a stunning act of anti-democracy, became President, in essence appointed to the post by the Supreme Court. Now President, Bush attempted to imitate Ronald Reagan.
Bush could not have done it without Alan Greenspan, who remained Chairman of the Federal Reserve, having been appointed by Reagan in 1986. In 2001, Greenspan gave his blessing for a huge $1.85 trillion tax cut. Immediately, the ill effects of Reagan s tax cuts were felt once again. The majority of the tax cuts were for the very wealthiest: this time, the top 1% received an astonishing 52% of the tax cuts! From 2001 to 2005, the earnings of the average worker fell by 3.2%. Income inequality was on the rise once again. The policies that failed under President Reagan were in full swing all over again.
Deficits were on the rise again as well. Debt accumulated. In the first six years of the Bush administration, public debt grew by $3.33 trillion. Bush cut taxes even during war; he took Reagan s tax policies to the extreme. He cut more taxes in 2003, with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Bush never seemed to want to stop cutting taxes, and the economy suffered. The dollar lost one third of its value. Despite all of this, the desire to cut more just continued.
Reagan s policy of decreasing regulation also arose again. Throughout the 2000s, Alan Greenspan was warned of a housing bubble but declined to regulate the market. Federal regulators continued to allow exceptions to the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prevented companies from being both commercial and investment banks. Credit flowed easily through deregulated real estate mortgage markets. Subprime loans allowed people to buy houses that they perhaps could not really afford. The economy was poised for disaster.
lachm 3 years ago
Part 5.
Indeed, in 2008, the bottom fell out. Banks failed. Unemployment skyrocketed. The American economy was significantly weakened due to a financial unwinding caused by neglecting to regulate financial markets. Greenspan, in a 2008 hearing, even admitted that deregulation had a significant impact on causing the financial crisis, saying that he had been at least somewhat wrong on the issue. It was a sharp rebuke of a key element of Reaganomics.
The failure in 2008 highlighted an underlying issue: a return to the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan. Lowering taxes failed in the 1980s, and it failed again in the 2000s, significantly increasing debt, deficits, and the gap between the rich and the poor. Deregulation was the key element that ultimately led to the late 2000s recession. The late 1980s failure of the savings-and-loan industry was a preview of what was to come later due to the same disastrous policies.
Reaganomics clearly decimated the American economy.
Bibliography
Bunch, Will. Tear Down This Myth: The Right Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy. New York: Free Press, 2010.
Cannon, Lou. Actor, Governor, President, Icon, Washington Post 6 June 2004: A1.
Coates, David. Answering Back: Liberal Responses to Conservative Arguments. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010.
Ivins, Molly. Deregulation: High Prices, Bad Service. Miami Herald 31 August 2001, 9B.
Jackson, Brooks. During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? Factcheck.org. http://factcheck.org/... (15 March 2010).
Kuttner, Robert. The Bubble Economy. The American Prospect 24 September 2007.
lachm 3 years ago
We should have NEVER been in Iraq; it is a war based on a LIE from the Bush administration.
We've been in Afghanistan for how many years - 10, 20 ? - and we should not have ever been there.
What are they fighting over - the Herion fields??
Want to reduce the USA deficit? (a). Cut Foreign aid. Take care of our citizens that exist in poverty; our elderly and children in America.
Want to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorist? (a). Get our troops out of Afghanistan / Iraq and put them on OUR boarders and stop the drugs from coming into the USA and destroying our young people’s minds. Drugs are a WMD - it kills our children; our young people.
(b). Fly unmanned drones, loaded with plant killing chemicals, over their Gold Mines = Their funding = Their Poppy/Herion fields and
dump tons of “Round-up” on their Gold Mines. Their herion plants are being used as WMD against us. It is their gold mine that is funding their war against us. Stop their funding and you’ll stop them and their war.
teufelhunden 3 years ago
Well said Mauiman.
macv6566 3 years ago
WOW ! You all have a right to your opinions certainly. I have only one thing to say "when Dusty maligns someone or their organizations its great, I would be worried and scared if he liked them or agreed with them".