[Dave]

How is it a real people's movement? It's organised by elites and attended by a select few. It's astroturfing, sponsored by conservative elites. If we're talking 'people's movements', then Obama's election campaign, as stage-managed as it was, is much more an example of grassroots support.

A rather poor example given the dominance of the campaign by Wall Street bundling.

There was no tea party when Bush was spending big in the economic up-times. No tea party when the government was collecting taxes last year. No tea party when Paulson - the conservative economist - decided that a bailout was required. No tea party when the stock market responded positively to the bailout. But when most Americans are getting prepared to pay less in income tax than they have in previous years under Obama... well, apparently the 'grassroots' of America have had enough with being taxed so highly. Please - people are not this naive.

Apparently, people are this naive--note that they're out there protesting now when they were not a year ago.

Deficit spending is the most responsible course of action in economic down times. That's generally acknowledged.

This is more rancorous than you might think. A large fraction of mainstream economists now subscribe to Real Business Cycle theory. There are also of course the various heterodox schools opposed.

The particular bailout spending was necessary and needed urgently to prop up major institutions - ones that are at the core of the US financial system - institutions that ordinary people rely upon.

There's substantial reason to believe that most of the bailout money was not necessary for this at all, and that the crisis is a convenient cover to transfer enormous wealth to the financial sector and further consolidate it.

This Fox News-induced miasma of ignorance which states the average American would have been better off if Wall Street really *had* collapsed is sheer lunacy.

Really? The problem with bank failure is that contracts the money supply. But the Federal Reserve can create an unlimited amount of money. Why does Wall Street require saving, and why with taxpayer money? The financial sector's role is merely to provide capital to the real economy. That is to say, it matches borrowers with lenders. The present matchmakers have clearly failed. Why must they be saved when the FED is already empowered to prevent the harmful effects that would come with bank failure?

[Potemkin]

This Fox News-induced miasma of ignorance which states the average American would have been better off if Wall Street really *had* collapsed is sheer lunacy.

Actually, as a Marxist, I find it very heartening. It indicates that American right-wing populism is inconsistent with the continued existence of financial capitalism.

[grassroots1]

Paradigm:

How do you libertarians feel about authoritarian conservatives like Hannity hijacking these protests(which were previously associated with the Ron Paul movement)?

response from Saul:

I don't see them being "hijacked" by anyone. I was at one of the Tea Parties, and the main message was freedom, not authoritarianism.

But don't you see a need to separate yourself from people like Hannity who falsely advocate your conception of 'freedom?' Hannity worked at Fox while they were being fed talking points directly from the white house, talk about an entity that is friendly with government. There is a really strange relationship between the libertarian movement and the oligarchical elements of our society... a relationship that is too close.

[tallpaul]

How is it a real people's movement? It's organised by elites and attended by a select few.

I can tell you didn't attend one, or if you did, you didn't know anyone there.

Ours was not organized by "elites", nor was it attended by a select few. It was organized and attended by a broad cross-section of local people. In a town of nine thousand, over 200 attended. Reaction from passers by was overwhemingly positive.

Sorry the facts don't fit your mental image.

It's astroturfing, sponsored by conservative elites.

Have any evidence of "sponsorship"? I have seen none.

[canadiancapitalist]

Saul : your post with all the pictures has me on the verge of (ecstatic) tears. Perhaps there is hope after all.

[canadiancapitalist]

But don't you see a need to separate yourself from people like Hannity who falsely advocate your conception of 'freedom?' Hannity worked at Fox while they were being fed talking points directly from the white house, talk about an entity that is friendly with government. There is a really strange relationship between the libertarian movement and the oligarchical elements of our society... a relationship that is too close.

What is your problem? That we don't marginalize ourselves even further then we already have? There is a reason why libertarians are called the "hippies of the right" - it is because the right is, and especially was, far friendlier to the idea of freedom then the left. A little anecdotal evidence - there are huge Canadian political forums, one right wing and one left wing. While posting and explaining my political beliefs I was ridiculed and attacked on both forums, but the leftist one banned me after two days, even though I was FAR more polite and considerate there then I was at the conservative one, where people actually talked to me about my ideas honestly, and I remain unbanned to this day.

The members of the conservative movement are by and large (in my experience) good people who fundamentally have an anti-statist attitude. This is obviously not true for the ring leaders of the movement or conservative politicians but I am talking about the people in the movement. The members of the left are by and large mediocre people who fundamentally have a statist attitude. The left is dominated by emotional appeals, populist rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty - this is because on virtually every point they are wrong, and so they cannot defend themselves with reason.

Perhaps some day this will change. The left used to be very anti-authoritarian. Liberalism once stood for freedom, after all. But at the moment, this is how it is, and there's really no use talking to anti-freedom leftists, it only wastes time and enrages advocates of liberty. The right can be reached.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Sorry the facts don't fit your mental image.

It fits astroturfing just fine - conservative pressure groups think up an idea, they sell it and fools and opportunists buy it. If 200 volunteers in your town went around selling Amnesty badges would you use that as evidence that Amnesty is not organised from the top down?

As I've said, it's no coincidence that your little town didn't have a tea party last year at tax time when they were being taxed more heavily, that they didn't have it the year before when Bush was promising more billions for Iraq and that they didn't have it last Spring when Paulson was introducing the extraordinary bailout measures to Congress.

The timing of these protests only makes sense as a ridiculous anti-Obama campaign, the attendees are generally nutters as this thread attests to, the celebrity endorsers are conservative wackjobs like Hannity and Fox News even called them "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" itself.

Quite apart from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth nature of the whole campaign, the rationale behind it is also pathetic - it's not hard to get people to not like taxes, but to claim that you'd be better off had the government not propped up key sectors of the financial sector... well, tea drinkers don't even bother acknowledging this is what they are trying to argue, let alone put forward the evidence.

[SaulOhio]

Sorry I haven't responded in a timely manner, but I am now on my twice-yearly trip to Hatteras, NC.

Max: I would have thought by now you would know that I would not consider saving Fannie and Freddie to be a good thing. For a healthy economy, you have to let incompetently run, obsolescent, or inneficient businesses fail. This frees up resources for more productive things.

Why would deficit spending be a good thing? It puts future taxpayers into debt, misdirects resources that are needed for other uses, inflates the money supply robbing people's savings of value, and leads to a new bubble which is eventually bound to burst, plunging the economy back into a new recession. Who wants that?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Saul: I would ordinarily be happy to let businesses fail and indeed so would Paulson - his economic philosophy, I'd imagine, is actually very close to yours. The thing about AIG, Freddie and Fannie is that they are so integrated into the financial system that their collapse would send a whole lot of other companies and other Americans into the shit too.

You could be 100% against government intervention in the electricity industry too, but if someone providing electricity to 10 million NYC homes was about to shut down as a government there would be some responsibility to intervene and do your darndest to make sure it wouldn't happen. Paulson (not Obama, not a Democrat but a former head of Goldman Sachs) found himself in this situation last year.

As for deficit spending - the general consensus is that you want to spend what you raise across the cycle. This means achieving a surplus in the boom times and going into deficit in the hard times. It is a perfectly sustainable policy and one that has positive outcomes in jumpstarting economies that are sagging and providing necessary support for otherwise healthy industries in troubled times. The real problem is not deficit spending in years like 2009, but what spending went on back in the early 2000s.

[SaulOhio]

If people need the electricity, and you actually have a free market in electricity, (which we don't, there being many restrictions on building power plants and exploring for oil and coal) then companies generating electricity by economical means would not fail.

Just that there is a general consensus that deficit spending is a good thing doesn't mean it is. Give me a reason to believe it is, besides this supposed consensus, something that outweighs the negatives I mentioned.

And of course, you are assuming a Keynesian, or maybe monetarist, theory of business cycles. But both the Keynesiand and the monetarists though we had put an end to the business cycle. The Fed and deficit spending would solve the problem once and for all. Didn't work out that way, did it?

[Maxim Litvinov]

...then companies generating electricity by economical means would not fail.

This is not the question though. The question is - given IMMINENT failure that will BADLY EFFECT millions of Americans, should the government do something or not? The people going to the tea party appear to be saying that they wish your economy really had been stuffed even more, because they wish the government hadn't done anything. This is an *extreme* point-of-view - one that even hard-headed free-marketeers in the Bush administration refused to accept at the end of the day. I'm not sure what you're saying, because you're ignoring the question.

Just that there is a general consensus that deficit spending is a good thing doesn't mean it is. Give me a reason to believe it is, besides this supposed consensus, something that outweighs the negatives I mentioned.

I don't accept the negatives you mention. You are already living in a dream world where financial problems just 'won't occur' because you have a free market. But the whole idea you should never go into deficit is quite extraordinary and extreme - if you practised it on a personal level, you'd fall way behind the other individuals in your community.

[grassroots1]

What is your problem? That we don't marginalize ourselves even further then we already have?

How is separating yourself from FOX news marginalizing? It marginalizes you to be considered in the same camp with those complete nutjobs! I don't care what experiences you've had with the 'left' versus the 'right,' I don't care who you think are better people. Why can't you just look at the situation and pick out what you like, what strikes you as true, instead of what goes along with a certain ideology? I don't want to hear your anecdotal evidence because it is meaningless. Don't think of me as a leftist or a rightist, think of me as grassroots1.

it is because the right is, and especially was, far friendlier to the idea of freedom then the left.

Fucking meaningless statement.

Malcolm X, near the end of his life, said something which struck to my core:
“I am for truth, no matter who tells it. I am for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I am a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

Perhaps some day this will change. The left used to be very anti-authoritarian.

Did it? You know that from your long experience in struggling with socialists and anarchists? You know that from some survey of 'leftists' I've never seen before? Honestly, you pull this shit out of your ass.

The members of the conservative movement are by and large (in my experience) good people who fundamentally have an anti-statist attitude. This is obviously not true for the ring leaders of the movement or conservative politicians but I am talking about the people in the movement.

If your ring-leaders don't believe what you believe, you need some new fucking ring-leaders! Apparently the individuals in the movement don't remotely represent their leadership, according to your assessment of the situation.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

It's amusing that Fox News and conservative commentators are now using the very same rhetoric they blamed leftists for during the Bush administration. "Obama is a fascist! Time to speak out against the evil government! Let's have a REVOLUTION!"

[tallpaul]

As I've said, it's no coincidence that your little town didn't have a tea party last year at tax time when they were being taxed more heavily,

We were being taxed more heavily last year? Do you PAY taxes? On April fifteenth, you pay taxes for LAST YEAR. Furthermore, we have yet to see any significant net decrease in taxes. Furthermore, the huge increase in deficit spending means that taxes MUST go up. How else will interest on the debt be paid?

[Maxim Litvinov]

As I said, if this was a genuine movement concerned at either government bailouts or reckless government spending then it would have started long ago. As it is, it didn't start up when a blank cheque was written on Iraq, it didn't start up when the (Bush) administration approved bailouts and it has started out in a year when income taxes being paid are actually lower than the previous year.

But attend your Republican opportunists love-in if you want.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
So deficit spending and more regulations is going to solve America's economic problems how?

Deficit spending is the most responsible course of action in economic down times. That's generally acknowledged.

Piling on top of an already too large deficit is not a responsible course of action during any time.

And running deficits during downturns is only considered a wise course of action by the bankrupt Keynesian economy theory.

The particular bailout spending was necessary and needed urgently to prop up major institutions - ones that are at the core of the US financial system - institutions that ordinary people rely upon.

Here's Maxim excusing the transfer of wealth from the general population to the largest corporations in America.

Why do you always find yourself siding with the ruling elite against the common people, and ridiculing the people's efforts to stand up for themselves and have a voice.

Socialism always sides against the average person in favor of an autocratic elite.

As I said, if this was a genuine movement concerned at either government bailouts or reckless government spending then it would have started long ago.

I wasn't aware that you had tabs on every individual participating in the teaparty and knew for a fact that they had not previously criticized the Iraq war and Bush era bailouts. Your powers of socialist clairvoyance are impressive.

Then again, maybe you're just relaying what you learned from MSNBC and CNN, two grassroots networks owned by humble workers and with no connections to the political-economic elite.

[tallpaul]

As I said, if this was a genuine movement concerned at either government bailouts or reckless government spending then it would have started long ago. As it is, it didn't start up when a blank cheque was written on Iraq, it didn't start up when the (Bush) administration approved bailouts and it has started out in a year when income taxes being paid are actually lower than the previous year.

Bush had deficits, but nothing like what we're seeing in Obama's budget.

As for what income taxes are being paid.... big deal... some folks withholding has been reduced... other taxes are up.

You can't prove that net taxes are down, and even if you could, indications are they will have to go up, at the rate money is being spent.

[Maxim Litvinov]

And running deficits during downturns is only considered a wise course of action by the bankrupt Keynesian economy theory.

Unfortunately for the economically lunatic, Keynesian theory is alive and kicking in every treasury department around the world.

Why do you always find yourself siding with the ruling elite against the common people, and ridiculing the people's efforts to stand up for themselves and have a voice. [sic]

A strange question from someone who is promoting the manipulative tea parties as a bankrupt party-political showpiece.

As for what income taxes are being paid.... big deal... some folks withholding has been reduced... other taxes are up.

It is a big deal, actually. These tea parties were supposedly spontaneous grassroots events about people being annoyed with taxes (hence the tax day tea parties), bailouts and unnecessary spending....

You'd have to be completely naive to believe any of that once three simple questions are asked:

[1] Are federal taxes worse now than before? No. They were higher or the same in immediately previous years under Bush.
[2] Are bailouts starting now? No. The belief in bailouts arose from a conservative/right-wing treasury and went to Congress under Bush.
[3] Is spending more unnecessary now? Well, how necessary is the trillion dollar bill for Iraq?

If it is a grassroots campaign, it would have to be one of idiots who have completely mis-timed things. As it is, the tea parties have involved heavy organisation and promotion from Republican groups and the conservative media.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
And running deficits during downturns is only considered a wise course of action by the bankrupt Keynesian economy theory.

Unfortunately for the economically lunatic, Keynesian theory is alive and kicking in every treasury department around the world.

Governments seeking re-election pursue deficit spending to pass off the problem of today to tomorrow. Dumbass socialists who support big government elites don't understand that.

Quote:
Why do you always find yourself siding with the ruling elite against the common people, and ridiculing the people's efforts to stand up for themselves and have a voice. [sic]

A strange question from someone who is promoting the manipulative tea parties as a bankrupt party-political showpiece.

So people organizing and protesting against what they see as bad policy is "manipulative", while a $1 trillion bailout given to the largest most politically connected banks in America, sold under the banner of protecting the general population, is not. This is reality in the insane socialist world.

Why do you always attack the people's movements with snide remarks and questions about their motives, while supporting the banking financed big government movements?

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was also financed by big banking interests, namely Jacob Schiff, one of the most powerful bankers in the world.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Governments seeking re-election pursue deficit spending to pass off the problem of today to tomorrow.

Treasury departments with economists from no party pursue deficits in economic hard times and surpluses in economic good times. It's generally accepted policy for applied economists around the world. Unsurprisingly, libertarianism is not only unpopular with normal people but also with policy makers. Contrary to what you claim, deficits aren't actually politically popular - it's just that most of the population can recognise there are good times for going into debt: you'd be mad to think otherwise.

So people organizing and protesting against what they see as bad policy is "manipulative", while a $1 trillion bailout given to the largest most politically connected banks in America, sold under the banner of protecting the general population, is not.

If people genuinely hated the bailout of banks, then they should have protested when Paulson first put it on the table... as a Bush man. If people genuinely hated high taxes, then they should have protested when their federal taxes were generally higher under Bush. If people hated wasteful spending, they should have been having their tea parties when billions were being spent on Iraq. Instead, the same news channel that was telling Americans they were wrong to oppose the outrageous spending on the Iraq catastrophe is the same one promoting the "Fox News Channel Tea Parties".

There are really two possibilities - either Americans are really dumb or certain anti-Democratic organisations started pushing tea parties as cynical campaign. You might prefer the first option, but I think the second sounds more plausible.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was also financed by big banking interests, namely Jacob Schiff, one of the most powerful bankers in the world.

The Russian Revolution wasn't particularly bankrolled at all, although the Bolsheviks obviously had support from a number of key players. The Bolshevik Revolution was an elitist thing though - it was explicitly led by a 'vanguard of the proletariat'. I can't see why you'd think I wouldn't acknowledge this - the fact is that 'grassroots social movements' are often, in actual fact, promoted by small cliques of elite interests - just like these tea parties have been.