ARS on Twitter
RSS
Wednesday Morning Links & News
Posted by Raven on April 15th, 2009
Tax Day Edition.
Protesting the Stimulus!
Uncle Sam won’t steal enough money today…
How our tax system saps productivity.
Liberal conspiracy theories about the protests? NOT.
Michelle has a time line of events leading up to today’s right wing extremist TEA PARTY protests.
Google Maps Tea Party Tracking
Human Events: Taking down Paul KLugman, oops I meant KRugman.
Time to make some noise. Beyond time, really!
Of course, big media won’t pay any attention…Roger Simon ponders why Lindsay Lohan is more CNN- newsworthy than a nationwide protests.
Teach: Poll says Tea Baggers out of touch? I DON’T THINK SO. I’m hearing a lot of discontent from people of ALL political sides. If so many are out of touch, then it seems to me the ones who have the problem with these protests ARE OUT OF TOUCH.
FOX News:
Anti-tax “tea party” organizers say they will deliver one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning — the kick-off to a day of protests expected across the country by people who say they are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.
Barry is going to talk today about changing the TAX CODE. To make it FAIR for all families. Bull shit. There’s nothing fair about taxing some at one rate, and others at another. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Taxing at different rates was the only way the guvmint could continue an income tax without a tax revolt. The idea was to increase the nominal tax on the “rich” (who could obviously afford it) while giving the “poor” a lesser burden (or none at all). Of course, those not paying attention couldn’t see that “loopholes” would again even the playing field. Even the “tax the rich” socialists know “the rich” are the ones who provide jobs, not “the poor” or even lower middle classes.
And beware of His Hollowness and a “fair” tax code. The only operative word there is “code”, and all it means is a newer way to steal from workers and redistribute earned money to both government workers and “community activists”.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:47 am
I’m not sure if I agree with it’s focus, but I do think this is a good movement. There has to be something to try to curb government spending and taxes.
On the “proud right wing extremist” banner. The word extremist is almost always exonymic and I think the reason for this is because it is almost always used pejoratively. I.E. Islam extremists vs. moderate Islam.
Whether meaning to or not, extremism in my experience has always been used in reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency.
It’s not that I think this is any big deal and I’m not advocating that you take it down, although I think I would.
Now I realize by saying that you’re proud of being a right wing extremist that you’re saying that you know it is a negative term but it seems like it could be destructive to society to want to be associated with such types of groups as that could encourage others to be that way as well. Also, use of this kind of language could belittle the acts of actual extremists such as Islamic extremists (terrorists)and based on this blog I doubt that’s something you want.
Interested in your reply,
Terri
April 16th, 2009 at 4:04 am
So Yomama is gonna look into changing the tax code? I suppose that means adding another ten-thousand pages of rates and calculations to a system that most, if not all of the IRS employees can’t even understand.
Better yet why not just take a couple-hundred Chimpanzees and set them down in front of an Excell spreasheet and let em bang away. Given enough time, I’ll bet they end up with something even I can understand. Just don’t let the Government pencil pushers screw with it any more than they already have. I can’t wait.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Terri,
I think the point of the “Proud to be a Right Wing Extremist” banner is that people who are obviously not “extremists” are being painted as such. There is nothing unreasonable with being against abortion, high taxes, governmental intrusion of liberty, or supporting Ron Paul for crying out loud, yet people who do so are being labeled as possible extremists. So if being for/against any of the above makes us extremists, than I guess I join the Founding Fathers as extremists too. Its like when Hillary Clinton lamented the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” by everyone who was against her husband, then people started claiming membership in it almost as a joke…
April 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Teri, by calling ourselves “extremists” we are responding to an obviously politically driven mess of drivel written by some second-rate ideologue who is attempting (in typical leftist fashion) to hijack the language and turn the potential sympathies of “normal” people away from conservatives because, according to Obambi’s writers, we’re all potentially violent and dangerous.
In normal times your analysis would be correct, and it’s the response desired by the administration; however, it’s also not based in an appropriate analysis of who the report is talking about and it assumes (wrongly) that the words used in the report mean what they have traditionally meant.
In other words, they are suckering you into fearing anyone who disagrees with them, and (no offense intended, honestly) are apparently succeeding with you.
Please examine the DHS document closely, make an appropriate analysis of it yourself, and see if it does, in fact, make a lick of sense. If you enter this exercise with an open mind and an awareness that the document has a specific (ideological) political agenda I’m sure you’ll see what we’re talking about, and why we’re reacting the way we are.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Terri, the left is taking a big risk here. They are trying to re-define average small government Republicans into extremists. The mere thought of wanting less government, more local control, free markets and yes- upholding the rights as written in the Constitution is now being framed as extreme right thought. Not so.
The graphic is an answer to this new attempt to redefine. At the Manchester NH protest yesterday there were MANY MANY Democrats who were there to protest the STIMULUS and not taxes in general. Several told me they fear being labeled Extreme Leftist.
It’s a sad day when one political party tries to change the game rules like this- and it’s always the Democrats who do this.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
FAIR TAX, when we hear it from liberals, is Robin Hood Tax. True fair taxation is when ALL people are taxed at the same rate. So long as Democrats are around this will never occur. They have a different idea, a different definition of FAIR.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Raven,
To the left, fair doesn’t mean fair but is closer akin to “equal”. It doesn’t seem fair that a rich man pays higher percentage of taxes on their income than a “middle class” man, but it does take away more of that rich man’s wealth and bring him closer in terms of income to being equal to the middle class, which is the goal ultimately, that we’re all “equally” miserable and dependent on government…
April 16th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
There will never be an “equal” society, no matter how badly His Hollowness and his sycophants wish it. I am and always will be better than some in some aspects of doing things, worse than most at many. Does that mean life is unfair? NO! It means some will always be better than others at doing certain things, worse than most at doing most things. “Equal” is an incredibly nebulous concept, which makes it easier for the likes of politicians to fool enough people into voting for them.
What isn’t “fair” is to steal, a vocation at which many (if not most) politicians excel.
Ultimately, it will always be that “some are more equal than others” simply because they understand how to prey upon others weaknesses.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:29 am
Duncan, Rave and Carlos-
Thanks for the explanation. I did not realize it was in response to a label placed on you. Somehow, I saw you as wanting to identify yourselves with extremism. But Carlos is right, with a little more thought I would not have presumed that you would not want to be associated with something so unreasonable and I should have searched my mind for a more reasonable explanation and very well may have come up with that answer on my own. Presumptions are usually not so good and I usually try not to, but that one got past me. My apologies.
However, I don’t think I’m being suckered by the administration since I don’t watch cable news television, I don’t listen to the radio and I don’t listen or read Obama speeches and I know nothing about this DHS document that you mention.
I’m not aware of this DHS document controversy but I’ll look into it and let you know what I think.
Thanks,
Terri
April 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Terri,
Here is a link to the report. Notice that in the opening paragraph of “Key Findings” that the “analysts” come out and say that there is no evidence to back this up, no hard facts or numbers to say that a trend is developing. This briefing amounts to nothing more than simple conjecture fueled by paranoia that is no different than the “right wing extremists” they are writing about in their piece. It is like they wrote it over a discussion in a bar one evening after work….
April 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Terri, there are numerous sites where you can connect to the document in question. In typical guvmint fashion, it’s cumbersome and tedious, but is, when accepted at face value, very explanatory of the current administration’s attitude toward anyone who disagrees with them.
You see, if you can’t win an argument by using facts the easiest way to disengage from the argument and still become the seeming “winner” is to disenfranchise the opposition as a group. Of course, one doesn’t “win” the argument that way, one just feels morally justified in the escape from it, and the sense of moral superiority this administration feels is overwhelming (to them, not to conservatives).