History of the Tea Party: Birth-year 2009

[african1]

Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement—with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter—almost instantly found a large and loyal following that has gained traction and supporters.
In fact, Gallup poll in late March 2010 revealed that 28% of Americans have a positive perception of the Tea Party movement.
A Televised Birth of a Movement

CNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.
Santelli, however, can't claim credit as the sole mastermind of the movement. Prior to his appearance in Chicago, Keli Carender, a Seattle at-home mother also known as Liberty Belle, had been using her blog to get the word out about the populist "Porkulus Protest" she was organizing against President Barack Obama's proposed $750 billion stimulus package. About 100 people showed up for her event in mid-February. Similar events inspired by both Santelli and Carender, followed in quick succession in Denver; Mesa, Ariz.; Tampa, Fla.; and other cities. Tea Party organizers claim that the first nationwide Tea Party protest took place on February 27, 2009, with coordinated events occurring in more than 40 cities.
Small Protests Gather Steam

These protests were merely dress rehearsal for the Tea Party events planned for April 15, 2009: tax day. Few can agree on the number of events held throughout the country; the number ranges from 200 to 750, with total attendance ranging from about 250,000 to more than a half-million. Some protests, such as the one in Atlanta, Georgia, attracted crowds of several thousand; others drew just a handful. A protest outside the White House was broken up by police when a demonstrator threw a box of tea bags over the fence.
Protests against the stimulus package, the bank bailouts, and health-care legislation continued throughout 2009, with major events held on July 4 and September 12. During the summer, Tea Party protesters were criticized for their disruptive outbursts during meetings held by members of Congress in their home districts to discuss health-care reform.
Diverse Group with a Unified Message

Tea Partiers detest all things big: big government, big business, big national debt, big taxes. They express hostility toward the elite and outrage that the government has come to the aid of Wall Street while ignoring the plight of Main Street. Most Tea Partiers consider themselves citizen activists who are part of a grassroots movement that is organized from the bottom up—small groups united under a shared ideology. The movement claims no national leader or figurehead. Some say that Sarah Palin (http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/sarahpalin.html) assumed the role as #1 Tea Partier when she delivered the keynote address at the first Tea Party Convention in February 2010 in Nashville. Some 600 people attended the full convention, and another 500 sat in on Palin's speech only.
"America is ready for another revolution," she said. In a barb pointed at President Barack Obama, she said the movement is "about the people, and it's bigger than any one king or queen of a tea party, and it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter."
Growing Pains

Some members of the movement accused Tea Party Nation, the group that organized the convention, of attempting to profit from the event: tickets cost $549 to attend, and Palin received a reported $100,000 speaker's fee (which Palin said "will go right back to the cause"). Several sponsors and speakers backed out of commitments in the days and weeks leading up to the event. Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) were among the speakers to cancel their appearances.
While the Tea Party movement claims to be a grassroots movement, FreedomWorks, a powerful conservative organization headed by former congressman Dick Armey, seems to play an important role behind the scenes and serves as clearinghouses for information on protests. Call it the right's answer to MoveON.org.
Mixed Electoral Results

While Democrats are usually the target of Tea Partiers' ire, Republicans have not always been spared. In New York, many members of the movement endorsed third-party candidate Doug Hoffman in the 2009 special election for the House seat vacated by John McHugh, over the moderate Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, pro-choice and a backer of gay marriage. Their plan backfired: Scozzafava withdrew from the race, and Democrat Bill Owens went on to win the election, albeit narrowly.
The ranks of Tea Party members grew in Congress throughout 2010. The movement's first major victory of the year occurred in January in Massachusetts—perhaps the bluest of the blue states—when Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the Senate race to fill the seat vacated after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Brown somewhat distanced himself from the Tea Party during the race, but as he positioned himself as an outsider who would vote to block a vote on health-care reform, the movement claimed him as one of their own. In July Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) got the go-ahead from the House leadership to form a Tea Party Caucus. Twenty-eight Republicans joined the group. In November's midterm elections, voters elected Kentucky's Rand Paul and Florida's Marco Rubio to the Senate. Exit polls on election day indicated that four out of ten voters have a favorable opinion of the party.
Voters, however, rejected some high-profile Tea Party candidates. Delaware's Christine O'Donnell, a conservative—and controversial—social activist who upset highly regarded political veteran Rep. Mike Castle in the September primary, was defeated in the general election by Democrat Christopher Coons. Sharron Angle, another controversial Tea Partier, lost her bid to unseat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada.


Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html#ixzz16Tc2JQGB) http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html#ixzz16Tc2JQGB

[yodajazz]

Thanks for posting. I've been meaning to get around learning more about the movement. From what I can see, seems like the movement is against a lot things, but what about being for something? I also see some inconsistancies. Some are against the government helping out the big financial companies instead of the everyday people, but others are against any help for everyday, with mortgage issues, for example. They were against the Stimulous package and high taxes, but the stimulous package was 40% tax cuts, I've been told.

My question for them would be how do they plan to address the real issues of today; millions of jobs lost, millions of homes foreclosed, millions of people struggling without healthcare, while other nations provide universal coverage? It seems to me that certain corporations are getting larger and larger, gobbling up smaller busisness. Then we have this relatively new thing, CDO's otherwise known as credit default swaps. Seems to me like we need a big government to monitor these things. Where are the answers to the real issues. Seems to me most people are complaining about the only one at least trying to address these issues, the Obama Administration. I think some people are refusing to acknowledge that with the lost jobs, there is going to be social costs anyway. Or should we just let people starve, and be homeless in this winter, while claiming the America is retuning to Christian values?

[onmyknees]

Thanks for posting. I've been meaning to get around learning more about the movement. From what I can see, seems like the movement is against a lot things, but what about being for something? I also see some inconsistancies. Some are against the government helping out the big financial companies instead of the everyday people, but others are against any help for everyday, with mortgage issues, for example. They were against the Stimulous package and high taxes, but the stimulous package was 40% tax cuts, I've been told.

My question for them would be how do they plan to address the real issues of today; millions of jobs lost, millions of homes foreclosed, millions of people struggling without healthcare, while other nations provide universal coverage? It seems to me that certain corporations are getting larger and larger, gobbling up smaller busisness. Then we have this relatively new thing, CDO's otherwise known as credit default swaps. Seems to me like we need a big government to monitor these things. Where are the answers to the real issues. Seems to me most people are complaining about the only one at least trying to address these issues, the Obama Administration. I think some people are refusing to acknowledge that with the lost jobs, there is going to be social costs anyway. Or should we just let people starve, and be homeless in this winter, while claiming the America is retuning to Christian values?

Speaking only for myself, and not the many diverse factions, I'll attempt to answer the job creation portion of your question, for it is by far the most critical....

Keep in mind that Tea Partiers are generally Constitutional purists. Meaning the Founders who created this republic did so out of true belief, not political expiedency. One example of that , although to be honest most Tea Party Chapters steer clear of social issues, but for the sake of example Let's take Roe v. Wade. Let's not take the merits of abortion and it's availibility, but rather the constitutionality of it. The basis of Roe V. Wade is the finding of a "Right to Privacy". Although a "right to privacy" is not found explicitly in the Constitution, that didn't stop Blackman (or Justices William Brennan and William Douglas, in previous cases). As one scholar put it, the Court held that "various judges ... had found 'at least the roots of that right' in the First Amendment, in the 'penumbras of the Bill of Rights,' in the Ninth Amendment or in the 'concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.'" The obvious problem is that even if this right to privacy is granted, it Doesn't follow that it protects/includes the right to abortion. Subsequently, for instance, the High Court in 1997 specifically rejected the idea that the "right to privacy" includes the right to assisted suicide.

You can see what happens when Justices "find" rights not explicitly granted in the Constitution by the Founders. Because Blackman extracted this "right" with respect to abortion, he then had to deal with the essential question of when life begins....a place the court has no business going.

Concerning the question of job creation...This is a movement defined by it's focus not just polices. The focus remains narrow and on fiscal issues. It's a belief that a central government cannot create the amount of living wage jobs needed to keep an economy this size vibrant, and fully employed. So then...how do they propose to create jobs? Frankly they don't....and any politician telling you he can is lying. This was best captured when Linda McMahon asked career Democratic politician, Dick Blumenthal..."how do you create a job" The answer, or lack there of by a future US Senator was shocking...YouTube - Dick Blumenthal Stumped On How To Create A Job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4). This is the fundemental difference between progressives and fiscal conservatives..
That is not to say that there is no room for government over site or regulation, there certainly is, but it the Tea Partiers belief that American Entrepreneur spirit will in the end be the only hope for the amount of jobs needed. It is our belief that small and large businesses should be coached and nurtured and not taxed and regulated to the point of suffocation. It is the belief that businesses will ultimately do what is in the best interests of the stock holders, which is to create a profit, and if the climate here in the US is not conducive to that, they will ultimately move that portion of the business overseas. In the current environment, it is nearly impossible for small businesses to grow, let alone start up. Taxes, environmental regulations, legal concerns due to lawsuits, workman's comp, state regulations all strangle the small start ups. That is precisely why Obama is so wrong with his proposed tax hike on those making above 250K. Approx 50% of those filing above that income level are 501C3 small businesses filing as individuals. If you're not grossing at least 250K at the local Pizza Place, lawn care, local hardware store, etc , than you're not viable. Imagine a 20-30% tax hikes on those folks...in addition to the figuring out the new health care regulations? Again...that's not to suggest that the free market reign supreme...there needs to be oversight, and regulation but not undo interference.
Additionally the US has the highest corporate income tax rate of any industrialized nation....and we wonder why we outsource jobs. Ronald Reagan and Art Laffer believed that by lowering taxes (mainly capitol gains) that would encourage and spur growth and spending. And that it was far better than government spending where the interest on that money not only created deficits, but enriched China and other debt holders. Another perfect example of this was the so called "millionaires tax " on yachts some years ago. The progressives thought it would be a simple way of raising quick revenue out of people who could certainly afford it. It backfired big time. Wealthy people took their money to other countries to have their boats built. Not only did the government loose the revenue they thought they'd collect, they severely damaged the small sail makers, loggers, painters, carpenters, and craftsman all normally gainfully employed by the boat builders. It had disastrous effects on the little guys and was quickly repealed. The Tea Party view is since we're always going to have wealthy people in a free democratic, capitalistic society, let's get them to keep , and spend their money here, making more money. In turn that creates jobs and employees.. both skilled and unskilled workers. When you punish them through the tax code...they opt out or take their dollars overseas. We see what happens when Government tries to move it's social agenda via the banking industry and tax policy. We wind up with Fanny and Freddy Mac. Tea Partiers believe that perhaps not everyone should, or is capable of owning a home, as noble of a goal as it is. Again...government involvement. Greed is in fact a motivation....Unchecked Greed is destructive. In other words...my small bussiness made 175K last year, and I want to double that this year. Is that greed? Perhaps..but in his zeal to expand his bussiness and his profits, he will need more workers, more raw material, more equipment, more factory space.
I think sometimes progressives view wealthy, successful people as piggy banks they can extract more money from for their redistribution social engineering policies. I know of no wealthy people unwilling to pay their share, but when you push them into tax rates approaching 50% they are either going to sit on their capitol, or invest in Dubai ! Those dollars have to remain here and if it means lowering their tax rate to accomplish creating a bigger pie than that's far more long lasting than government stimulus.

[yodajazz]

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html) by Michael Linden, Michael Ettlinger, the Center for American Progress (7/29/2010)

1. Billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy is just about the least efficient use of that money....


The Congressional Budget Office evaluated a variety policies earlier this year based on their ability to boost overall economic growth and employment. The number one thing Congress can do, according to the report, is to increase aid to the unemployed
2. The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised...


Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.....President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that (saw) an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.
3. The tax cuts for nearly all Americans and American small businesses would stay in place


A recent report from the Joint Committee on Taxation points out that less than 3 percent of all taxpayers with any positive business income at all—big or small—would be affected by the increase in rates

[yodajazz]

...Approx 50% of those filing above that income level are 501C3 small businesses filing as individuals...

Not sure where you got your information, but a 501 C 3, is a non-profit organization.

I'm not sure if I understand why a person would report business expenses which are taken off the top, as personal income. If not, some say that a typical business would have to be making 1.2 million for the individual owner to be making 250 k.

Found and intersting statistic. In 2004 the top 5% paid over half the taxes. However they also had 59% of the total wealth.

By the way, from what I could see, the top tax bracket, before the Bush cuts waws 39%. That's a big difference than "almost 50%".

[Cuchulain]

The CON claims that repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest would hurt small business is a scam.

'The so-called "small businesses" that will supposedly have 50 percent of "small business income" affected are not necessarily "small businesses." As Media Matters has noted (http://mediamatters.org/research/201009140030), the apparent sources for the claim that 50 percent of "small business income" would be affected by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, Tax Policy Center and the Joint Committee on Taxation, also noted that that the businesses reporting income that would be affected are not necessarily what most people consider "small businesses" and would include (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009230040) law partnerships, accountants, consultants, real-estate investors, actors, professional athletes, and authors like President Obama (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2010-09-20%2Fobama-soros-are-among-small-businesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html). [Joint Tax Policy Committee, 7/12/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jct.gov%2Fpublications.html %3Ffunc%3Dstartdown%26id%3D3691); Tax Policy Center, 8/4/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxvox.taxpolicycenter.org%2Fbl og%2F_archives%2F2010%2F8%2F4%2F4596364.html)]
JCT: "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.' " A July 12 analysis of Obama's FY2011 Budget Proposals by the JCT stated that "three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income" would see higher taxes under Obama's plan, adding that "[t]hese figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small'." [Joint Tax Policy Committee, 7/12/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jct.gov%2Fpublications.html %3Ffunc%3Dstartdown%26id%3D3691)]
CBPP: Much "business income" does not go to "what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.' " In an August 3 post, Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote that extending the tax cuts for high-income taxpayers "would do little for small business because only the top 3 percent of people with any business income, let alone income from a small business, would benefit." The post further stated that "large amounts of 'business income' go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.' [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/3/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbpp.org%2Fcms%2Findex.cfm% 3Ffa%3Dview%26id%3D3251)]'

Tax cuts for the wealthy do little to create jobs.

'CBO: Extending tax cuts "does not create much incentive ... to hire more workers." CBO director Douglas Elmendorf stated in February written testimony that "[d]eferring the scheduled increases in tax rates in 2011 would help some businesses" but that "increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products." [Elmendorf's written testimony to the Joint Economic Committee, February, 2010 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2 Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf%23page%3D23http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf) [[2/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2 Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf%23page%3D23http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf)]] ]
Economists: Extending the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy is poor stimulus.



Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center: "... higher income households are more likely to bank the cash than spend it. As a result, tax cuts for these high-earners will do relatively little to boost the economy in the short run." [Tax Policy Center, 10/31/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxvox.taxpolicycenter.org%2Fbl og%2F_archives%2F2010%2F8%2F31%2F4618343.html)



Congressional Budget Office: As stimulus, allowing only the top tax cuts to expire "would be more cost-effective" than extending all of the cuts "because the higher-income households that would be excluded would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." [CBO, 1/2010 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F108xx%2 Fdoc10803%2F01-14-Employment.pdf%23page%3D33)]



Paul Krugman: "t's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy." [[I]New York Times, 8/22/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F08%2F2 3%2Fopinion%2F23krugman.html%3F_r%3D2)]

CBO scored "[d]eferring the scheduled increases in tax rates" as the lowest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," '
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011290011

[onmyknees]

The CON claims that repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest would hurt small business is a scam.

'The so-called "small businesses" that will supposedly have 50 percent of "small business income" affected are not necessarily "small businesses." As Media Matters has noted (http://mediamatters.org/research/201009140030), the apparent sources for the claim that 50 percent of "small business income" would be affected by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, Tax Policy Center and the Joint Committee on Taxation, also noted that that the businesses reporting income that would be affected are not necessarily what most people consider "small businesses" and would include (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009230040) law partnerships, accountants, consultants, real-estate investors, actors, professional athletes, and authors like President Obama (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2010-09-20%2Fobama-soros-are-among-small-businesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html). [Joint Tax Policy Committee, 7/12/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jct.gov%2Fpublications.html %3Ffunc%3Dstartdown%26id%3D3691); Tax Policy Center, 8/4/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxvox.taxpolicycenter.org%2Fbl og%2F_archives%2F2010%2F8%2F4%2F4596364.html)]
JCT: "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.' " A July 12 analysis of Obama's FY2011 Budget Proposals by the JCT stated that "three percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income" would see higher taxes under Obama's plan, adding that "[t]hese figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small'." [Joint Tax Policy Committee, 7/12/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jct.gov%2Fpublications.html %3Ffunc%3Dstartdown%26id%3D3691)]
CBPP: Much "business income" does not go to "what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.' " In an August 3 post, Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote that extending the tax cuts for high-income taxpayers "would do little for small business because only the top 3 percent of people with any business income, let alone income from a small business, would benefit." The post further stated that "large amounts of 'business income' go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term 'small business.' [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/3/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbpp.org%2Fcms%2Findex.cfm% 3Ffa%3Dview%26id%3D3251)]'

Tax cuts for the wealthy do little to create jobs.

'CBO: Extending tax cuts "does not create much incentive ... to hire more workers." CBO director Douglas Elmendorf stated in February written testimony that "[d]eferring the scheduled increases in tax rates in 2011 would help some businesses" but that "increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products." [Elmendorf's written testimony to the Joint Economic Committee, February, 2010 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2 Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf%23page%3D23http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf) [[2/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2 Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf%23page%3D23http%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F111xx%2Fdoc11100%2F02-2010-Employment_Testimony.pdf)]] ]
Economists: Extending the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy is poor stimulus.



Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center: "... higher income households are more likely to bank the cash than spend it. As a result, tax cuts for these high-earners will do relatively little to boost the economy in the short run." [Tax Policy Center, 10/31/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxvox.taxpolicycenter.org%2Fbl og%2F_archives%2F2010%2F8%2F31%2F4618343.html)


Congressional Budget Office: As stimulus, allowing only the top tax cuts to expire "would be more cost-effective" than extending all of the cuts "because the higher-income households that would be excluded would probably save a larger fraction of their increase in after-tax income." [CBO, 1/2010 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%2F108xx%2 Fdoc10803%2F01-14-Employment.pdf%23page%3D33)]


Paul Krugman: "t's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy." [[I]New York Times, 8/22/10 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F08%2F2 3%2Fopinion%2F23krugman.html%3F_r%3D2)]
CBO scored "[d]eferring the scheduled increases in tax rates" as the lowest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," '
http://mediamatters.org/research/201011290011

Liberal economists all. Paul Krugman is a far left blow hard and another undeserving Nobel Prize Winner Laureate that has zero credibility. His ideology consistently gets in the way of his analysis.

My point is...I could counter each and every Media Matters economist with a conservative with equally persuasive arguments to the contrary, but that would be pointless...You woudn't accept them.I guess what I'd really like to know from you progressives is how did you arrive at a place where you think it's inherently fair to confiscate 50% or more of someones sweat equity and give it to a non producer >? How does one arrive at that philosophy? No one has ever suggested that folks making over 250K shouldn't pay taxes. The fact of the matter is they do. And the top 1% of earners pay the vast majority of the revenue collected by the IRS. Look it up. Do you know anyone who makes over 250K? Do they have lots of spare cash laying around? This class warfare you all constantly engage in is dangerous. First of all....the rich will always be rich and it would seem you have no desire to join them. I look at a wealthy person with a respectable envy, and try to figure out a way to separate them from some of that money by providing some good or service they need. You look at them with disdain and jealousy, as if they don't deserve what they've earned and as a piggy bank for you to fund more of your social engineering. That's a fundamental difference between us. I urge you to ask a small business person the nearly insurmountable obstacles they face as they attempt to grow their business. Don't take my word for it...ask them.

[hippifried]

I still don't know what "a progressive" is, but I'm going to chime in anyway.

Nobody's asking for 50%. If all the 2001 tax cuts expired, the top rate would be 36% after deductions. People who make mega-bucks don't pay the top rate anyway. That's for wages, salaries, & tips. They make their money on dividends & capital gains. Those are taxed at a top rate of (I believe) 15%. The idea that the top 1% pay the vast majority of taxes just doesn't ring true. I've been hearing this same spiel for years now, but I never heard it before all the so called tax cuts of the '80s when the deficits started going through the roof.

Everybody who makes a dime makes it from the society as a whole. Everything is subsidized. I'm so sick & tired of all the whining about taxes. Everybody else has to pay their fair share. I have no qualms about making those on easy street pay theirs too.