America Revolts

[Easy Bakes 253]

 I realy think they should  minimize the use of the term 'Tea baging".

[ArchangelMichael 51]

Relevant #1

Relevant #2

[Duke of York 23]

What is interesting is that people seem to forget that it's not only republicans

protesting....There are plenty of liberals there as well....And it is strange that

people believe that it is only about taxes....Which indeed is a big part...but

however it is also about smaller gov. that is more fuctional and many more topics....

I would say watching obama's ratings should explain enouph......

[Wrightguy0 40]

they should.

you know when liberals demonstrated it was because the rich were not being taxed the way they should be. And man were circumventing the law through tax fraud and holding offshore accounts, or registering assets, like ships to different countries. So the republicans cash in on the gullibility of their base by getting all preachy about America and how everyone's taxes will go up. Puh-leaze, at least when liberals demonstrate they fight against corruption, illegal wars, the loss of rights and freedoms, and the fact that bush was wasting three trillion a day in Iraq.

Do these idiots even realize that the government's money needs to come from somewhere, or are they just so thick they think god craps everything they need on the white house lawn? There's a reason Public schools in the U.S. are crap, there's a reason the American health care system isn't free, and why police forces are underfunded and ineffective. It's because Americans Become militant the moment someone even suggests a Tax increase. I don't get it, they want all this good stuff, but they don't want to pay for it.

You know the only reason we're in this mess because the last guy screwed up right, republicans should be thankful the dems are willing to try and clean up this mess, they did it in the thirties and the nineties, and now they're doing it again. If democrats are tax and spend (which is how a government is supposed to work) Republicans would be borrow and spend (which is, if the recession is proof enough, is a dumbarse move)

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

Hang on, forgive me if I am confused, but why a Tea Party?

In my mind a 'Tea Party' is a group of old ladies getting together to drink tea and eat biscuits and discuss last Sundays church service. I'm sure that's not what these protesters are doing. It just seems bizarre to call it a 'Tea Party', which sounds so tame.

Any reason?quote>

One guy had a glance at a history book, saw the words "taxation" and "tea party" and they all latched on to that like a lamprey, in a desperate attempt to attach some historical dignity to their dubious cause.

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Do I get this right:- The Americans are Revolting.quote>

No no, most are lovely people once you get to know them.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I had come to the conclusion, a few weeks beforehand, that both Bush and Obama are fascists, or at the very least have fascist leanings. Bush happened to be a non-economic fascist most of his term and Obama is merely completing the economic part of the equation, all the while keeping his secret police (the NSA) and trying to keep absolute power to imprison anyone in the world without charges. What difference does it make if one masquerades as a conservative, and one masquerades as a liberal?

quote>

The NSA has been around since the fifties, and is a fairly important component of your intelligence gathering capability. They're not simply Bush's secret police, they can't simply be disbanded. And please do not throw around the label fascist when you're merely talking about authoritarian sides to their policy, it's inaccurate and lacks perspective.

Originally posted by: Cheese89

When Republicans are in power, Democrats hold huge rallies and Republicans criticize them for it. When Democrats are in power, Republicans hold huge rallies and Democrats criticize them for it. America is hardly revolting... we're just vocal when we don't agree with the government.

quote>

I thought comparing Bush to Hitler was about as silly as it could get. But it seems Obama's opponents are clearly reaching for new heights. Never underestimate the lengths your guys will go to to be vocal I guess.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

Puh-leaze, at least when liberals demonstrate they fight against corruption, illegal wars, the loss of rights and freedoms, and the fact that bush was wasting three trillion a day in Iraq. quote>

Most of that is either factually incorrect (such as the three trillion comment), or nothing more than political spin doctoring.

Do these idiots even realize that the government's money needs to come from somewhere, or are they just so thick they think god craps everything they need on the white house lawn?quote>

I imagine most of them realize where government revenue needs to come from.  Being fed up about taxes isn't mutually exclusive with being a responsible tax-paying citizen.

The better question is do the politicians realize where their money comes from, because many of happy to spend like there's an infinite supply.  When money is tight, a fiscally responsible individual looks for ways to cut back expenditures.  When money is tight, politicians simply ask for more of it, rather than looking at how to cut back and trim needless fat.

There's a reason Public schools in the U.S. are crapquote>

Blaming it all on lack of tax money doesn't show the whole picture.  For example, Texas students place above national average in math, but below national average in English.  The problem is not lack of funding; it's that the state has to educate a lot of Hispanic children who don't speak English as a first language, and often come from families that have no interest in learning English.  So their English skills don't really ever develop, and they always place below average in English abilities.

So too, many schools face problems that you can't simply fund your way out of.  What do you do about a student who just doesn't care?  Spend all the money you want, but you aren't going to make them care any more.

there's a reason the American health care system isn't freequote>

And it isn't because of taxes.  If there was significant support for "free" healthcare, it would have already been enacted.  America doesn't have "free" healthcare because there are millions of Americans who do not want a system of "free" healthcare in place.  I'm one of them.

and why police forces are underfunded and ineffective.quote>

First, that's an overly broad claim.  That is the state of some law enforcement agencies, but not all.

Second, federal tax money isn't going to do much to help your average police officer, as they won't see a penny of that money.  Police are under local government authority, not federal authority, so they don't usually receive federal funding.

It's because Americans Become militant the moment someone even suggests a Tax increase. I don't get it, they want all this good stuff, but they don't want to pay for it. quote>

Or maybe it's proof of the fact that we're tired of paying into the federal government, only to watch it throw that money around irresponsibly (both Democrats and Republicans alike)?  Studies on the subject have said most Americans recognize the need for taxes (even if they don't like paying them).  The problem is that many Americans feel that money is simply being wasted, so many Americans are upset that they're being asked/expected to pay even more money

You know the only reason we're in this mess because the last guy screwed up right, republicans should be thankful the dems are willing to try and clean up this messquote>

No, they shouldn't.  Remember how when the bank failures were in their peak, Democrats were pushing for more regulation of the industry?  Little known fact:  Back around 2005-2006, auditors found warning signs of impending meltdown for Fannie and Freddie.  Word got to Congress and several Republicans began crafting a bill that would have put significant restrictions on Fannie and Freddie to ensure they couldn't spend themselves into financial ruin.  Democrats almost unanimously opposed the measure, arguing that everyone deserves a house (apparently regardless of ability to pay for that house), and putting restrictions on Fannie and Freddie so they couldn't keep floating sub-prime loans would be unfair to those individuals who wanted a home, but couldn't afford it any other means than through a loan they couldn't afford.  The bill eventually died, and look what happened.

they did it in the thirties and the ninetiesquote>

Whether FDR actually did things right in the Depression is somewhat debatable.  As for Bill Clinton, the economic success under him had nothing to do with what he did, and everything to do with what he couldn't do, namely spend money.  Studies on economic growth periods have shown that the economy is most successful when there is a Democrat in the White House, and the Congress is controlled by Republicans hell bent on blocking every piece of legislation he wants passed.  The government basically sits on autopilot, doesn't pass huge spending bills, and makes the economic world very happy.

If democrats are tax and spend (which is how a government is supposed to work) quote>

See earlier comment about how politicians don't know the meaning of the phrase "financial restraint."  I don't know how you understand the phrase "tax and spend," but its usage in America could be reworded as "spend with reckless abandon and just raise the taxes to try to compensate."  That will lead to financial ruin also and is nothing for anyone to be proud of, let alone how a government should work.

[Sam 163]

Sometimes the decisive and purposeful action of a strong leader who's willing to confront the difficult issues is what is necessary for longer term good, even if in the short term it is unpopular.

Besides, how is this in any way similar to the Boston Tea Party? In that case it was taxation from a British government not elected by the colonial people that was being protested. In this case there was a federal democratic election all of what? ... six months ago? I believe at those citizens are entitled to vote and elect those that will represent them and carry out the actions necessary for government for the next few years. So how on earth is this taxation without representation? The people voted (or at least had the opportunity to), they got a president and a congress who are now seeing to the governance of the country.

Originally posted by: MrCinatit

Originally posted by: sim-fan192

The Reps. are doing this becuase the goverment has spend TRILLIONS of dollars and plans to raise taxes to an unheard of 60% to pay it off, at least thats what I've heard.quote>

You heard wrong.

The tax hike would affect 5 percent of the people in the U.S. That tax hike would be a (hold on to your hats) 3 percent tax hike.

Yes, that is right - these rallies were held to support to top 5 percent wealthiest people in the U.S., who are ired at a tax hike which will take them to (hold on to your hats again) Reagan era tax rates. The horror.

quote>

Objective facts in this case seem to be extremely under-reported in favour of emotional and ideological hype. I've looked at several pro-protest websites and news articles now, and none of them seem to even be able to define what exactly it is they are protesting and what the actual figures are that are the problem.

I assume the US uses a system of tax brackets like we do, and only the part of your income that falls in that bracket is taxed at that rate, which is the reason the increase would probably affect only a few people significantly.

What I don't get, is that any such tax increase would mainly affect the corporate types on large salaries (of which there would be proportionally few in the nation). People are opposing the bailout of large corporations steered by people on very large salaries some of whom got us into this mess by letting their companies fail and more of whom could have got us into this mess because they practice the same behaviour that did get us into this mess, yet the protesters are fighting to keep those same people's taxes down, while the average person struggles to pay their mortgage or keep their job because the company they work for either went bust or isn't doing enough business to keep them employed or paid?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

According to one of the cable news shows a few weeks ago (they all kinda blur together, it was a CNN or MSNBC money news show on at a local restaurant) the Obama tax hikes will cost $167,000 per taxpaying family of four. Including interest, it amortizes at $34,000 per year for the next 10 years. That burden is unsupportable.

There is indeed much spin on the numbers, but the cold hard fact is, he's borrowing and spending money we do not have, and will not have. He is, and always has been, a fraud. So many just don't want to see it. He's gone back on almost all of his promises already, and is sucking up the taxpayer dollars like, well,... a government-built vacuum cleaner.

It's almost like they want to crash the US economy. This insane level of printing money out of thin air is guaranteed to cause disaster, and they must know it. They are creating a level of debt unprecedented in the history of civilization, and eventually someone's going to get a margin call. One that the US taxpayer cannot meet.

BTW thank you Hym, for pointing out the lesser-known facts about the housing crash. It upsets me that so few know anything about it. I guess a side effect of Obama's Hopium is, loss of economic memory and awareness.

[Jezus53 18]

Seeing as how everyone is saying the same thing over and over again I'll sum up what I would like to say:

Not revolt, protest

Protesting spending not taxes

Not all republicans but mix of all political types

Boston Tea party because it's catchy

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Wrightguy0

You know the only reason we're in this mess because the last guy screwed up right, republicans should be thankful the dems are willing to try and clean up this messquote>

No, they shouldn't.  Remember how when the bank failures were in their peak, Democrats were pushing for more regulation of the industry?  Little known fact:  Back around 2005-2006, auditors found warning signs of impending meltdown for Fannie and Freddie.  Word got to Congress and several Republicans began crafting a bill that would have put significant restrictions on Fannie and Freddie to ensure they couldn't spend themselves into financial ruin.  Democrats almost unanimously opposed the measure, arguing that everyone deserves a house (apparently regardless of ability to pay for that house), and putting restrictions on Fannie and Freddie so they couldn't keep floating sub-prime loans would be unfair to those individuals who wanted a home, but couldn't afford it any other means than through a loan they couldn't afford.  The bill eventually died, and look what happened.

quote>

Do you have link to this info? It's relevant to my interests.

Obama's Hopiumquote>

I see what you did there.

[sim-fan192 4]

I want to plear up a few thing that have been said.

1. The United States is a rebublic and not a democracy like many people think (it says so in the antom '...and for the republic, for which it stands...').

2. Bush didn't spend 3 trillion a day in Iraq and bush, after 8 years, was only 50,000,000 (50 million) in debt, in 4 months after Pres. Obama came we are now over 8,000,000,000,000 (8 trillion) dollars in the hole.

3. This is not a racist or a whiny "why are we getting taxes when the rich aren't" movement.

4. Texas could survive on its own (plus we pruduce 25% of America's oil so we would be a filfy rich little nation).

 5. I am a Texan as well and I also beleive the we won't seceed.

  And please stop using the term "Tea bagging", that means rubbing your balls on someone's face. Have we ever done that? NO!

[fukuda 351]

The United States is a rebublic and not a democracyquote>

Wait, what? I always thought that candidates are elected as presidents by the people...

2. Bush didn't spend 3 trillion a day in Iraq and bush, after 8 years, was only 50,000,000 (50 million) in debt, in 4 months after Pres. Obama came we are now over 8,000,000,000,000 (8 trillion) dollars in the hole.quote>

50 millions? is that a joke or what?

and the debt is over 11 trillion btw

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Do you have link to this info? It's relevant to my interests.quote>

I have a link to the article.  The bigger question is whether I can find it in the sea of all the other bookmarks I have (FF has this weird bug where after enough bookmarks, it continues to store them for you, but won't let you access them).

If I can find it, I'll post it for you.

Originally posted by: fukuda

The United States is a rebublic and not a democracyquote>

Wait, what? I always thought that candidates are elected as presidents by the people...quote>

Technically, the United States is supposed to be a Constitutional federal republic (assuming I'm stringing my adjectives together properly).

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Craig91 12]

Watching John Stewart talk about these protests now, very very funny He's also mocking the size and said only a quarter million people turned up to various events across the country. Less than 0.1% which is absolutely nothing!

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: MrCinatit

Originally posted by: sim-fan192

The Reps. are doing this becuase the goverment has spend TRILLIONS of dollars and plans to raise taxes to an unheard of 60% to pay it off, at least thats what I've heard.quote>

You heard wrong.

The tax hike would affect 5 percent of the people in the U.S. That tax hike would be a (hold on to your hats) 3 percent tax hike.

Yes, that is right - these rallies were held to support to top 5 percent wealthiest people in the U.S., who are ired at a tax hike which will take them to (hold on to your hats again) Reagan era tax rates. The horror.

quote>

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Do I get this right:- The Americans are Revolting.quote>

No no, most are lovely people once you get to know them. 

It's a joke!                        English sense of humor.

quote>

Actually I do know some of them, the ones I know were/are nice.

I'm also related to some of them due to our shared history.

[BurroDiablo 222]

I like this months cover of the Economist... have they put the Docklands into the background? Hah. Although, I think Liberty (the woman in the painting) should cover up if this is present day London or she'll get arrested for indecent exposure.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: El Burro

I like this months cover of the Economist... have they put the Docklands into the background? Hah. Although, I think Liberty (the woman in the painting) should cover up if this is present day London or she'll get arrested for indecent exposure.quote>

Indeed they have and a Blackberry on the chest of one of the dead men LOL

[Ntq€310 1]

Just to continue manticorefan greater point. Yes this crisis was caused by the fact that the banks had to do the subprime loans ( I believe over half of all loans/mortgages had to be subprime ), caused a housing boom that sucked millions into it, got the banks rich, but then house prices started to fall, while they left hundreds of thousands with over expensive mortgages, that many couldn't pay for, and since in general the whole 'everyone should have a house even if they can't afford it' mindset came through congress.. they didn't pay there mortgage. The banks started to fail, credit froze, a panic set, the dow tumbled, the combined loss of money and freezing of credit, as well fear in the market caused a greater down turn, and now after all this were starting to settle back into the ground. In general this whole economic crisis has been good, because it corrected the massive market problems, and is in general recorrecting some of the economic ideas the have set in the United states. Unfortunately the public hasn't gotten this message, and just blames lack of regulation.

Also onto a point that wrightguy made... Liberals fighting corruption and loss of freedom... Hmm first of all, then please, explain the Chicago Machine to me.. I mean honestly thats almost all democrat.. yet there so corrupt.... Hmmm they must not be true liberals then! but wait... Chicago has some of the highest taxes in the country... hmmm... If im right that means there both Liberal people, who have done Some good, but also insanely corrupt.... Does that mean that everyone can be corrupt!  and that both republicans and Democrats have there fair share of people who aren't working for the public.

This could also inurn mean that both of those groups have issues that they will fight for. The republicans right now of viewing Obama's economic policies as taking the people's economic freedoms, and against what they view as a attack on everyone's right to hold arms. The same republicans tried to correct the main source of the economic problem... and want more drilling. So really both sides have issues that they will fight for, both sides have goods things, bad things, areas where they failed, etc, and such. Besides this i mean honestly, we keep blaming the republicans, which they failed in multiple areas also, and honestly, Bush was a bad president in a general sense.... but we forget that the Democrats have controlled congress since 06....

[sim-fan192 4]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: sim-fan192

I want to plear up a few thing that have been said.

1. The United States is a rebublic and not a democracy like many people think (it says so in the antom '...and for the republic, for which it stands...').quote>

Do you even really know what you are talking about?  I think not.  In the context of the founding, John Adams (the 1st VP and the 2nd President of the US) is the one who coined "Republic" for the American government.  He also later said that he did not see a difference between a Republic and a Democracy, but that a Democracy is what he was driving toward (note that the definition of a Republic left a lot of open room for interpretation).  We are a democracy (and a Republic in the historical sense of the word).  My advice would be to read up on the founding of the US.

Furthermore, in case you are not aware, that while Jefferson was the primary composer of the Declaration of Independence, he made it know that it could not have been done without John Adams.

2. Bush didn't spend 3 trillion a day in Iraq and bush, after 8 years, was only 50,000,000 (50 million) in debt, in 4 months after Pres. Obama came we are now over 8,000,000,000,000 (8 trillion) dollars in the hole.quote>

Again, you need to get your facts straight.  I also think you typo'd.  NO ONE has said 3 trillion dollars a day.  The true estimate is $2 billion/week ranging up to $12 billion/month.  For more information, simply read up on the known costs of the war.

4. Texas could survive on its own (plus we pruduce 25% of America's oil so we would be a filfy rich little nation).

 5. I am a Texan as well and I also beleive the we won't seceed.quote>

I agree, secession will not happen.  Since no one has mentioned it, legal secession requires a plurality of support from the remaining States of the Union.  I believe the threshold is 60%, but I am not sure.  It could simply be a majority.  That would not happen and the only result of Texas's attempt to withdraw would be war... and Texas would lose.

Barbarossa

quote>

Actually someone did say 3 trillion a day and I ment billion, I noticed that I put million in but I forgot to change it. Also Texas might not lose. One third of the USA Military is from Texas (plus we kicked Mexico's but during the revoltution of Texas and we were outnumber ten to one during the battle of the alomo, all the Texans died in that battle but for every Texan that died 5 or 6 Mexicans were killed.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Do you have link to this info? It's relevant to my interests.quote>

Okay, I found the bookmark, but unfortunately, it seems that Yahoo no longer has the article on the server anymore more.  Either way, here's the best I can do for you.

AP IMPACT: Mortage firm arranged stealth campaign - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

I know that isn't exactly what you were looking for, but hopefully it is enough to point you in the right direction.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: sim-fan192

 Also Texas might not lose. One third of the USA Military is from Texas (plus we kicked Mexico's but during the revoltution of Texas and we were outnumber ten to one during the battle of the alomo, all the Texans died in that battle but for every Texan that died 5 or 6 Mexicans were killed.quote>

...And the Texas War for Independence was how long ago?

[yamaneko 2]

Jezus53 says:

Anyways, I also think they are mad that taxes are going up because we feel (at least people that I know and I) feel like we are getting nothing from what is already taxed. I think I pay roughly 30% and I know it's low compared to a lot of nations, but I feel like I'm getting nothing for it. I swere, everytime I drive my care my exhuast hits the pavement because of all the potholes and uneven pavenment we have. It's quite annyoing. My schools are literally growing mold in the class rooms (no not biology class) for Christ sake! They can't take some of that money I send in and fix that? Is my health not that important? Oh wait! We needed to spend that on high speed rail, I forgot. Silly me.

First of all, this sounds odd, but I wish I had to pay 30% in federal income taxes, because that would mean my gross income would be in the realm of $360,000/year and I'm single.  The highest marginal rate is 35%, and Obama is talking about raising it to 39.6%.  Reagan's first tax cut set the highest marginal rate to 50%.  Strangely enough, I miss paying 18% to the IRS. 

You may be referring to your total tax.  The United States has a federal system and traditionally prefers to keep power as close to the people as possible, which leads to multiple layers of government and hence multiple taxing authorities.  I have to pay federal income tax, federal social security and medicare tax (for the support of the elderly and disabled), state income tax, county income tax and sales tax directly.  My employer kicks in the same amount for social security and medicare.  Since I own a car, I pay the state another fee to use the roads and the county adds a $20 "wheel fee" on that.  Since I live in an apartment, I don't pay property tax but my landlord does and recovers the cost from my rent;  the property tax is a combination of levies for the library, schools, police, fire and so forth.  If I had to estimate what I pay to each source, the Democratic Feds get about 10%, the Republican-run state gets about 10%, my purple town gets about 6% and the Republican county gets 13%.  From the county, we in the cities get perverse entertainment on Election Day, a surprisingly attractive and expensive jail, a court system and little else (though farmers and exurbanites get some of the best county roads in the state).  The city takes care of police, fire, city roads, parks, and contributes towards the regional bus network.   

 

About $53.6 billion of the stimulus goes to stabilize state funding of education;  from that $39 billion is meant to avoid layoffs and $8.8 billion is to be used by states for "high-priority needs".  The $17 billion Obama and the House of Representatives wanted for school construction was stripped by the Senate in order to get enough Republican and conservative Democratic votes to pass the bill.  "Infrastructure" in the United States usually translates to roads.

If your school board is too lazy or clueless to apply for stimulus money (mold in the schools is an emergency) and your city sits back while its roads go to heck while my city bothers gets enough money to repave some of its roads, it's not fair to blame the Federal government.  If the train system is an international punchline, interstate bridges fall into the Mississippi River, the President ignores memos about a possible attack on the World Trade Center, we fight unnecessary wars and shirk the necessary ones, then the Feds are to blame.  Other messes (Katrina and NOLA, inadequate schools) span multiple levels of government.

[Shingure 56]

Originally posted by:

sim-fan192

I want to plear up a few thing that have been said.

1. The United States is a rebublic and not a democracy like many people think (it says so in the antom '...and for the republic, for which it stands...').

 

The United States of America is classified as a Democratic Republic .

Democratic - Allowing for vote

Republic - Officials representing the populus.

If the United States weren't a democracy it would be a Beauracratic Republic , Meaning a ruler would pick every representative.

The economic crisis has been a smoking gun for about 8 years. Ever since the .com bubble and the 2001/2002 recession after 9/11 it was inevitable that this was going to happen. Obama is trying to put money in but I think he should put the money into infrastructure. Because if our infrastructure is internationally ranked as a C then we might as well put money into that. And then imagine how many jobs could be made based off of such a huge overhaul and repair of national infrastructure. I estimate that up to 9 million jobs alone could be created by a huge repair of infrastructure which has been needed for a while. For the last 8 years I have seen nothing in terms of infrastructure come about. All of the money went to the military. I think that the war needs to end so we can internally build ourselves.

My saying is that no matter how big a nation's army , it all comes down to a nation's internal workings. From politics to physical movement. If the U.S doesn't understand that soon we will have so much money in our military , But our bridges will keep on crumpling along with the underdeveloped rail system the extremely and excessively expansive highway system.

[yamaneko 2]

A note about the Boston Tea Party:  It was all over a tax (the Townshend Duty) of threepence per pound of tea, which at the time cost 3 shillings (36 pence) a pound with tax.  The tea had already been taxed upon import to the UK at 25%.  The Townshend Duty was noxious not for its exaction since the colonists had covered the steeper import tax without complaint, but because the colonists had no representation in the Parliament that determined the taxes. 

So, legal tea would cost 36 pence, with 3p for Townshend Duty, 8.25p covering the British import tax and some fraction going to the people running the warehouse in Great Britain where the tea was warehoused before shipment to the colonies.  Smuggled tea cost 25 pence.

The Tea Act allowed the East India Company to ship tea directly from Asia to America.  No middleman and no import duty meant that the tea could be sold for 24 pence;  Parliament stubbornly retained the Townshend Duty, though hiding the duty in the 24 pence charged for the tea.  The colonists found out and were angry, technically about the Townshend Duty and taxation without representation.  (I can imagine that the local smugglers were heartbroken as well, since they were undercut.)

The British reacted very badly.  Ben Franklin suggested that the colonies pay for the tea and the money to pay for the tea in full was offered and refused.  A series of punitive laws from Britain followed, thence the Revolution. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

 

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by; sim-fan192; Also Texas might not lose. One third of the USA Military is from Texas (plus we kicked Mexico's but during the revoltution of Texas and we were outnumber ten to one during the battle of the alomo, all the Texans died in that battle but for every Texan that died 5 or 6 Mexicans were killed.quote>

What is this 'we' stuff? The 'we' you are referring to is actually a 'they' and they are long dead.

It's the same for people who tell you they wouldn't buy a Kawasaki b/c the company aided the war effort in WWII and helped to kill allied soldiers. The people who did that are long gone. No reason to boycott the motorcycle shop.

Or, for another example, an American reminding someone from any number of countries what America did in WWII. I am proud of America's involvement in that war, as I am of my grandfather for fighting the good fight in the South Pacific... but I sure as hell didn't have anything to do with it... so I won't demand gratitude for it. It's all about " What have you done for me lately?" The nature of the business.

If you want to get a sense of pride from those events since you are a Texan, then I'm not going to say you are wrong... it makes perfect sense to be proud of your heritage... But success in the past doesn't guarantee success in the future.

[Jezus53 18]

TO hym:

Sucks it doesn't work, but thanks anyways!

TO  yamaneko:  

I am referring to my overall tax. I know it's split up, but either way, I feel I'm getting nothing from what I pay. I am not blaming the Feds, but American government. City wide, Statewide, and Federal. I understand it all, but I don't think I should go in depth about my knowledge when I explain something like that. It's just a general thing.

[sim-fan192 4]

Originally posted by: Muck308

Originally posted by; sim-fan192; Also Texas might not lose. One third of the USA Military is from Texas (plus we kicked Mexico's but during the revoltution of Texas and we were outnumber ten to one during the battle of the alomo, all the Texans died in that battle but for every Texan that died 5 or 6 Mexicans were killed.quote>

What is this 'we' stuff? The 'we' you are referring to is actually a 'they' and they are long dead.

It's the same for people who tell you they wouldn't buy a Kawasaki b/c the company aided the war effort in WWII and helped to kill allied soldiers. The people who did that are long gone. No reason to boycott the motorcycle shop.

Or, for another example, an American reminding someone from any number of countries what America did in WWII. I am proud of America's involvement in that war, as I am of my grandfather for fighting the good fight in the South Pacific... but I sure as hell didn't have anything to do with it... so I won't demand gratitude for it. It's all about " What have you done for me lately?" The nature of the business.

If you want to get a sense of pride from those events since you are a Texan, then I'm not going to say you are wrong... it makes perfect sense to be proud of your heritage... But success in the past doesn't guarantee success in the future.

quote>

Yes I am Texan and when I refer to the Texans I use the term we often and I know it won't guarantee vitory  in the fuutre but we would have plenty of guns (I think it was 3 guns per Texan, and there is alot of us).

[aiumkastarkius 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

According to one of the cable news shows a few weeks ago (they all kinda blur together, it was a CNN or MSNBC money news show on at a local restaurant) the Obama tax hikes will cost $167,000 per taxpaying family of four. Including interest, it amortizes at $34,000 per year for the next 10 years. That burden is unsupportable.quote>

NO!

You Republicans like to bring up taxes and how Obama is raising taxes on ordinary people. That notion is COMPLETE crap! Obama has a plan to cut taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, and raise taxes on the top 5% of Americans, or about 15 million people. These people can easily afford the burden. They did just fine before Bush... In fact I think they would have been better off without him...

Originally posted by: sim-fan192

The Reps. are doing this becuase the goverment has spend TRILLIONS of dollars and plans to raise taxes to an unheard of 60% to pay it off, at least thats what I've heard. quote>

You heard wrong.

The tax hike would affect 5 percent of the people in the U.S. That tax hike would be a (hold on to your hats) 3 percent tax hike.

Yes, that is right - these rallies were held to support to top 5 percent wealthiest people in the U.S., who are ired at a tax hike which will take them to (hold on to your hats again) Reagan era tax rates. The horror.

quote>

Exactly....

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: aiumkastarkius

Originally posted by: manticorefan

According to one of the cable news shows a few weeks ago (they all kinda blur together, it was a CNN or MSNBC money news show on at a local restaurant) the Obama tax hikes will cost $167,000 per taxpaying family of four. Including interest, it amortizes at $34,000 per year for the next 10 years. That burden is unsupportable.quote>

NO!

You Republicans like to bring up taxes and how Obama is raising taxes on ordinary people. That notion is COMPLETE crap! Obama has a plan to cut taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, and raise taxes on the top 5% of Americans, or about 15 million people.

quote>

Boy, have you got your facts screwed up. And don't call me a Republican. Obama's plan has already raised taxes on the poor (increased tobacco taxes), his first budget cuts Medicaid and Medicare, and his lies about cutting taxes on "95% of working Americans" while cutting the deficit is just impossible. It cannot be done. He's taking you for fool, and you just love him for it. It proves that you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.

Try doing more research that doesn't come from his crooked campaign.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

 I realy think they should  minimize the use of the term 'Tea bagging".quote>

quote>