Thursday, April 16, 2009


Gallery of the Tax Day Tea Party--Denver

The last one of these, when President Obama signed the horrible Stimulus bill and oohed and ahhed at the next to worthless (although it cost more than 3/4 million) photovoltaic array on the Museum, had about 300--400 people. This one was at least 10 times bigger, perhaps 15 times bigger. It was a sea of signs, some more clever than others.
Some of the legislators suspended their legislating and came out on the balcony to look us over. After about 30 minutes, however, they disappeared.

Most of the press reports called this, and the others around the country, tax protests, but most of the signs talked about spending and liberty.

I could never see the speakers and a lot of people complained that you couldn't hear them either. Jon Caldera, Rep. Mike Coffman, Gunny Bob, Tom Lucero, and 'Clear the Bench' Matt were the ones I recognized. State Senators Kopp and Penry did a good job too, as well as the representative people, although they were not as polished.
Colorado fought for the North in the civil war and this trooper, with a Sharps rifle, is the monument for the struggle. The only big battle fought was in New Mexico and it was a tiny battle compared to those on the East Coast.
There were an awful lot of the Gadsden flags. I'm not sure that a rattlesnake is the best mascot for our nation or this movement, although I like the message directed at the government in general. The varying levels are indeed usually the problem.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? The object of our attention is a pig balloon.

I was a little horrified to see how shabby our golden dome looked up close. There were a lot of water stains and damage in the grey stone of the exterior too.

Cut off of the center sign are the words "for this?"

This guy was a fountain of slogans.

The inevitable patriotic stilts man.

Our Republican Attorney General, John Struthers, with his back to us, confers with his minions. He did not speak to the crowd.


"Don't ruin my future with your irresponsible spending."

Where have these people been the last 8 years?
Where have these people been the last 8 years?When you look at Bush's deficits and compare them to Obama's own projections, that's a bit like comparing apples to, er, rocks.
Yeah, 1 to 1.5. I see your point. You financially responsible conservatives crack me up.
Mike, we were furious with our own side's spending but knew if we helped get them thrown out of office the Democrats to replace them would be far, far worse. So we didn't protest our own side. And the Democrats got in anyway and are far, far worse on spending, just as we thought. But we were never happy about such things as the Medicare drug plan. We've paid a political price for our profligate ways; will the Democrats in 2, 4, or 8 years?
1 to 1.5? Dude... get real.
I'm not the defender of our ex-patriot friend, but Mike often made the point that a lot of spending during the Bush Administration was off the books. Like a good Lefty, he seems not as outraged by spending by a Democrat which dwarfs Bush's profligacy (even adjusting for the war effort). I have been cross all along with wasteful spending for charity which I believe is not constitutional. However, both sides are ignoring the ocean of red ink from Social Security, Medicare and public employee retirement benefits promises which far exceed our future ability to fund. The trillion dollar deficits for the Obama Admininstation budgets shrink in significance in light of those things. Bush did try to reign in SS spending and the Democrats as a group opposed it, but that will be ignored when the real fiscal sh-- hits the fan in about a decade or so.

I've seen the graphs. Now, explain to me how the National Debt can grow by 1 Trillion when there is "only" a $400 Billion deficit.

And another thing. Keep in mind that those are fiscal years you are looking at. Translation: 2009 starts on October 1st 2008. And who do you think wrote the budget for that year?

We will see what the difference is in the end.

Final point: I'm not crazy about the spending, but I'd rather see deficit spending in order to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs than as a result of a tax cut which benefits the rich to a much greater degree than, well, pretty much everyone I actually know.

But that is the lefty in me.
The top 1% of earners in this country pay 39.9% of the federal income tax while they only earn 22.1% of the adjusted gross income. The top 20% pay 89% but only earn 57% of the adjusted gross income. If the "President Bush" cuts to all of the tax rates benefited the rich especially, I'd hate to see the tax cuts which were merely fair to them. And it is a lefty thing to repeat meaningless things (tax cuts for the rich) as if they were profound, or so I believe. Thanks for coming back and continuing the dialogue.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?