Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Sacramento Tax Protest

Since I was in the neighborhood, I managed to stop by the tax protest being held on the west steps of the State Capital today. While the most vocal part of the crowd was the usual right-wing suspects (sorry guys, Obama ≠ Hitler), there was definitely a more nuanced audience present. I could sense a bigger hand at work as well: the speeches all used language tailored to appeal to the center-right, and the message was very media-friendly. The crowd was larger than anticipated, and the police had to close off 10th street due to overflow. There were at least 5,000 people in attendance.

In my opinion, Obama risks ignoring these people at his peril. By continuing to bail out the banks and delaying financial reform, he is squandering the popularity he will need in order to make painful, necessary decisions.


patient renter said...

LOL - The "Don't tax me bro" sign is genius.

Max said...

Yeah, I thought that summed up the powerlessness these guys feel pretty well. :)

Darth Toll said...

Max, you are correct in noticing the bigger hand at work within the tea parties:

Newt, and other stooges like him, represent TPTB (big moneyed interests) and they have clearly identified a potential threat in the tea parties. So how to deal with said threat?

They couldn't really ban them or suppress the activities in a visible manner or they would risk a backlash that could cause the tea parties to become even bigger. They couldn't really ignore them, although that was tried initially. So the next move was to infiltrate them and control the message. Newt lending support to the movement was a sure way to bring discredit upon it. That was the goal.

Ron Paul's message was the impetus behind the original tea party movement and it represented the true independent and grassroots (non-partisan) spirit of the tea party. It has been hijacked and turned into a "neo-con right wing thing" and as such will now likely fade into obscurity. Good job NWO - mission accomplished. And if the tea parties somehow persist, they will infiltrate them with even more extreme stooges and violent rabble-rousers to dilute the message and take people's eyes off the ball. Classic protocols operation.

Rich said...

I'm not sure exactly what they're protesting.

All this "Obama is a non-citizen Muslim socialist" is just silly.

I know people are upset and frustrated with the economy, but where do they get this unfair tax stuff from?

Nooge said...

IMHO - if the govt wants an "easy" way out of this, just default on its entitlement obligations.

You know how you get those social security statements every so often? The ones that say, "were not going to have enough to pay you in 2043" or whatever? The govt is clearly telegraphing, "WE WILL DEFAULT ON THIS OBLIGATION".

Flip side is, while none of us are happy about it, we all know its a possibility. If the govt can prep us for 20+ years of the eventuality that they will default on this obligation, when the time comes, the amount of outrage and social unrest will be minimal (all things considered).

If they do that, we are much closer to solvency. Its a big shit sandwich for the US citizenry, but it keeps our international obligations intact, and prevents much larger consequences on the geopolitical stage.

So thats my guess what will happen. Mark this down and in 20 years, lets see if I am right or not!!!

patient renter said...

where do they get this unfair tax stuff fromThe protests aren't about right now, they're about what's coming. With hundreds of billions of dollars being handed out to private corporations, what's coming is higher taxes for our children and grandchildren.

Max said...

Not sure I see a "deflection conspiracy" at work here. It looks more like co-option, like the 1994 contract with america stuff. The republicans sold out so completely since then, they'll have a hard time breaking into the center.

Don't forget, there are left wing groups vying for this attention as well. IMHO, we have a ways to go before critical mass. My hope is a new party will emerge that can energize this movement and cause some defections and repudiations of/from both parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans are morally bankrupt; if there was ever a time to make a 3rd party push, it's now.

Bryan said...

Why a new party? Why not just better legislation? I'll support it wherever it comes from. Seems like a waste of energy. It's not like the new party someway, somehow will end up less compromised ('corrupt' if you like, cynics) in the end than any other party ever to succeed in American politics.

Just be a different name. Let's see, "Democratic Party" is taken. So is "Republican Party." I guess we could go with "Monarchic Party" or "Oligarchic Party" but they lack the right flavor, even if they may at times be accurate. We could go back to the old "Whig Party," but few people will get that.

All we're really left with is "Political Party," which is all it would really amount to in the final analysis--once it gains a little power, in the quest to preserve it and gain a bit more, it will sell out every principle, platform, and grandmother it has to. Which isn't to say that I'm against political parties, any more than I'm against cows. I just don't much stock in the idea that a new one will do anything more than the old ones.

Darth Toll said...

Totally agree with you about the third party opportunity right now. I voted Constitution party last time around. Ron Paul actually endorsed their candidate for president, and has worked with Kucinich on some legislation so there appears to be some cooperation among the more independent-minded politicians.

On another note, last night on Coast to Coast AM they had a guy on talking about the fair tax and it really sounded like a great idea.

Max said...

Two reasons why we need a new political party: Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans are married to their crazy social agenda (abortion, gays, etc), and Democrats have no agenda other than power itself. IMO there's big room for a pragmatist party with a fiscal platform. It's easy to bypass the sticky social quagmire by deferring to states rights and the courts.

The people were hungry for change when they elected Obama, and all they got was the same old crap. The field is wide open for the right group.

patient renter said...

IMO there's big room for a pragmatist party with a fiscal platform. It's easy to bypass the sticky social quagmire by deferring to states rights and the courts.Sounds Libertarian'ish to me :) I agree with you though. The implications are so great though, so much power would have to be forfeited, it's hard to imagine how it will happen.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the phots Max, I was looking for news on this last night and couldn't get too much info without loads of spin.

I agree with the need for a third party, neither existing major party seems to be very interested in the majority. Both the left and right and swung too far out to appeal to the center where most of us live.

Thanks again.

Bryan said...

Remember that political parties are just essentially large alliances of many separate discrete interest groups (complicated by the fact that you can overlapping membership in such groups).

Each interest group seeks its particular interest and extends a concession to another to achieve it, and the agglomeration of these manifold deals is a political part. This is true whether we're talking the modern Democratic and Republican parties, or the old Whig, Anti-Mason, Know-Nothing, Democratic-Republican, Federalist or prior incarnations of the Republican and Democratic parties (which had little or nothing to do with the modern ones...after 50 or so years no party will be what it was).

In advocating a third party, what you're essentially proposing is that those interest groups you've identified (fiscally-minded "pragmatist" groups) should remove from under which ever umbrella they've been sheltering, Republican or Democrat, and form their own party. With, no doubt, the supposition or hope that the new party would wield enough immediate clout to get the critical mass of governmental presence and popular awareness to stay alive for the 10 or so years it generally takes any party to get to the true presidential hopeful (not simply candidate) status.

Fair enough.

But the way we've generally run the game is that all interests have to play ball with everyone else. If an identifiable coalition of interests were so massive as to really be able to defeat what was left of the Democratic power-mongers and the Republican extremists, then it would probably already be a party. Generally though, the CENTER (like everyone else) has to sell out to one side or the other because there's just too many people that want a little of this right-ish thing or some more of that left-ish thing. They can't divorce these other groups because they need the votes to get majorities.

And thus remain both mired and blessed by the two-party system. They may have the same names year after year, but really are ever-changing coalitions. And yet, as centrist interest groups cycle in and out of the two parties, the political landscape seems to change but little. This isn't probably the fault of the parties, but of the will of the majority. The trick has never been to form a new party (it's been done so very many times), but to convert minds to your cause, to get a right-winger or a left-winger to come center. Now we're talking.

Maybe this is happening now. If so, you won't need a new party, because which ever party this new uber-interest group chooses as their home will be reshaped in their image, forming a new majority. And in a bit more time as the coaltion starts splitting hairs about minute issues, the opposition party will start to seem more and more attractive to certain factions of the uber-interest group as it woos them with concessions and promises which are transforming the opposition party to look much more like the majority party than previously. And thus political realignment is achieved, with each party poised on either side of the new center position. I think that, if anything, is what will happen now. Or business as usual.

Darth Toll said...

Both the R's and the D's essentially stand for the same thing and are one party. There is no substantial difference between Obama and Bush, although the loudmouths of both "parties" would like to believe there is a difference. They are both pro big-government, pro Wall St. Banksters, pro Federal Reserve, pro Zionist, pro debt, pro war, pro-big pharma, anti-freedom etc. Basically a benign form of fascism, and soon this fascism won't be very benign.

Supposed hot button issues like abortion, gun control, global warming, war on terror - these are also mostly distractions. The elite oligarchy supports groups on both sides of those issues and many more to keep people focused on things other than what they are up to. Ditto for sports, entertainment, drugs, pornography, religion (not faith) etc.

You mention right and left, but these are made up concepts to try to engage people in silly debates and "coalitions". Any time a genuine movement threatens to reach critical mass amongst the bottom (tea parties) they will co-op the movement and plant their stooges in the middle of it, or stifle it in some other manner. The top has unlimited means and will hire any hitman or politician necessary to achieve its NWO goals.

I like to refer to the whole political system as an global elite oligarchy because that's what it is. The top owns everything and have for a long time and the bottom works to support the top. Taxing the "rich" is pointless because the top doesn't make anything and are non-productive. They will just get the money from the bottom (useless eaters) anyway. Besides, they have no traceable income as all of their assets are hidden in offshore accounts or tax-free "foundations" like the Rockefeller or Ford foundations and they don't pay taxes (Geitner, et al.)

What do you actually OWN. Probably nothing. Even if you "own" a house, you still likely don't own it. Either you have a fat mortgage on it, or even if its totally paid for, you still need to pay taxes on it every year or it can be foreclosed on. Also, if valuable minerals, gold, or oil are discovered under it, you don't own those. Also, if the "government" decides your house is in the way of a more valuable development they can steal your house and give it to somebody else. Or maybe it's on a wetlands or the path of a new road or a rare frog was discovered there and so you will get kicked out. And if you have a couple mil in the bank or in a 401k, so what? They will steal most of that with a made-up financial "crises" and when you die, your estate will now be taxed into the ground and your pitiful heirs will get nada. You get the idea. You own nothing because you are part of the bottom. We were born into this system and its been going on for literally hundreds of years (600+).

But now it's time to question reality and take the red pill. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island, or Secrets of the Federal Reserve for more info.

patient renter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patient renter said...

I wish The Creature from Jekyll Island were required reading for finance/econ students. It could have saved me more than one instance where I've had to explain fractional reserve lending to a banker.

If nothing else, the discussion of what the Federal Reserve is (a private banking cartel) and isn't should be mandatory. Best quote:

"It is not federal and there are no reserves."