Good for them. I wish I was there. But how come the selected photos for the beacon show the "rush limbaugh" sign and what looks like a bunch of ignorant hill billies?

I would have attended before I found out whom was behind this fake tea party. The Republicans. Can we have a function without a certain party trying to up the other party. We do need a REVOLUTION, but it wont be from any of the sitting parties. Why dont we have a real TEA PARTY.

Why have these people not yet complained about the $900 billion and 4500 American lives lost in Iraq? Or the $70 billion approved by President Bush in his final days to bail out the Big 3 (two of which have bankrupt anyways) and the bank CEOs?

why aren't you complaining about the money spent and lives lost in Afghanistan? How about the current troop surge? Are you silent because your guy is behind it this time? I love the absolute silence from the left on President Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan. Nobody yelling "how will we know we won? Whats the exit strategy blah blah..."

@ RenderSelin

The BAILOUT to the mortgage companies was by far one of the most disgraceful things done by ANY president - our dear President Obama gave an incredible amount of money to AIG, CitiMortgage, and the rest without any accountability. Those scumbags killed families by stealing their homes and the President bailed them out without regard . . . yet . . . he is making the car companies jump through hoops. I don't remember Ford EVER trying to take my home.

And by the way - another Democrat - Bill "I never met an intern I didn't like" Clinton gave those companies the rights to do anything they wanted through deregulation.

All the soldiers I know in Iraq and Afghanistan chuckle when whiners like you raise those stats because they know why they are there and are true patriots.

I did not agree with most of the things that Bush did but most of the c r a p that came my way was created by uncaring greedy Democrats.

Why aren't we worried about the stats in your comment? We're more worried about knuckleheads like you populating this country - but - natural selection usually thins the herd.

tea baggers. *sigh* i'm surprised these tools aren't protesting the mean way the world is treating their little darlin sarah palin.

ms. jones' comment about congress voting on things they've never read is especially hilarious. only in THIS administration has this occurred. not for the last 20-30 years since lobbyists have taken over.

cap and trade....... largest tax ever by anyone and obama is behind it

Afghanistan is where we should've been from the start....AND REMAINED THERE. Some idiot at the helm decided to go looking for WMDs (I'm sure we all remember how elusive those are) which took us away from the Afghani mission. Then there is the bin laden search as well. And finally, there is the BILLIONS spent on the war that the idiot kept OUT of his budget. What is the purpose of keeping war funding out of the budget?? Can I try that home with my own budget??

How many interns was Clinton with??

Just remember the mid term elections are in Nov. of 2010 and get out and vote. Find out how your local reps are voting. Call and write them and make your voices heard. We need change in this country but not the change we thought we were getting last Nov.

Gerard says "All the soldiers I know in Iraq and Afghanistan chuckle when whiners like you raise those stats because they know why they are there and are true patriots."
Funny...my older bro served in Iraq and could NOT believe what a joke it was. How there was no structure and most of all a lack of a mission. He didn't mention anything about any whiners back home. He thought the war was a joke. He was also teaching back then and also thought NCLB was a joke.

Obama and the Democratic congress Sucks.

The US is being destroyed with these left wing idiots and corruption

Saddam Hussein told the FBI, during interrogations, that he purposely mislead the world on the WMD subject. He felt his country could withstand another US "attack", but wanted to keep Iran very worried...so, enough about the Iraq invasion. And...it is true, most of our military people understand whay we are there and feel it was needed.

Next, regardless of your political party, one must agree that Mr. Obama has outspent ANY of the previous presidents. He has spent this money during one of the worst financial periods in our history. Who REALLY believes that in order to right yourself financially...you have to spend MORE? This is exactly why foreclosures are rampant, as is default on credit issued. More spending is not the answer.

And...if Mr Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad, fine. If you are going to attack that spending...okay. Two wrongs...you know?

Lets stop spending "stimulus" money on bike trails, cows and pigs and other ridiculous projects...

Liedetector...read the post from "cursedfan". Get out and vote and put some republiCONs back in office so we can start blaming them again.

Lie detector...we can't win. I felt the same way when the republiCONs were in office for the last 8 years as pres and what nearly 12 years for congress.

What a bunch of blithering idiots. You'd think they live in Canton, Ohio.

{{{Get out and vote and put some republiCONs back in office so we can start blaming them again.}}}

Why?? It's much more fun blamin' the demoncritters for a while. Turnabout, fairplay and all that.

The republicans haven't controlled Congress for over two years now, and the demoncritters have the White House.

All the complainin' about Iraq, and we're still there. Still payin' for it. Nuthin' has changed, but who is in charge.

What's especially funny to me is that under 8 years of Bush, my tax liability never went down a bit. It didn't take Obama but three months and he'd put money back into my pocket through lower taxes.

I'm willing to bet that almost all the people protesting at this little rally don't make nearly enough money for the Republicans to care about lowering their taxes. To the GOP you don't exist as a person unless you're an unborn baby or you're making over $250,000 a year.

@RendarSelin

Read "Gerard's" comment again.

@TheGodfather

I nearly always agree with you when I read your comments, but my cousin (Lt. Col in the Marines) just got back from Iraq and has a much different opinion and feedback from his 3 years there.

Funny how the folks attending are the ones with a lower tax burden now. A well informed gathering I see.

MDW and Ramon58: How can there be a lower tax burden for you already? What exact policies were put in place for BHO to put more money in your pocket? Sounds like you are making things up, or you are on some type of government support.

Gerard The BAILOUT to the mortgage companies was by far one of the most disgraceful things done by ANY president - our dear President Obama gave an incredible amount of money to AIG, CitiMortgage, and the rest without any accountability. The first bail out was sighned by Bush.And Obama asked Bush for the second. And Bush Sent it up to Congress.I know your memory is not that bad.

More Republican't backed BS. These Tea Parties are just so stupid. They are disguised as grass roots efforts to protest higher taxes at the federal, state and local level. But all most of the people talk about are
1) Obama and his socialist movement
2) the wasted money on auto and other bailouts
3) lower my taxes, I pay too much

Where were all of these anti-tax people during the 8 years of Bush, and 10-12 years of a Republican congress that spent us into the current deficit?

All that bailout stuff started under the Bush administration, but Obama is getting all the blame.

Like somebody else said, unless you make over $250,000 you are dead to the Republicans and their tax break for the rich mentality.

Keep having your little protests, but what will be the outcome. Vote all the Republicans back in because they were doing such a good job before? Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

Robert - not making up a darn thing. Starting in early April, my paycheck went up by around $30...I compared the pay stubs and the difference was in the amount of Fed tax taken out.

Terrorist criminals.......all of them.


republicans= right wing war-monger crooks responsible for the death of 100s of thousands due to their greed and war profiteering .

Democrats= left wing do nothing crooks responsible for the death of 100s of thousands due to their greed and lack of a plan and direction.

The two party system is not democracy it is a sham.

People need to be put against the wall. It all needs to burn down and what rises from the ashes may have a chance a being better.

Violent, bloody revolution is the ONLY vessel for true change.

If you honestly still think you can VOTE change into taking place you are a fool.

Burn it all down.

Lie Detector The US is being destroyed with these left wing idiots and corruption.What party members went to prision because of Abrams(Republicans.)What party of conservatives christian values can't keep their pants up.(from US SENATORS TO GOVERNORS)?What party revealed undercover CIA agents names for policial reason?What party was in the Iran/Contra scandal?What party took an CBO projection of 8 to 900 billion dollar surplus in to the debt we have now?What party coverd up their members going with pages(kids that learn and help in congress)? Why did the republicans lose 16 Senators sense 06 election?2010 is comming.AND.

SIGNED NOT sighned. SORRY

test

Truthtalk Saddam Hussein told the FBI, during interrogations, that he purposely mislead the world on the WMD subject. Saddam Hussein also warned Bush about us being attacted on 9/11.Bush knew Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.Can't you remember when Bush had those deck of cards with te the faces on them. the cards reading"WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE".Most of the people faces on the cards wasthe ones whu tried to kill his father after the first gulf war.

who not whu

TO MDW. It is nice that you saw an increase in your pay stub. Most people are either taking pay cuts or working less hour right now. I have talked to a lot of people in the private sector working 32 hour weeks or working 3 weeks on and one off. A lot of people are also taking 5 and 10 percent pay cuts. It is Bush's and the democratic congress that put us in this situation and it is Obama's fault for not getting us out.

AND THOSE OF YOU WHO LIKE TO HAVE A TEA PARTY:America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 9, 2009.There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

Regardless of your political affiliation or ideologies common sense should prevail. NEITHER party cares about you or me. The Gov't has lost touch with the realities of life. They dictate most facets of our lives yet are not affected by the decisions they make (ie:Different health care, retirement plans, etc). The system has worked for 233 yrs so I am not suggesting a total revamp, but something has to give. The only unified message we can send is to vote as many incumbents out of office as possible - seeing as how re-election is all they care about, this message may get us somewhere. Do not forget though that we still live in the best Country in the world and are very blessed to have all that we do.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

E-mail: Leonhardt@nytimes.com

It is funny how people who rally for lower taxes are made fun of. Doesn't everyone want lower taxes. I guess that if you do not pay taxes and are sucking off the government you would want those who pay taxes to pay more.

Don't stop believin' Stephen....

You have been brainwashed. If you have kids, tell them good luck...they will need it.

Commerce, (both big and small) drives the country...not higher taxes and more spending. It is Economics 101.

President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, President Obama pro­posed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq.

The President's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. In doing so, President Obama has rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the econ­omy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 mil­lion more jobs in the next 27 months...the housing (Financing) crash caused all of this to halt.

Know your facts, Steeevo.

fine, no more taxes...let these people go pick up their mail at the post office instead of having it delivered. Let them take their own garbage to the dump as they don't want to pay for it to get removed. Of course we can expect to see these same people out cleaning the parks every weekend, hell they have time to have a "tea party".

How do these people suggest the government continues to function when they have lost all the sales tax and property taxes from the economy slumping?

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016— nearly double the amount accumulated under Pres­ident Bush over the same number of years. Overall, the public debt level would double over the next decade to $15.4 trillion....

This President is spending money like he's printing it himself....OH YEAH....He is!!!

Were these the same people protesting Bush's $1.2 trillion Medicare bill in 2003?

So where were all these people at during the last 8 years when Ashcroft was covering up nude statues, Bush was sinking thousands a day in a failed war, in Iraq as well as handing out 700 Billion to bank ceos? Better yet, where were these people when Sarah Palin was spending taxpayer money on her family's personal living expenses her first few days as governor?

Truthtalk. TRUTH IS NOT BRAINWASHING.Commerce, (both big and small) drives the country. NOT TRUE. Politics drives the country.Big and small, all have lobbyist buying them off in congress.Republicans and Democrates.You never heard."Politics Make Strange Bedfellows".

From the Wall Street Journal, yeah I know they are pretty liberal, but their take on Bush 43 job creation:
"The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office." - 9 January 2009.

Not really sure where some of you are getting your "facts".

AND THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY. AMERICA 101.

Wake up people. This is not a party issue. Bushy over spent and now Obama is doing the same. This is about lowering our taxes not blamming one party or the other. We have to demand that who ever is in control to stop wastefull spending. They have both done it.

@Matt
The government must cut unnessecary programs. What do you do in your household when money is tight. You cut out the unnessecary items you buy.

Those doggone liberals. They have the power to destroy the earth and anything else in the cosmos that happens to be nearby.

It is weird that they can't seem to get pot legalized for people old enough to get their behinds shot off in our neverending wars.

P am LOVING this debate... everyone has "FACTS" that strengthen their argument, and the "FACTS" presented by the other side are bogus. Reality is that both sides are right and wrong. We can argue the past till the cows come home but that won't change the present reality. We can learn from our past mistakes, but alas, our wonderful congress seems totally incapable of such reflection.

fpmayor - Agreed that both parties don't make a serious effort to control spending. That is how they keep their seats. By bringing home the pork. However, it really seems that one party is a bit whinier about it when they are out of power and this is now an entirely partisan issue.

Unless these people were out protesting the money wasted in Iraq, the passage of the Medicare bill, money going to faith-based initiatives, and Bush's Mission Accomplished photo shoot, their complaints really just seem to be sour grapes.

When I mentioned the money wasted in Iraq, I am not referring to the mission. I am referring to the billions lost when we decided to distribute cash and contracts with no oversight or accountability.

Khen - I agree totally. Bushy was over spending when it comes to Iraq and giving his "buddies" contracts. I was complaining when he was doing that as I am complaining when Obama give bailouts to chosen companies. It does not matter which party is "whinier". Niether party is doing what is best for us. Remember, they are in office to get re-elected not serve our needs.
We should not chastize people who protest to make our lives better just as we should not chastize those who opposed the war. Protesting is a great thing.

fpmayor stated that "protesting is a good thing".. I will add that we should all be glad we live in a country that allows peaceful protests of all kinds.. Notice I said PEACEFUL..

PooPooPie must have laryngitis, so I'll stand in for her:

"Baaaaaa-aa-aa-a-a, baaaaaaaa-aaa-aaa-a-a-a, baaa!"

fpmayor - Although I agree with you to a certain degree, if you only protest when the other guys is doing what you did, it looks bad. One of the things that makes America so great is that we are given the opportunity to protest and bring about change.

The country is divided, democrat and republican. Neither has the answer, and never will as long as they can't work together to do what is right, not just repub and dem. Hope Hubris for tyrant!

These tea baggers are going about it all wrong. If you want to see change, make federal withholding on payroll checks ILLEGAL and then make the Feds bill us for it. People would lose their minds if they had to write a check each payday for their taxes-and they would demand to know how their money is being spent.

It will never happen though. Both parties would soil themselves if it was ever introduced to Congress-and no elected official has the backbone to do it. Wishful thinking on my part!

Khen - True, but this is supported on both sides. I am a registered Dem and support it. The liberal media is trying to make it look like it is a Rep based protest when it is not. It does not matter which party you favor, if lowering taxes is what you believe will help us then it is a good thing.

fpmayor - I have to admit that I haven't seen much media coverage about the tea parties. I think there was some during the earlier events, and they were portrayed as being Republican-sponsored. I tend to read blogs from both sides of the aisle and most on the left just sort of ridiculed them while the right leaning sites were promoting and recruiting for them. Based on that, I assumed the crowds were primarily Republican. I know that some politicians did show up to speak at the rallies (with mixed reaction) and that they were primarily Republicans. Are you aware of any Dem politicians that were invited to speak at any? Not being sarcastic, just curious if you knew of any.

They ridicule drug-free, law-abiding, working people fed up with CONGRESS (same Congress in place under Bush) taxing them enough already . .

. . . as they fix their attention on the Center Ring with Michael Jackson, Perez Hilton, Al Franken, Barney Frank and Michael Moore and as they write a donation check to City of Los Angeles to pay for the costs of bringing The Greatest Show on Earth to Staples Center.

How bout cutbacks on illegal aliens coming into the country.Why do they deserve to get so much money anyhow?The way that is going when I retire there wont be anything in social security,Im betting I wont even get back what Ive paid in already.So i say ,stop taking it out!!and I agree with whoever said Obama is a socialist!! He is,why cant everyone see that!Just because he smiles when he wants something dont mean we have to agree!

@ Godfather

My info on the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on 14 soldiers and three are my cousins (5 in Iraq and 9 in Afghanistan) . . . I just listened to what they had to say and base my opinions on EXACTLY what they feel since I can only imagine what they went through. They lost friends and still believe that their mission was valid.

I do agree with you that the focus should have been on Afghanistan but the soldiers I know (Marines and Army) all understood what the Iraq people deal with and the media mainly shows the insurgent perspective. Until you or anyone else out there has a perfected way of intel that's not a direct message from God, then there will be errors and mistakes and it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or Republican.


@ The other comments about my Mortgage Bailout comments.

The major money for the bailout was pushed, justified and approved by Obama - and - I never said that Bush wasn't also a culprit. If Clinton would of NEVER deregulated the mortgage companies we would not have been in this mess - and - unless any of you have lost their homes to the the practices of CitiMortgage and AIG "blessed" by our Federal government and ignored by our state and local government - please don't chime in. I was on an 18 month battle that I had to deal with directly caused by the deregulation.

I paid my mortgage and still got scammed because of "remodification practices" on purchased loans. I asked for help via calls and letters to my councilman and Mayor Don's office, but they washed their hands of the situation (as it happened) like Pontius Pilot in a three piece suit running the Roadrunner Marathon!

Founding Fathers also liked to rape their slave property young girls...

Isnt it funny how protesting too much government, and too much taxing is automatically assumed to be a republican concept? Should I then assume that all democrats are in favor of even larger government and higher taxes? Im sure there are a few democrats out there who might think they are a tiny bit overtaxed.

I also dont understand people who blindly follow a position simply because of who supports it. Example - Bush overspending = finacially irresponsible. Obama 4x overspending = stimulus. Bush ignores constitution = treason. Obama ignores constitution = its a racist document that no longer means anything. Clinton welfare reform = reform. Obama dismantles all Clinton welfare reforms = reform.

From Bush's TARP, to all the moronic Obama exponential TARP type spending, and social speding spree, our natio is headed for financial ruin.

RittmanInsider: EXACTLY!!!!

So what ...

3500 people showed up for a Brewer's Beer Fest in Wisconsin, too.

And more people showed up for a softball fundraiser for some poor soldier that got their legs blown off, too.

Real important things - not this self-indulgent pity tea-party.

@NTU1, since you LOVE to pay taxes, why don't you pay mine for me. I mean me being out of a job and all. But my taxes seem to go up. At least Bush gave some of it back to me all at one time, not $13 a week. And don't call me a republican or a Bushie. I think independantly

ed, it's probably safer that you couldn't drink it all at once.

It takes a lot more than taxes to drive people into the street to protest. What's really happening is that underlying sentiments are surfacing. As long as a self serving, corrupt legal system continues to marginalize, criminalize, ostracize, and alienate members of the population, protesting will increase. I'm talking about drug laws, helmet laws, seat belt laws, gun laws, speed traps, denial of due process for child support garnishments, and all the other laws which infringe on freedom. This is the kind of thing that happens in a nation whose conscience is tortured by the killing of unborn innocents. China wants to globalize their own currency saying you can't trust crooked U.S bankers, politicians, and financiers - who can find any argument with that?

I don't think even the founding fathers would want to go back to "the good old days". The so-called good old days were filled with racism, sexism, class-ism, and many other very poor ideas. The founding fathers were radicals and hungering for new ideas, not looking to take the country backwards to old dis proven ideas. Their gift to us all was an ardent desire to look ahead to better times where we acted more worthily on their wonderful ideals.

Look back, but what we need to be looking for is inspiration to look forward. We need the same courage of the founding fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters to move this country closer to its potential.

These Tea Party people are ignoring the naked emperor. No one likes to pay higher taxes, and everyone thinks their taxes are too high and the other fella's are too low. We've had higher taxes and lower taxes, and the economic infrastructure of our state still SUCKS. It's about building a powerful, sustainable, and flexible job and community building issue. Neither the tax cheaps nor the big spenders are looking at the gravest threat to our region. Wake up!!!

Gerard If Clinton would of NEVER deregulated the mortgage companies we would not have been in this mess. You mean Clinton and the republican led congress.

I bet 90% of the people at that rally don't make over $30,000/yr. If they have kids they're not really paying much of anything in taxes anyway. Even if they don't have kids they aren't paying jack compared to others.

@ed said:"since you LOVE to pay taxes, why don't you pay mine for me."

Where did I write that?

You've got your shorts all in a bunch because I was spot on. Admit it ...

I resent the Democrats being called Left Wing. Other than Kucinich and a handful of others, the Democratic party is right/center compared to other industrialized nations' political spectrum. Obama continues many of the Bush policies that were expansions of the Clinton policies. There's a bipartisan consensus when it comes to business interests and warmongering.

Reality is spot on. If you figure your health insurance premiums as part of your tax package, we pay comparable rates with significantly less benefits than the Nordic countries.

MDW - every person that paid taxes got a tax cut under Bush. It was only the lowest income people that paid no taxes that did not receive a tax cut. You can't cut what they don't pay. You must be in that category.

what a great thread

This whole thing is very confusing and I am having trouble understanding the thought process here. It appears that if federal money is spent on things you find agreeable, the president is a hero. If federal money is spent on things you find objectionable, you call the president a socialist.

For all of you blaming Clinton for the housing mess, are you implying that Bush was such a weak president that even with both houses of congress in Republican control, he was unable to fix the mess Clinton had left? Prior to the 2004 election, Bush was pushing to eliminate down payment requirements for minority homeowners as part of his reelection campaign. Look up the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2004. I know it may take some research and you may have to suspend some of your previously held ideas, but you will find that instead of trying to fix the housing situation, Bush was adding fuel to the fire. But I guess you can ignore facts and just blame Clinton for everything.

most wars are started by dems, ths socialist goverment is bad. you let me know how that hope and change thing goes for you.......when you have less money and jobs than you do now. I need the laugh.

I'm glad to see these protests continuing and I'd love to see the crowds get larger. If it does, there will be a time when it'll start getting the attention of these politicians and they'll need to start listening to the people.

wilma Posted 06:36 AM, 07/07/2009
most wars are started by dems,


Really, not the last 2 (Iraq 1 and 2 by Bush 1 & 2). WWII was a war we entered as a direct result of being attacked. Anybody who was in office at the time would have declared war.

So what are these other wars that were mostly started by the dems? WWI with Woodrow Wilson, a declaration of war was supported by Congress. That leaves Korea and Vietnam (under Truman and Kennedy).

If the government was a company, they would have been out of business years ago.

Talkin' about a revolution...

@Spirit of Reagan said:"every person that paid taxes got a tax cut under Bush."

Problem was the disproportionate amounts in cuts received by those who needed the relief the least.

But why should those who benefit the most from living in the USA feel any nobles oblige?

Because they've forgot what being an American truly means.

Tea Party date plus 2 and even Faux News has forgotten ...

What staying power.

As a political science major many years ago, I always enjoy seeing people describe the current government as "socialist" or the previous government as "fascist". It's seems that people like the sound of a new word without having any real understanding of what the word actually means.

We've had a complete abdication by leaders of business and finance in this country. A socialist government would have seized control of the means of production--not tried to set up a lifeline until a new group of business leaders show the courage to pick up the mess from the slackers.

People who are so ignorant that they can only respond to code words from the left or right simply are not developed enough to be reasoned with. That's the sad part. The good news is that at least we know who to ignore.

Thanks ABJ for a better article about this event than the Canton Rep chose to write!

;-)