Now that tea bagging has failed what is next for the right wing?

[DanS]

At the Greenville SC Tea Party last night, via Palmetto Scoop, an estimated 3,000 people booed and heckled GOP Rep. Gresham Barrett, who supported both the trillion-dollar TARP and now supports the trillion-dollar porkulus package. The crowd blew air horns as he tried to speak. Do you think the politicians are getting the message yet? And do you think someone in the MSM might grow up, stop wallowing in sexual teabagging jokes, and report these newsworthy developments? The anger at reckless spenders in Washington is palpable, deep-seated, bipartisan, nationwide, and not going away:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/18...ty-protesters/

Heartening

[The Mad Monk]

A couple photos from the Tea Party at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City...

http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1144824.html

[The Mad Monk]

Some photos from a KC Tea Party back in February...probably one of the first:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CirP8_wSeuo/SamHUBCVhVI/AAAAAAAAALA/332uxIR2TJc/s400/IMG_1552.JPG&imgrefurl=http://blog.rantingsandravings.com/2009/02/kansas-city-tea-party-stimulus-and.html&usg=__rxG64qi4JVYjndMxqa8z0905tP8=&h=267&w=400&sz=30&hl=en&start=14&tbnid=QvVE36u_7TBBpM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522kansas%2Bcity%2522%2B%2522tea%2Bparty%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&um=1

[Jon Miller]

Man their signs are loony

JM

[Jon Miller]

I'm thinking that being mad that the government is bailing out companies is... not really fascist.

Yeah, I am mad about this too. I voted for a republican last time because he voted against the bailout last fall.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I am still unsure as to whether the bailout was a good idea or not.

Given what has happened since, I am leaning more toward it being a good idea than previously. I am leaning against the stimulus package (which is of course going to end up costing the US taxpayer at least an order of magnitude more than the bailout).

[The Mad Monk]

Man their signs are loony

JM

Maybe, but they're my kind of looney.

[The Mad Monk]

All-caps has its place.

DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

[Straybow]

That's about it in S.A., and she doesn't look thrilled to be there.

ACK!

S.A. as in this crowd at the Alamo in San Antonio?

[Ramo]

I am still unsure as to whether the bailout was a good idea or not.

Given what has happened since, I am leaning more toward it being a good idea than previously. I am leaning against the stimulus package (which is of course going to end up costing the US taxpayer at least an order of magnitude more than the bailout).

Why do you say that?

[Straybow]

I'm not sure the exact amount but they did higher at least two lobbying firms to set up all the protests, get the permits, write media messages, set up websites, and Fox did spend thousands if not tens of thousands of hours promoting them nonstop for several months. That has to amount to a significant sum not just in cash but also in manpower and opportunity costs for Fox.

All the protests? Really? You can back that claim?

[Straybow]

Taxes which just got lowered for 95% of Americans and I'm not going to cry just because the top 5% had their tax rate go from 36% to 39%. Especially since Reagan had a top tax rate of 50% from 1980-1984 and 39.6% from 1985. Obama's tax rates are lower then Reagan's yet the tea baggers claim their man god Reagan was a low tax guy and that Obama is an evil socialist soaking the rich. It's completely illogical not to mention devoid of actual facts.

Top rate was 70% before Reagan. Reagan had a Dem House, and a Dem Senate for 6 of 8 years; he lowered taxes as far as he could twist their arms. Reagan said lower taxes = more economic growth = more tax revenue, and he did it, and he was right.

Maybe if the top tax rate was 92.5% like the Republican Eisenhower had them at then they might have a point but when taxes are at their lowest level ever for 95% of the population and their second lowest level ever even for the top 5% then it is clear these people are just idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

Yes, let's just ignore that the current taxes don't cover the deficit-tripling stimulus Obama just signed, nor the looming 10 trillion dollar national debt from the Obama budget proposal.

La la la la la, everything's sunshine and daisies with Obama in office!

[Ramo]

KH:

And your cost estimate is over what time period (some of the parts of the legislation that constitute poor fiscal stimulus - NSF funding, for example, will probably have a high rate of return)?

[KrazyHorse]

Why do you say that?

Because most of the bailout money purchased equity and assets which will eventually be sold, recouping certainly most, if not all or more of the initial outlay.

[KrazyHorse]

KH:

And your cost estimate is over what time period (some of the parts of the legislation that constitute poor fiscal stimulus - NSF funding, for example, will probably have a high rate of return)?

a) I doubt that the fiscal multiplier is anything even close to 0.5. If you listen closely to the arguments being made by even strong proponents of stimulus, i.e. delong et al then you'll notice that their arguments lead you to this conclusion. The day of the high multiplier hypothesis is DEAD

b) This multiplier is an estimate of increased activity. Return to the taxpayer is some small fraction of this (30% would be a good estimate). Therefore the return to the government from stimulus outlays is probably on the order of 15%

c) I'd speculate that NSF funding has an even lower return. Probably negative. In other words spending a dollar in general on the NSF costs the government more than a dollar.