Roesgen just doesn't understand these Tea Parties, does she?

If you are of an obtuse mind, or if you are one of the few who still listens to "news" programs such as CNN and MSNBC, then your opinion of the Tax Day Tea Parties was probably something along these lines:

You believe the protests were anti-taxation in general. You believe they were anti-CNN, anti government. You believe they were sponsored by Fox News. You believe they were racist, because they were solely anti-Obama. Oh, and that the only people at these Tea Parties were the frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers who like to chuck Bibles at you. Hmmm?

While there may be a few Tea Partiers who conform to these particular stereotypes, the majority of us do not feel that way, and were there for a more specific purpose.

To accuse these characterstics of being the sentiment of the majority is, quite frankly, naive and extremely obtuse on your part. Rather, let me explain what this was really about.

To clarify, I am going to say this once. And I am going to say it clearly.

The Tax Day Tea Parties were about IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING, they were about BIG GOVERNMENT and they were about our frustration with Washington. And yes, this includes everyone in Washington. We know enough to blame Bush, Obama, Congress, Barney Frank, etc., - ie, EVERYONE - rather than scream mindlessly "those liberals did it!" or that Obama "is the antichrist!"

This event was hardly partisan. It was never meant to be. It was purely a grassroots movement that MANY took part in - and yes, I met a few Libertarians and even more Democrats while I was wandering around the steps of the state capitol.

In this day and age, where there is widespread internet access, it is hardly expensive or difficult to spread the word when it comes to orgnanizing something like this. And please don't accuse us by being backed by multi-millionaire right wingers like one person I argued with.

He seemed to believe that pointing out the numerous amounts of teabags at each location was evidence of multi-millionaire conspiratorial funding. Because, tea bags are so darn expensive, you know?

Please. We didn't need a 'Rent-a-Mob' because we already have real one.

Not to say that we were rowdy or violent, as CNN's Susan Roesgen seemed to believe.

I couldn't help but roll my eyes when she complained to the camera that the Tea Parties were obvious, "Anti-CNN, and obviously not family viewing".

Not family viewing? Really, Susan? I mean, you did say right after talking to a dad who was holding his two-year-old son. Granted, you didn't really talk TO him so much as OVER him. All you did was inject your opinion with condescending snideness, and, frankly --- no one wants to hear it!

There are several reasons why no one wants to hear your opinion, Susan. (1)You are a news reporter. You aren't SUPPOSED to offer your opinion. That's the job of a news COMMENTATOR. (2)The reasoning behind your opinion was seriously flawed. Moreover, what you were spouting out had little to no relevance as far as the issues at hand were concerned.

And I quote, courtesy of a draft I found on Fox News:

SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN REPORTER: OK. You're here with your two-year-old and you're already in debt. Why are you here today?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty and they had the right...

ROESGEN: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes —

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me finish speaking.

ROESGEN: Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 —

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me finish my point. Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.

ROESGEN: Wait. OK. Well, Kyra, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network FOX, and since I can't really hear much more, and I think this is not really family viewing I'll toss it back to you, Kyra.

The first problem is obvious. Roesgen spoke over the man and did not do her job. Now, granted, I think the guy was way off base talking about Lincoln and that he was taking time to get to the point, but that still didn't come anywhere near to giving her an excuse to talk over him.

Now if you want to see someone do a commendable job of facing down Roesgen, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVNfM0bwmXw

Naturally, this is courtesy of Founding Bloggers, not CNN. Once you watch it, you will understand why the CNN cameraman was ignoring this bit of drama. Would've made them look bad I suppose.

Now, about what Roesgen said. A $400 tax credit? Really? Technically speaking she's correct, depending on the guy's salary--- Obama HAS lowered taxes.

But this is hardly a significant amount. Point of reference? My father makes a six figure salary and gets approximately $11 back a week. And this is suppose to stimulate the economy? What the heck is he supposed to do with that? It doesn't even fill up a tank of gas!

The only reason Obama lowered taxes by the tiniest margin was for the sake of appeasement. So that he would be able to say "Hey, look at me, I lowered your taxes! I kept my promises right? Tax rates are the lowest they've been in a decade!" and, essentially, shut the mouths of those crazy greedy right wing people. Make them think they have no basis for complaint.

However, we do have cause to complain, and here's why.

Cutting taxes wasn't the only promise Obama made during his campaign, remember? He has also reiterated many times about how he would like to expand this social program, create that social program (universal health care anyone?), etc. But wait a second...where is he going to get all of that money? That means he'll have to raise taxes or cut government spending in other areas, right?

Usually these are the only two obvious choices. Since Obama has lowered taxes, most would naturally try to figure out where Obama is cutting government spending in order to compensate for it in other areas.

But the fact is, not only is he not trimming enough back, the little he does cut is in the wrong places. He refuses to weaponize space. He wants to cut back on our military spending.

You know, I'd say I'm disappointed in him, but for that to be true, I'd have to be surprised. As it stands, however, this is a typical move for someone like Obama. Apparently, he would rather expand AmeriCorps (courtesy legislation HR 1388) than the actual military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww

What I find disturbingly hilarious is that he thinks we can win a war by cutting back on military spending. Oxymoron much? And as for "seeking a world without nuclear weapons", does he really think that refraining from developing them in America will stop OTHER countries from developing weapons? Hello? Mr. President? You can't tell them what to do! They won't listen. Especially if you *don't* have nuclear weapons, mind you.

But back to the point. I was talking about how Obama thinks he's going to pay for all of these social programs. Since he is not cutting enough in the right places, logically that just leaves us with raising taxes. If he decides to go that route, it would be simple for him to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 1.5 years. That way taxes would be brought up and then redistributed into the social programs Obama is so fond of.

However, what is really happening has nothing to do with raising taxes, or curbing government spending.

And it has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with the trillions of dollars that our federal government has manufactured out of thin air.

So what does this mean? Trillions of dollars can be pumped into federal programs. At the same time, your taxes will not be raised, because the government already has trillions that it pulled from thin air.

Thsi also means that once these trillions get into circulation, the individual dollar worth will plummet.

Essentially, this means the adminstration has taken monetary value from you without actually raising your taxes. In fact, they even tweaked your taxes a bit to make it technically the lowest rates in a decade. By doing this, they maintain the illusion of keeping all of their campaign promises. This buys them votes, which gets them power, which is, quite frankly, all they care about.

It's a terrible long term strategy, but excellent for short term. And considering we elect our officials in short term cycles, it's perfect for our politicians.

Susan Roesgen, are you listening? This is what the Tea Parties are about. Either you are willfully ignornat or woefully uninformed. In either case, you have no business pretending to be a journalist and embarrassing people like myself who wish to enter that field.

I'd like to leave with you with something I found quite informative and entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxG0Eo3QtY&feature=channel

Cheers, everyone.