Patriots: Flood Capitol Hill With Letters, Phone Calls
Let’s flood our leaders on Capitol Hill with letters and phone calls! We’ll stimulate the post office in their time of need, and we’ll inundate our leaders who have turned a deaf ear to our cries to stop spending our money.
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama and others want to believe that the national Tax Tea Party, held April 15, represented only a handful of right-wing extremists, that’s fine. The majority of Americans know our leaders, and the mainstream media, are only deceiving themselves.
The hundreds of thousands of Americans who attended Tax Tea Parties, or wanted to but couldn’t because they had to work, need to make a big statement. We need to show our leaders on Capitol Hill — the ones who’ve been spending trillions of taxpayer dollars — who their bosses are; the American taxpayers! Our leaders on Capitol Hill need to know we don’t approve of their words, actions and votes. We need to give our congressional leaders a warning, that if they continue with their irresponsible spending of taxpayer dollars, we will vote them out of office in 2010.
USA-flag
Whether we are Independents, Republicans, or Democrats, we need to write our congressmen and our President, and the message needs to be brutally clear.
We the people are not being represented. We the taxpayers do not like being disregarded by our representatives. We the people do not want trillions of our tax dollars spent on bailouts of people and companies that took huge risks, and are now being rewarded with our money. We patriots know that our government cannot spend our way into prosperity. America’s burgeoning deficit is exploding. It’s hurting us, it’s hurting the future of our children and grandchildren, and it’s weakening America.
Write your letter. Sign it. Mail it.
Do it today.
Then heat the phone lines up. Call your congressmen’s offices on Monday. A phone call interrupts their day. Interrupt your two senators. Interrupt your representative. Interrupt the President.
Our strength is in our numbers.
God bless America!
Photo Source: Wikimedia
Loading ...
Liberals are used to having fiscal conservatives be the ‘silent majority’ not a ‘vociferous tidal wave’ and it both unnerves and frightens them. This is something they have never had to deal with before, and they are totally confused over how to go about it. They seem unable to understand that this is not just about right vs. left, it is about demanding accountability for what is being done with our money.
There was a significant segment of Obama voters who voted for him because they were soured on the fiscal profligacy of Republicans (when they were the majority in the congress) and Obama promised a return to fiscal responsibility. Since his election, the President’s actions, however, have been the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. People are both disillusioned and fed up with the fact that our government has been so irresponsible with our money. We want fiscal REFORM and responsibility, not just platitudes about ‘change’.
Newshound, I wholeheartedly agree that this is not a left vs right issue. I think you’re being deliberately obtuse, though, by saying liberals are “unnerved” by fiscal conservatives. I’m 32 and I’ve never seen liberals more confident and resolute. Obama and Howard Dean clearly bested the GOP in the message, demographics and target marketing game, and it’s utterly ridiculous to claim they’d have missed Ron Paul’s record-shattering “Money Bombs” and grass roots support. If you need further proof, watch Hillary kiss Ron Paul’s ass here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrpKS5aa4GU
Could you clarify what you mean about a significant segment of Obama voters being “soured on the fiscal profligacy of Republicans”? As I recall, Obama promised a departure from militarism and a return to pragmatism. That’s why I voted for him, anyway.
To the previous poster: Obama promised a lot during the campaign, so if you recall that he promised a ‘departure from militarism and a return to pragmatism,’ I would tend to believe you. He probably mentioned it somewhere. That’s the amazing thing about his campaign: he promised everything (except anything remotely associated with George Bush, but we’ll see how that works). His campaigning reminded me of this fine speech by Linus van Pelt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cLHixfIoqY
To Brian: I think a lot of core Democratic voters voted for Obama on the militarism issue, but many (if not most) of the moderates and swing voters voted for Obama based on dissatisfaction with the profligate spending of government.
The Democrat party has historically been the home of social and fiscal liberals, but Republicans had become just as fiscally liberal as any Democrat, perhaps even exceeding them in that arena. In this past election people who were looking for a change in fiscal policy heard the mantra of ‘change’ from Obama and assumed he meant that his policies would be a return to fiscal responsibility and the budget surpluses that we had under the Clinton administration (although Clinton had the help of a conservative Congress).
What they were not expecting was that ‘change’ mean an even sharper swing in the direction of deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility. As StockPM noted, Obama promised so much during his campaign in such broad strokes and amorphous terms that many (if not most) Obama voters were filling in the blanks with their own ideas of what ‘change’ meant. As policies are becoming more and more defined, disenchantment is beginning to set in.
Is it a sea change? Not yet. Most people are willing to give him time, especially in a time of emergency, to see what the results will be. There is also a degree of emotional investment in the candidate you voted for, so it’s difficult to admit you’ve made a mistake, especially if there is no one else out there in the political arena who is voicing your opinions.
I listen to Ron Paul’s views on fiscal policy and much of it rings true, but so many of his other views are so diametrically opposed to mine that it is difficult to become enthused about him. Unfortunately you cannot pick and choose individual policies or pieces and parts of a candidate. They come as a single package.
My concern is that Obama’s fiscal policy is going to have catastrophic long term effects on the economy and create a debt that cannot be ‘grown’ out of, but will have a strangling effect on our economy for generations to come.
Although Ben Bernanke seems to think that he can pull back the trillions of dollars that have been used to inflate the economy in time to avoid hyperinflation, I am extremely skeptical. So far their track record on predicting the course of the economy has been dismal. To expect that Obama, Bernanke and Geithner have suddenly produced a crystal ball that will allow them to manipulate the economy with precision is more than I can credit.
The credit crisis that plunged us into this recession was a surprise to all of them, as was the horrible mess at Fannie and Freddie. And the problems there are about to get worse, with a doubling of the defaults on Alt-A and Prime loans that were previously considered safe.
You cannot save the economy by trying to re-inflate a bubble. It doesn’t work. It never has. And if we continue to try to do it by mortgaging our grandchildren’s futures we will live in infamy as the generation that brought down America.
Newshound: THAT’S what I’m talking about, debate without rancor. Thank you very much.
To your first point, that’s probably true. We can probably find data on Nate Silver’s site to back up your theory. I think that concealed in the premise, though, is that moderates and swing voters won the day for Obama, and I’ll have to dispute that: The Republican Exodus happened in between 2005 and 2006, and in mid to late 2007 party affiliation for the Dems spiked. It was voter turnout that won the election for Obama, and my guess is the new voters identify either as Dems or as liberals.
That’s nitpicky, and I apologize, but we long-winded commenters are a bit OCD, right?
Disenchantment with Obama, that’s a very interesting conversation. See, I’m very disappointed in his stance on illegal domestic surveillance, but that was no secret, I saw how he voted on the FISA reforms and I was hacked off at him then, but I voted for him despite that position. As you say, we don’t get to elect just those aspects of the candidate we like, we gotta get the whole package. The package I paid for happens to be a Big Brother kinda guy…but they all are, aren’t they?
As to Ron Paul, boy are he and I in agreement on the majority of his foreign policy positions. He’s a bit more isolationist than I am, but Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza pretty well cured me of neoconservative interventionism.
That leads me to ANOTHER very interesting point you raise: The concern over the long term effects of the bailout plus the stimulus. In the context of this conversation, and the effects being an unknown, all we can do is speculate. I certainly can’t allay your fears over catastrophic perpetual damage to the economy, but what I CAN ask is: WWMD?
What would McCain do? And where would we be today? The same people would be guiding him on the economy, or worse, that jackass Phil Gramm. Paulson would’ve still decreed TARP, but what do you think the results of more tax cuts and a spending freeze during a recession would be?
As to Bernanke, Geithner and Obama having a crystal ball, you’re 100% correct. All they’ve got is a peephole into the past and seventy years of economics deconstructing the Great Depression. I get the feeling the best economic minds in the world are all speaking up very clearly, and if there’s one thing both conservatives and liberals can be sure of, it’s that Obama reads and considers each side, and he comprehends all of them. Again I kind of agree with you: The Titans of Wall Street say they were surprised by the credit crisis. I just don’t buy it. I read about their “Gaussian Copula Function,” you know, the one they used to conceal risk from investors? Clearly Wall Street was aware they were taking a discrete amount of risk (obviously a staggering amount) and distributing it in a way that guaranteed it was integral to our entire system. The rhetoric I’ve read hundreds of times to excuse the behavior that wrecked the markets is, “When a market heats up, you don’t want to be the guy who ruins the party.” I believe they knew it would happen, but I also believe they were surprised at the timing, scope and speed of the meltdown.
2006, by the way, is the year that US home foreclosures began to jump. I don’t believe it’s coincidental that’s the year the GOP Exodus began, I believe that’s when it became impossible to ignore the utter failure of neoconservative policy abroad and at home.
I’m glad that libertarianism is ascendant in the Republican Party, but I don’t like the ugly fringes of the Tea Party movement and I’m skeptical of their motivation. I get along just fine with economic and “liberty libertarians,” but the Birther people and the loudmouth racists worry me greatly.
I tend to agree that we can’t save the economy over the long run by more bubble economics. The picture I get in my obsessive reading is that these efforts are aimed at stability in the short to mid-term, not igniting another bubble. The long term investments in education, broadband penetration and energy technology are what you see as Obama’s gamble: I see it as his genius.