In fact, the *Original* Tea Party in the 1770s was to protest a pre-tax that would actually make the tea cheaper for the colonists! We don't want the stimulus because it is wrong, constitutionally, not because we thought it wouldn't benefit us.

Second, where are you getting your stats? Most of the Tea Partiers I know are Libertarians and Old School GOP noninterventionists that DON'T and DIDN'T support the War in Iraq. If you can produce some sort of official statistic supporting your claim, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, I have a bunch of people at the actual Tea Parties to back me up.

Last, it's not that we are awakening to this fact now that Democrats are in power. Again, most Tea Partiers I have encountered are 3rd party, so they've ALWAYS been the opposition, and I (and many others) were against Bush's bailout at the end of his term as well. We spoke out against the police state tactics used the last 8 years.

This is far, far from partisan, as much as it seems you'd like it to be.

Nope, all I heard from conservatives was "My country, right or wrong" and "We've got to support the troops" and "Criticizing Bush and the war is treason" and "Bush is righteous and Godly" and so forth.

So when a bunch of conservatives who never uttered a peep at Bush's bloated deficits suddenly get pay-as-you-go religion, it's natural to be a wee bit cynical. It doesn't inspire confidence in the sincerity of your views, that's for sure.

No, it's more of the old tribalism. When a Republican president runs up deficits, all is well. When a Democratic does the same, the sky is falling and people start remembering that they read Ayn Rand when they were sophomores in college and oh, isn't that John Galt cool. And you have so much invested in your tribal identities that you can't even see it.

No, by "the usual suspects" I mean Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, with blogospheric assists from the likes of Michelle Malkin

Comments about 'kill the messenger' aside, do you discount the photos you're seeing?

You've got to remember that during the Bush Adminstration, Beck was on CNN Headline News so it's understandable that nobody would realize he was there ;)

As long as it led by the usual suspects ? You bet its phony.

As I said at my own place a few weeks ago, in a post that caused an instalanche:

...conservatives organizing protests is something unheard of in recent times. That it happens at all with conservatives, is a huge story. we expect the left to be generating these kind of things. Not the right.

The Usual suspects, then, would be the left. The likelyhood of seeing them protesting taxation would seem to be fairly low.

4. The number of patients cared for on a daily basis will drop by 40%.

So you will lose patients to another non-ideologue doctor who is happy to pay the extra 6 cents on the dollar to make that dollar. Your employees will find new employment with said doctors. You don't have to make the dreaded 250,000th dollar and your former patients get to see a doctor who isn't a money obsessed Randroid. Win-win!

Going to a higher income bracket DOES NOT MEAN ALL your income gets taxed at the higher rate. It means the income over $250,000 gets taxed at the new higher rate.

Aaron you might try and learn a little bit more about tax law before you call someone else a moron. The comment right above yours provided this information

While it's true that increases in marginal rates only impact the 250,000th dollar and above, that is NOT true for when the income level is used as a trigger for phase-outs.

For example, if the child tax credit disappears after a certain level of income, by earning one dollar less, you can save a nice tax credit.

Same for AMT triggers, deduction phase-outs, earned income credits, joint filing credits, etc.

Going to a higher income bracket DOES NOT MEAN ALL your income gets taxed at the higher rate. It means the income over $250,000 gets taxed at the new higher rate.

It is not only the increase in the rate that scares those who are making the $250K plus, but the FICA taxes Obama wants to throw on it too. So really it would be a jump not to 39%, but more like 53% when you factor that in.

While it's true that increases in marginal rates only impact the 250,000th dollar and above, that is NOT true for when the income level is used as a trigger for phase-outs.

For example, if the child tax credit disappears after a certain level of income, by earning one dollar less, you can save a nice tax credit.

Same for AMT triggers, deduction phase-outs, earned income credits, joint filing credits, etc.