Bastards - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2010, 07:01 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You might want to look up the definition of "behaviour", this is not the same behaviour.

When teachers start burning things then you can make your comparisons of "behaviour".
Mincing words again? I'm talking about agitprop. Whether it's more violent or less it's still the same thing:

Agitation and Propaganda.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 07:06 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Mincing words again? I'm talking about agitprop. Whether it's more violent or less it's still the same thing:

Agitation and Propaganda.
Sorry, but that's tripe. The far left in Europe is a dangerous animal with a long history of exploiting times of economic difficulty in a violent manner (and I've been predicting something like this would happen for some time now, and unfortunately have been proven right) but conflating legitimate protest with what is basically terrorism is complete tripe. In fact, it reminds me of what some unionists did in the 1960's in Northern Ireland when they cracked down on civil rights protestors because there were IRA terrorists hiding in their midst.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 07:27 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Sorry, but that's tripe. The far left in Europe is a dangerous animal with a long history of exploiting times of economic difficulty in a violent manner (and I've been predicting something like this would happen for some time now, and unfortunately have been proven right) but conflating legitimate protest with what is basically terrorism is complete tripe. In fact, it reminds me of what some unionists did in the 1960's in Northern Ireland when they cracked down on civil rights protestors because there were IRA terrorists hiding in their midst.
I'm attacking the methods as used per this discussion. If people want to protest the dictatorship in Iran then that is reasonable but I'm sticking with the topic of public sector workers protesting for lavish entitlements that can't be paid for. The same tactics are used all over the world and I've already posted copious examples of government union threats when legitimate cuts and wage freezes are needed. Agitprop becomes a kneejerk reaction. A lot of these same usual suspects also protest global warming and every scapegoat that can generate more tax funds. It's an overused method that should be more judicious in application. Agitprop leaves little room for intelligent debate as we can see in this thread.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 07:55 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Agitprop leaves little room for intelligent debate as we can see in this thread.
Indeed.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 11:37 PM   #20
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Sorry, but that's tripe. The far left in Europe is a dangerous animal with a long history of exploiting times of economic difficulty in a violent manner (and I've been predicting something like this would happen for some time now, and unfortunately have been proven right) but conflating legitimate protest with what is basically terrorism is complete tripe. In fact, it reminds me of what some unionists did in the 1960's in Northern Ireland when they cracked down on civil rights protestors because there were IRA terrorists hiding in their midst.
This

The US has nowhere close to the kind of anarchist violence you see in times of economic uncertainty in Europe.

Nothing those teachers were doing even came close to the kind of behavior that is the topic of this thread.

Its the same agitprop, I'll give you that, Purpleoscar, but I would submit that the agitprop is a lot more intense, a lot more deluded and without a doubt much more given to violence and threats over at the Tea Parties!

Purpleoscar is making no sense here. If you want to argue that public employee unions have too much power, be they teachers, transportation workers, what have you, than I am there. I have made my thoughts known on this topic in the past. Massachusetts is in slightly better shape than a lot of other states budget wise in part because our Governor, a Democrat, has risked his political career to draw some lines in the sand with the unions. However, where you lose me is in equating the anarchist bs with anything the teachers' unions are doing. That is just a joke.

You also lose me when you post drivel like "illegals get $500 million of welfare benefits in California." Illegals are barred from getting any kind of welfare benefits. The recent health care bill explicitly excluded them, and hell, even legal immigrants have been heavily restricted in receiving welfare and food stamps since 1996.

Many states are bankrupt or nearly bankrupt, so it is a little dishonest to pass off CA's "deep blue" reputation as a reason for the situation they find themselves in now. California has a lot more Republicans and conservative minded people than many think(city/county governments, legislature, etc) and has had a Republican Governor for 7 years.

I've only been there once and even I know that "liberal, prius driving, hippy California" is largely a myth. Sure, some of the most liberal areas of the country are there(San Francisco-San Jose/Silicon Valley) but then again, so are some of the most conservative(Orange County, San Joaquin Valley). Sure, CA has some of the most liberal Senators and Representatives in the country(Barbara Boxer, Pete stark) but it also has some of the most conservative(Bill Thomas, Darrel Issa, Duncan Hunter). I do not have time to look it up now, but I am pretty sure California has some of the highest partisan voting indexed districts on the Republican as well as the Democratic side.

Bottom line, one ideology far from defines one of our largest, most populated states.


A little thing called the late 2000s great recession did a lot to blow holes in budgets. Not saying that public sector benefits should not be cut or at the very minimum on the table, and I am not saying that excessive benefits have nothing to do with blowing up budgets, but they are far from the only culprit. As

Now,back to the topic at hand:

These people are bastards just as you say, they are all against "the man" and "the rich" etc but do they realize the bank they burned down loans out money to businesses and workers, employs a bunch of lower/middle class people in various capacities, etc. It just reminds me of the anarchist vandals that go after McDonald's or some other corporate store in Europe. Hello, its a franchise, probably owned in this particular case by someone just working hard and trying to get by.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 11:51 PM   #21
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm attacking the methods as used per this discussion. If people want to protest the dictatorship in Iran then that is reasonable but I'm sticking with the topic of public sector workers protesting for lavish entitlements that can't be paid for. The same tactics are used all over the world and I've already posted copious examples of government union threats when legitimate cuts and wage freezes are needed. Agitprop becomes a kneejerk reaction. A lot of these same usual suspects also protest global warming and every scapegoat that can generate more tax funds. It's an overused method that should be more judicious in application. Agitprop leaves little room for intelligent debate as we can see in this thread.
Yes, but this is on the same level as the bank burners how?

Thats the point financeguy is making that you seem to be ignoring.

Not to mention the silence on the violent threats from the Tea Party and the proliferation of right wing militias on your part.

The most prominent manifestation of agitprop in the US in a very long time is what we see from the right today.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 01:14 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Yes, but this is on the same level as the bank burners how?

Thats the point financeguy is making that you seem to be ignoring.

Not to mention the silence on the violent threats from the Tea Party and the proliferation of right wing militias on your part.

The most prominent manifestation of agitprop in the US in a very long time is what we see from the right today.
I'm tired of agitprop because it's permeating our culture beyond what it's supposed to. People are getting into smaller and more narrow factions and using agitprop as a magic wand that solves all problems. The problem with propaganda is there is no debate so all it does is shout a point of view without much back and forth to get at the problem. And many don't want to get at the problem they just want tax transfers to their pockets.

What is happening in Greece is just a more extreme example of the same phenomenon. I can understand protesting colonialism, racism, dictatorship etc but these leftists lost the argument a long time ago. Protesting budget cuts that are inevitable is an example of groups using agitprop as a magic wand to avoid debate. The only way to keep the public sector benefits in Greece would be to have captive investors that WANT to lose money by receiving no return for their investments. In the real world you can't do that without a world dictatorship and since there isn't one all the left has is agitprop as a fall back strategy to influence people via media.

Similarly the New Jersey teacher protests were also pointless because they already lost the argument. New Jersey is losing it's tax base but the unions want to continue the gravy train irregardless of mathematics.

Even some "supply-sider" conservatives didn't get the message as this article points out clear:

Goodbye Supply Side - Kevin Williamson - National Review Online

Quote:
Kevin Williamson

April 26, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Goodbye Supply Side

From the May 3, 2010, issue of NR.

There are two schools of thought about the Reagan tax cuts. The conventional conservative view: They spurred investment, entrepreneurship, and real economic growth, helping to resuscitate the post-Carter economy, and, by doing so, they paid for themselves. The conventional liberal view: They were an ill-considered product of starve-the-beast ideology and produced crippling deficits, inaugurating a new era of fiscal irresponsibility only briefly transcended during the golden years of the Clinton presidency.

Here’s a different take: They never happened.

Properly understood, there were no Reagan tax cuts. In 1980 federal spending was $590 billion and in 1989 it was $1.14 trillion; you don’t get Reagan tax cuts without Tip O’Neill spending cuts. Looked at from the proper perspective, we haven’t really had any tax cuts to speak of — we’ve had tax deferrals. Reagan and his congressional allies had an excuse in the considerable person of Speaker O’Neill. But George W. Bush and the concurrent Republican majorities in both houses of Congress didn’t manage to cut spending, either. Part of that was circumstances — 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the subprime meltdown — but part of it was the fact that a poorly applied supply-side analysis has infantilized Republicans when it comes to the budget. They love to cut taxes but cannot bring themselves to cut spending: It’s eat dessert first and leave the spinach on the table.

There is some evidence that this is both bad politics and bad policy. Many conservatives were disheartened by the Republican spending excesses of 2001–06, and abandoned the GOP in the elections of 2006 and 2008. And you may have noticed that our parks and public spaces are from time to time filled with rowdy tea-party demonstrators hollering for Washington to drop anchor post-haste on the USS Appropriations, which is nonetheless steaming on at a nauseating clip. Spending cuts are always popular in theory and detested in practice, but the deficit is now truly terrifying, and, fortunately for Republicans, it is owned by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Our gross national debt is about 80 percent of GDP today and will be nearly 100 percent by 2012. If the government applied any sort of reasonable accounting standard to its future liabilities — if it were taking the same write-downs on Social Security and Medicare that the Fortune 500 are taking on Obamacare — then our real liabilities would far exceed GDP. It’s ugly, and the numbers suggest that we aren’t going to grow our way out of it: Despite all those pro-growth tax cuts, our deficits continue to grow faster than our economy. That’s been especially true during the Great Recession, but even during periods of strong economic growth, there has been nothing to indicate that our economy is going to grow so fast that it will surmount our deficits and debt without serious spending restraint. This should be a shrieking klaxon of alarm for conservatives still falling for happy talk about pro-growth tax cuts and strategic Laffer Curve optimizing.

Some people are more sensible about that Laffer Curve talk. Laffer, for instance. Arthur Laffer, whose famous (and possibly apocryphal) back-of-the-napkin diagram launched supply-side tax policy, readily concedes that the growth effects of tax cuts are oversold in the political debate. “Does every tax cut pay for itself? No. I think Irving Kristol wrote that, once — and then did a pretty good job of arguing for it. But if some guy running for Congress in Clayton County, Texas, says all tax cuts pay for themselves, what do we want to do? Go after him with a shotgun? Sure, they’re going to cite me, and there’s very little I can do about it. But there’s the same amount of ignorance on the other side, ignoring the economic feedback effects of tax cuts.”


Laffer’s rustic hypothetical is apt: There is no Clayton County in Texas, but there is a little Texas town called Clayton, population 79, represented in the House by Republican Louie Gohmert. What does Representative Gohmert think about taxes? After 9/11, he argues, the United States was headed for a serious recession, even a depression, but tax cuts saved the day — and increased government revenues in the process. “With a tax cut, then another tax cut, we stimulated the economy, and record revenue like never before in American history flowed into the United States Treasury,” he said in a speech before the House. “As it turned out, the tax cuts helped create more revenue for the Treasury, not destroy revenue for the Treasury.” That last bit is fantasy. There is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them. That claim could be true — if we were to credit most or all of the economic growth during the period in question to tax cuts, but that is an awfully big claim, one that no serious economist would be likely to entertain. It’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard. But this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles.

And such magical thinking is not the exclusive domain of back-benchers from the hinterlands. The exaggeration of supply-side effects — the belief that tax-rate cuts pay for themselves or more than pay for themselves over some measurable period — is more an article of faith than an economic fact. But it’s a widespread faith: George W. Bush argued that tax cuts would serve to increase tax revenues. So did John McCain. Rush Limbaugh talks this way. Even Steve Forbes has stepped into this rhetorical stinker from time to time. Reagan knew better — his Treasury Department predicted significant revenue losses from his tax-rate cuts — but his epigones preach a different gospel. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former Reagan speechwriter Clark S. Judge made a more specific claim: “The surpluses of the late ’90s were to a significant extent a product of the growth in revenues that came after the capital-gains tax was cut.” Here he’s really making two claims: 1) that capital-gains-tax revenue growth was a significant factor in balancing the budget, and 2) that the revenue grew because of the cuts. The first claim is demonstrably untrue: The total growth in capital-gains tax revenues amounts to about 10 percent of the overall deficit reduction that led to the surpluses of the late Clinton years. On the other hand, spending cuts accounted for about half of the deficit reduction. (“Spending cuts” is a famously slippery phrase; here we’re talking about some actual cuts, but mostly about scheduled spending forgone.)

As for Judge’s second claim, it is possible, even likely, that the cuts in the capital-gains-tax rates led to greater investment activity during the years in question, 1996–2000. But if we want to credit tax cuts for even the 10 percent of deficit reduction that came from increased capital-gains tax revenues, then we have to assume that the cuts were responsible for 100 percent of the growth in those revenues. And that’s a stretch. You may remember that the late 1990s were an unusual time in the American economy, to say the least. Recall, for instance, the two big news stories of Aug. 9, 1995: Jerry Garcia shuffled off his hippie coil and Netscape had its initial public offering of stock, an event that kicked off a very long and raucous money orgy we now know as the dot-com bubble, the Age of Irrational Exuberance. From 1994 to 2000, the NASDAQ rose 500 percent in value, doubling between 1999 and 2000 alone. It was not a modest reduction in the tax rates that inspired investors to bid stocks up to five times their earlier prices and to keep bidding them up even when price-earnings ratios had far exceeded historical norms. Compared with the dot-com bubble, the effects of the tax-rate cuts probably were of not much greater magnitude than the passing of Mr. Garcia. Overselling the effects of supply-side tax cuts gives Republicans an alternative narrative for the millennial economy — which is tempting, since nobody is going to run for office promising another disruptive bubble in modish technology shares.

But, in truth, nobody really should run for office on the supply-side revenue effects of tax cuts, either. As it turns out, they present a dry and technical question of limited interest to the general electorate. It is true that tax cuts can promote growth, and that the growth they promote can help generate tax revenue that offsets some of the losses from the cuts. When the Reagan tax cuts were being designed, the original supply-side crew thought that subsequent growth might offset 30 percent of the revenue losses. That’s on the high side of the current consensus, but it’s not preposterous. There is, however, a world of difference between tax cuts that only lose only 70 cents on the dollar and tax cuts that pay back 100 cents on the dollar and then some.

There is considerable debate among economists and federal legume-quantifiers about how large supply-side revenue effects are. The Congressional Budget Office did a study in 2005 of the effects of a theoretical 10 percent cut in income-tax rates. It ran a couple of different versions of the study, under different sets of economic assumptions. The conclusion the CBO came to was that the growth effects of such a tax cut could be expected to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss in the first five years. In the second five years, the CBO calculated, feedback effects of tax-rate reductions might actually add 5 percent to the revenue loss — or offset as much as 32 percent of it. That’s a big deal, and something that conservative budget engineers should keep in mind. But the question of whether the CBO accounts for tax cuts at 100 cents on the dollar, 99 cents on the dollar, or 68 cents on the dollar is hardly the stuff that a broad-based political movement is going to put at the center of its campaigns. Federal spending, on the other hand, is a national crisis.

And that’s one thing the gentleman from Clayton has right: Tax cuts aren’t really the problem. The hot action is on the spending side of the ledger, and nobody wants to touch it. The problem with magical supply-siderism is that it gives Republicans a rhetorical and intellectual framework in which to ignore spending — just keep cutting taxes, the argument goes, and somebody else will eventually have to cut spending. The results speak for themselves: Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott and Bill Frist all know how to count, but, under their leadership, Republicans spent all the money the country had and then some. Deficits boomed, and Republicans’ claim to being the responsible britches-wearing adults when it comes to spending got unpantsed. Cutting taxes is easy. Cutting spending is hard.

Professor Laffer appreciates this. “It’s hard to win on spending. If it’s a Louisiana Purchase or the Cornhusker Kickback or earmarks, you can win on some of those, but it’s real hard. If you’re on a college campus, you can whip the kids into a wild rage on defense spending, on Iraq and Afghanistan. People love getting government benefits and they hate paying for them.” Supply-side icon Jude Wanniski understood the politics of spending cuts and described his own approach as the “Two Santa Claus Theory.” Short version: Nobody votes for Scrooge. Tax cuts give Republicans an opportunity to distribute economic benefits through the tax code the way Democrats distribute them through appropriations, and the exaggeration of the supply-side effect gives them an opportunity to pretend like those benefits are cost-free.

Laffer is confident that smart politics — a platform that includes tax cuts, preferably in the form of a flat tax — can produce the kinds of economic conditions that will make budget-balancing possible in the long run. But he is hesitant to address the issue of spending. He points to the case of California’s Proposition 13, the 1978 tax revolt that arguably launched anti-tax conservatism as a national political force. Proposition 13 was all tax cuts. Five years before, Reagan had pushed for Proposition 1, a mix of tax cuts and spending cuts. “We cleaned their clocks with Proposition 13,” Laffer brags, “but Milton Friedman and Reagan got killed on Proposition 1.” But Proposition 13 can hardly be considered a real success in anything other than political terms: It did not produce fiscal discipline, and it did not provide a long-term solution to California’s budget problems. Legislators are legislators, and California is California: Proposition 13 was the shot heard round the conservative world, but the Golden State took only a few decades to degenerate into its presently bleak fiscal condition.

It’s really hard to create political incentives that will keep legislators from overspending. Conservatives should know this, because we’ve tried it before. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985, which enacted automatic federal spending cuts if the deficit exceeded predefined targets, went through hell, high water, and the federal courts before its provisions were allowed to kick in. But when they did kick in, they worked. They worked with a hard and furious vengeance: The deficit was reduced from $221 billion in 1986 to $153 billion in 1989, from 5.2 percent of GDP to 2.8 percent of GDP. In fact, Gramm-Rudman worked so well that Congress, facing real spending constraints for the first time, killed the act, replacing it with the toothless Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

This we know: Tax cuts don’t get us out of the spending pickle, and growth isn’t going to make the debt irrelevant. Legislative mandates and gimmicks like spending caps and the like will not constrain the spendthrift habits of appropriators — because, if they do, they will be repealed, just like Gramm-Rudman was. You can’t starve the beast if the Chinese and the bond markets keep lending him bon-bons by the ton. And the prospect of enacting a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution is a castle in the sky.

So, what should conservatives do? One, abjure magical thinking about tax cuts. Two, develop a rhetoric in which “spending” and “taxes” are synonyms, so a federal budget with $1 trillion in new spending means $1 trillion in new taxes — levies on Americans today or on our children tomorrow, with interest. Three, get a load of those tea-party yokels, with their funny hats and dysgraphic signage, and keep this in mind: They are opposed to the Democrats, but what they are really looking for is an alternative to the establishment Republicans, whom they distrust, with good reason, when it comes to the bottom-line question of balancing the budget and getting our fiscal affairs in good order. And then, finally, decide which angry mob you want to face: today’s voters or tomorrow’s bondholders.

— Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review. in whose May 3, 2010, issue this article first appeared.
No amount of Agitprop from any side will change the reality that balanced budgets are needed but we know this is a larger problem with the left.

Quote:
Reagan and his congressional allies had an excuse in the considerable person of Speaker O’Neill
If the Greeks don't follow austerity measures the investors will flee causing the poverty they are trying to prevent. The problem is not that people were killed but the mentality that lead to the killing. The violence and agitprop achieved nothing and had no chance of achieving anything. It was empty and pointless from the get-go. If we gave into every TV commercial or government spending proposal where would we be? If anything the sane Tea Partiers (including some Republicans and Democrats) are a frustration with the constant messages that ignore restraint so they resort to the same agitprop in response. Yet unless this movement translates into votes for capable candidates it will be hot air.

If the Tea Partiers get violent they would be hypocrites since don't they say they uphold democracy? If the tea partiers resort to violent agitprop only and form stupid ideas like splitting the vote to a third party they would again be ineffectual blowhards that hand victory to those they feel the need to defeat.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 01:36 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Sorry financeguy that your thread got hijacked...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 02:24 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Sorry financeguy that your thread got hijacked...
So what are we supposed to talk about in this thread? That murderers are bastards? I delve beyond that to the motivations behind such actions.

"Oh those guys are bastards." Wow, amazing discussion, let's move on.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 03:05 PM   #25
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm tired of agitprop because it's permeating our culture beyond what it's supposed to. People are getting into smaller and more narrow factions and using agitprop as a magic wand that solves all problems. The problem with propaganda is there is no debate so all it does is shout a point of view without much back and forth to get at the problem. And many don't want to get at the problem they just want tax transfers to their pockets.


We are talking about a narrow faction of violent anarchists versus noisy people shouting on both sides and not being violent, yet not doing much productive.

Agitprop has always been with us, and it is mostly due to the rise of the radical right that it is noisier in the US these days.

Rush and Fox News are some of the biggest distractions from reasonable debate out there.

Hell, one party, the Republicans, can not even discuss the issues in good faith. They have to use b.s. like "socialism" and "government takeover."

Nothing inherent in the Republican elected official mind set caused this, it is their increasingly close alliance with propagandists.



Quote:
What is happening in Greece is just a more extreme example of the same phenomenon. I can understand protesting colonialism, racism, dictatorship etc but these leftists lost the argument a long time ago. Protesting budget cuts that are inevitable is an example of groups using agitprop as a magic wand to avoid debate. The only way to keep the public sector benefits in Greece would be to have captive investors that WANT to lose money by receiving no return for their investments. In the real world you can't do that without a world dictatorship and since there isn't one all the left has is agitprop as a fall back strategy to influence people via media.

Similarly the New Jersey teacher protests were also pointless because they already lost the argument. New Jersey is losing it's tax base but the unions want to continue the gravy train irregardless of mathematics.
1.)Thank you for the economics lesson but I don't need it.

2.)I never disputed that public benefits undeniably need to be reduced in Greece. Or in some cases in the US. Teachers' Unions go way too far and have way too much power too much of the time. However, a correction, teachers are not protesting for government transfer benefits. Transfers are payments given for which no service of value is rendered in return, like TANF(AFDC). These teachers are haggling over the level of pay/benefits for actual work they do, service they perform. Not saying I agree with them, but apples and oranges.

3.)What I can't go along with is your contention that everyone protesting against these cuts, whatever the merits, is fueling the same mentality that led to the bank burnings. That is, in a word, and not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit.

By that same logic, anyone protesting anything and doing so in a way that substitutes rhetoric for logic and homemade signs for debate represents the starting point of the mentality that will lead to flame throwing and window smashing.

How do the teachers in NJ represent the same mentality, while the Tea Partiers, using threats and openly racist taunts as part of their agitprop, get off free?

Quote:
Even some "supply-sider" conservatives didn't get the message as this article points out clear:
Very happy you pointed this out

Reagan gave us 2 tax increases bigger than Clinton's in 1993, the overall level of taxation did not drop, and the vast majority of Americans saw an increase or no change under Reagan.

Ditto government spending.



Quote:
No amount of Agitprop from any side will change the reality that balanced budgets are needed but we know this is a larger problem with the left.
And the right.





Quote:
If the Greeks don't follow austerity measures the investors will flee causing the poverty they are trying to prevent. The problem is not that people were killed but the mentality that lead to the killing. The violence and agitprop achieved nothing and had no chance of achieving anything. It was empty and pointless from the get-go. If we gave into every TV commercial or government spending proposal where would we be?
No argument here.

As for your last sentence, where we find ourselves right now is a good answer as to where we would be.

We spent years listening to Republicans who told us we could have all the tax cut and all the government spending we want, consequences be damned, and look where we are now!

If we are talking about the left versus the right or Democrats versus Republicans in government spending/austerity measures, then the right does not have too much credibility here.

Quote:
If anything the sane Tea Partiers (including some Republicans and Democrats) are a frustration with the constant messages that ignore restraint so they resort to the same agitprop in response. Yet unless this movement translates into votes for capable candidates it will be hot air.
Not true.

If that were true, they would have come about when we were blowing a record surplus with promises of endless tax cuts and endless government spending. Go back to the Bush-Gore debates, there wasn't an entitlement or government program that Bush was not promising to take care of.

What messages that ignore restraint have been permeated since the Tea Party formed?

None.

Obama has made clear these are going to be difficult times requiring sacrifice.

Proposed spending cuts, addressed entitlements, the biggest driver of the deficit, through health care reform, put together a deficit panel over the objections of the Republicans, put pay as you go back in and proposed to cut farm subsidies. He has also done more on education reform in 1 year than Bush did in 8, just ask those teachers unions who are about ready to get a Dem primary opponent for Obama.

Contrast that to Bush and Cheney, who were either silent or told us "deficits don't matter."

The Tea Party has a problem with bailouts?

Their leader Palin and most of their Republican friends supported the bailouts, and where were they in September 2008 when they were passed?

The Tea Party has a problem with the stimulus?

What else would you have done? If anyone thinks McCain would not have passed a major stimulus, they are dreaming. When the private sector is falling off a cliff, the only option, the only component of GDP that we can influence is Government spending. Before we had counter cyclical measures, we had 10 year long Depressions that made 1932 look tame. Same would have happened in 2008. There is no debate among economists, the ones who advised McCain included, that the stimulus has saved jobs and restored growth and was needed.

Plus, it can't be held up as lack of restraint given the alternative(more downward spiral and debt as a result) and the fact that Obama was far from cavalier about doing it. He said from the beginning that it was what he had to do, not what he wanted to do, and that we would almost get whiplash having to change from fiscal stimulus to a policy of deficit cutting when the economy turned.

Do you remember who started the Tea Party?

Rick Santelli, a darling of Wall Street, on a rant on CNBC!

Is Wall Street of the past 10/15 years a picture of restraint?

Then there is a good amount of crackpots and racists who are just protesting a black Democrat in office. Including the founder in name only stand in for Santelli.

A necessary stimulus and a moderate health care reform bill similar to what Republicans had proposed in the past pushed by a moderate Democrat is not what has all these people in the street.

It is either:

A.)They are protesting a Democratic President: Fox-talk radio-Republican Congressional nexus that has developed since 1993, which states that any Democrat in the White House is to be unanimously opposed and brought down personally. Clinton was illegitimate, a socialist, a dictator, and now Obama is.

B.)Racism

They do not have any disagreements on any issue of substance, listen to interviews with them. They can't do any more than repeat things that have been proven false and conspiracy theories. They are mostly idiots.

They follow Sarah Palin, who, regardless of politics, any reasonable person has to conclude, is a complete idiot.

What does that say about them?

Someone clearly educated like you are, Purpleoscar, should be able to see that.





Quote:
If the Tea Partiers get violent they would be hypocrites since don't they say they uphold democracy? If the tea partiers resort to violent agitprop only and form stupid ideas like splitting the vote to a third party they would again be ineffectual blowhards that hand victory to those they feel the need to defeat.
Everyone says they uphold democracy.

As for violent agitprop, they already have resorted to that.

As for 3rd party ideas, they already have resorted to that(look at Crist).

They'll either drive too many Republicans away and make independents the 2nd party, and take what is left of the GOP, or they'll kick the Republicans to the curb and form the 3rd Tea party. In either case, they'll be, as you say, handing victory to those they hope to defeat.

At the end of the day, Purpleoscar, I did not come here to discuss the merits of these issues with you. We obviously come from different ends of the spectrum to some extent, and that is America, after all!

All I am trying to get you to do is understand that, regardless of what people are protesting, legitimate non violent means do not equate to the same mindset that leads anarchists to burn banks.


No matter what the "issue" or the circumstances or who held power, anarchists, by the very nature of their bent ideology, will find a reason to flout authority and smash/burn stuff.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 04:46 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
At the end of the day, Purpleoscar, I did not come here to discuss the merits of these issues with you. We obviously come from different ends of the spectrum to some extent, and that is America, after all!

All I am trying to get you to do is understand that, regardless of what people are protesting, legitimate non violent means do not equate to the same mindset that leads anarchists to burn banks.


No matter what the "issue" or the circumstances or who held power, anarchists, by the very nature of their bent ideology, will find a reason to flout authority and smash/burn stuff.
I wrote A LOT MORE but I'll save you guys the time.

This kind of behaviour does exist:

Quote:
http://wcbstv.com/local/governor.chr...1621917.htmlIt took only three months as governor for an adversary to wish him six feet under.

"To have the leader of the Bergen County Teachers Union send out an e-mail to their 17,000 members asking them to pray for my death I think just goes beyond the pale," Christie said.

The e-mail in question was sent by Bergen County Education Association president Joseph Coppola in the form of a prayer, which said:

"Dear lord,' this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."
Okay we agree to disagree.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 04:50 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:25 AM
What a stupid joke

I'll bet Joseph Coppola's favorite person is - Joseph Coppola.

He seems to be quite full of himself.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 04:52 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 03:25 AM
You do realize this started out as:

Quote:
"Dear lord,' this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Obama is my favorite President"
A tea bag facebook page.

So yeah, once again if you want to misuse the word "bahavior" again, you're right this behaviour does exist.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 05:16 PM   #29
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I wrote A LOT MORE but I'll save you guys the time.

This kind of behaviour does exist:



Okay we agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree!

Of course it exists, never denied that.

What I interpreted you to be saying was that a certain issue(public employees) could not be protested without the same mindset that leads to anarchist flame throwing.

There are plenty of teachers out there, whether I agree with them or not, that would find bank burning reprehensible. The most strident and vocal in any movement, if they even have one personal attack bone in their body, are bound to come up with something like the Chris Christie is my favorite governor joke.

I highly doubt most of the teachers would endorse said joke. In fact, many times the Union thugs are out speaking on their own or for a very narrow group of the most strident teachers or police, etc. My best friend's dad was the Police Chief in my town for 15 years and he was openly at war with the Police Union.

I am sure that Coppolla finds bank burning reprehensible, even given his stupid "joke."

BVS is correct to point out that "Obama" originally stood in for "Christie" when the "joke" started.

I first saw this joke in some "agitprop" chain e mail I received from a Republican friend of mine!
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 01:31 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Muldfeld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 04:25 AM
I don't feel I can comment on the situation in Greece. It sounds like the government was quite corrupt. It's very sad that these employees died.


However, I remember, when I was in undergrad, a bunch of students went to Montreal for some G8 protest. I didn't go nor wish to go, but I heard about some of them destroying a Shell gas station on the way. I was disgusted because, while someone might not like what Shell is doing in foreign nations, the gas station owner was not to blame. He was the real victim and I'd hear these supposedly leftists trying to defend it.

I was more centrist at the time, but I think I was right to criticize it.
__________________

__________________
Muldfeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com