The Tea Party

[Moonlit_Angel]

U2387 hit the nail on the head. People are just not informed enough about things, and so the simplest thing can get them all clawing and screaming and shouting. I wonder, when I watch these rallies, if half the people there even know what the hell happened at the original Boston Tea Party, or what exactly it was about.

In regards to a new direction for the GOP, well, I've seen Megan McCain on TV and she actually seems to have some reasonable views. More open on societal issues, criticizes the extreme far-right, does support fiscal responsiblity (and believe me, I don't argue that. I certainly don't want our government to abuse money, and there's still a lot of wasteful spending that needs to be stopped. No disagreement there at all. I just wish these same people yelling at Obama had been bitching when the Bush administration blew money on never-ending wars, or keeping their oil buddies rich, or paying off people for scandals, or so on and so on...). So if I were going to run the GOP, I'd probably go talk to her.

Not to mention, the citizens of this country themselves can certainly share in the blame with their "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality. EVERYONE, from the government down to the average citizen, has spent money on things they couldn't afford. We're all to blame for the current financial situation. And if anyone honestly thinks one party has a monopoly on fiscal responsiblity, they're dreaming. The Republicans can say they want that 'till they're blue in the face, but you know and I know that that's not even close to being true. Same for the Democrats. Seeing people constantly fall for that old line just never ceases to amaze me.

There are plenty of legitimate debates to be had over the country's finances. Shouting "SOCIALIST" or "COMMUNIST" or painting a Hitler moustache isn't one of those legitimate debates. It just makes you look and sound like a moron.

Hi, Moonlit. Nice to see you back.

Thanks . Hello to you, too.

Angela

 

[AEON]

... maybe talk to some actual teachers.

Well, I married one - does that count?

 

[coolian2]

plural rather than singular?

 

[martha]

Well, I married one - does that count?

We do all think exactly the same. All the time. About everything.

 

[AEON]

We do all think exactly the same. All the time. About everything.

There was a quote out there but I couldn't find it. It goes something like this: "I don't trust the answer from someone whose ability to pay their mortgage depends on the answer"

 

[martha]

There was a quote out there but I couldn't find it. It goes something like this: "I don't trust the answer from someone whose ability to pay their mortgage depends on the answer"

What the hell does that even mean in this context?

 

[HBK-79]

Not to mention, the citizens of this country themselves can certainly share in the blame with their "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality. EVERYONE, from the government down to the average citizen, has spent money on things they couldn't afford. We're all to blame for the current financial situation. And if anyone honestly thinks one party has a monopoly on fiscal responsiblity, they're dreaming. The Republicans can say they want that 'till they're blue in the face, but you know and I know that that's not even close to being true. Same for the Democrats. Seeing people constantly fall for that old line just never ceases to amaze me.

So how did all the job losses start? (I'm referring to before the 2008 crash.)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So how did all the job losses start? (I'm referring to before the 2008 crash.)

All sorts of reasons. People may have quit jobs they weren't happy in anymore, companies may not have been able to afford to keep people on any longer, etc. I don't mean to say they're responsible for that portion of it all, 'cause that's not their fault, and I apologize if that came off unclear. All I meant to say was that it just strikes me funny that the people at these rallies criticize the government for wasteful spending when I'm sure they could find instances in their personal finances of wasteful spending (like, for instance, shelling out $500 bucks to hear some of the politicians speak at these things). It doesn't excuse the government's screwed up spending, but I think everyone's guilty of moments of excess. That's all I meant.

Angela

 

[Bluer White]

Well, I married one - does that count?

Well played

 

[solemole]

Wealth And Inequality In America

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties

This chart shows average income of the top 1% as a multiple of average income of the bottom 90%.

Source: The Nation

Half of America has 2.5% of the wealth

Source: Institute for Policy Studies


Half of America has 0.5% of the stocks and bonds

Source: Institute for Policy Studies

Look at the gap grow!

Source: Professor G. William Domhoff

The last two decades were great... except for American workers

Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years

But savings rates are sinking

Poor Americans have a SLIM CHANCE of rising to the upper middle class

Source: NBER

Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the gap

Source: NBER

Income tax is getting lower and lower for the rich

America spreads the wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries

America's income spread is nearly twice the OECD average

Source: Economist

 

[solemole]

Cont...

The gap is NOT growing in other countries, like France

Inequality is worst around Wall Street and Oil Land

If you aren't in the top 1%, then you're getting a bum deal

Normalized to 1979, the top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

Source: Afferent Input

 

[coolian2]

i've posted it elsewhere, but it bears posting again.

from another forum:

You're eternally afraid of "big government", so you voted for a so-called small government conservative government for the first eight years of this century. And what did we get? Possibly the worst financial crisis since the Depression, war, misery and a total collapse of infrastructure.

Yeah, f*cking awful that big government, eh? Just look at what happened to countries with big governments like, oh, I don't know, half of Western Europe?

Guess what guys. Big government works for 99% of the population. The only reason you buy into the "myth" that it doesn't is because you believe the shit from the top 1%, in the useless hope that *one day* you'll be up there with them - and when that happens, you don't want big government taking a small portion of your imaginary fortune away from you for others who aren't (apparently) as good.

Get over it. Big government is good for you. The status quo is screwing you in the ass and all you're doing is asking for a bigger cock.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton said he sees parallels in the mood of the country now and on April 19, 1995, when the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City killed 168 people while he was in the White House.

"There's the same kind of economic and social upheaval now," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview to air Friday on "The Situation Room."

"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites," Clinton said.

And although the hard-core, anti-government radicals are still a minority, "they can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site -- and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."

"Now, everybody has got a computer; Web sites are easily accessible. And you can be highly selective and spend all of your time with people that are, you know, kind of out there with you," he continued.

Clinton said the Oklahoma City bombing -- then the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history -- was the "last in a series of very high-profile violent encounters" during the 1990s between anti-government activists and authorities.

He said the country is better protected to prevent such an attack now. But when asked whether the anti-government mood now is more intense than in the 1990s, Clinton said, "Now, there are all of these groups, you know, saying things like the current political debate is just a prelude to civil war, all of that kind of stuff."

In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, Clinton warned of the affect that angry political rhetoric might have on antigovernment radicals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh; he pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann calling the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress "the gangster government" at a tax day Tea Party rally on Thursday.

"They are not gangsters," Clinton told the newspaper. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."

Clinton said that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd.

"There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do," Clinton told the newspaper, pointing out that McVeigh and his conspirators "were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line."

But Clinton said he didn't want to draw too tight of an analogy between then and now. He added that it's not his intent to stifle criticism of government.

"I'm not interested in gagging anybody. I actually love this political debate," Clinton said.

"Most of the Tea Party people, though, are explicitly political. You've got to give that now," he said. "Forget about whether we disagree with them or not. It's really important to be able to criticize your government and criticize elected officials. That doesn't bother me.

"Most of them have been well within bounds," Clinton said. "And they're harsh but limited criticism; in other words, they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it.

"But I just think that we have to be careful," the former president added. "We've been down this road on more than one occasion before. We don't want to go down it again."

 

[AEON]

i've posted it elsewhere, but it bears posting again.

from another forum:

Your quote is a bit guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. This is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"- you are asserting that the since the financial crises happened after eight years of conservative power (really six – 2000 though 2006) they are essentially the cause of the crises.

Most mainline economist attribute to cause of the crises to several factors which do include the lax attitude of the SEC, pressure from the Left to offer subprime mortgages to unqualified people, questionable fiscal policy, and of course – good ol’ fashioned greed (which the last I checked has no political allegiance).

Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with distrust of an overly strong central authority. It has always been the idea that America’s government is held in check by we the governed – that the true power belongs to us and we surrender only the parts we cannot handle ourselves (military protection, law enforcement, roads…etc). Your argument about an overly strong central authority working for 99 % of the people reminds me of young Anakin Skywalker arguing for an emperor in Star Wars Episode II.
Historically, overly strong central governments eventually abuse their authority and are eventually defeated from within or by invasion.

 

[AEON]

Get over it. Big government is good for you

Please consider:

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program…

The State is to care for the elevating national health…by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power…

These are some of the tenants of National Socialism…

 

[AEON]

Yeah, f*cking awful that big government, eh? Just look at what happened to countries with big governments like, oh, I don't know, half of Western Europe?

Actually, maybe you've missed the headlines the last few months - but Western Europe is on the verge of financial collapse. The countries worst off are the ones of the "big governments" (compared to GDP) - Potugal, Ireland, Italy, soon to go default Greece, and Spain. Many economists predict the same path for France.

 

[martha]

But it's a grass-roots movement. Stupid lame-stream media.

Crashing the 'tea party' - latimes.com

As regular readers of this column will recall, the public packaging of the tea party movement -- and particularly events that win it TV airtime, like cross-country bus tours, rallies and ads -- is mainly the product of California Republican political consultants, foremost among them the Sacramento-based firm of Russo Marsh and Rogers. That company has not only promoted the movement but also used it to raise money for a political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, founded to oppose Obama during the general election. This week, Politico reported that, according to federal filings, the Our Country PAC has raised $2.7 million since launching the Tea Party Express bus tours.

"That fundraising success," Politico wrote, "has also meant a brisk business for Russo Marsh." The website found that Russo Marsh and a sister firm received $1.9 million of the $4.1 million in payments made by the PAC; some of those funds would have gone for TV airtime and to vendors.

And "big government" is just fine when you benefit from it:

They aren't, however, implacable foes of "big government" or even of taxes. More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own "income taxes this year are fair," just 10% less than all American adults. Moreover, a majority told follow-up interviewers that, though they wanted "smaller government," they didn't want cuts in our largest social programs, Social Security and Medicare.

So much for the surge of a new anti-government populism.

 

[Irvine511]

Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with distrust of an overly strong central authority.

like, regarding torture and rendition?

 

[Irvine511]

These are some of the tenants of National Socialism…

this is garbage. absolute garbage. bush wasn't hitler, and Obama isn't a national socialist.

 

[martha]

These are some of the tenants of National Socialism…

Oh my God. Get over it. That kind of shit is just insane, especially coming from a group of people willing to marginalize gay people, which really was a tenant of National Socialism.


See what I did there? See how lame that whole thing can get?

 

[AEON]

... bush wasn't hitler, and Obama isn't a national socialist.

Both of these statements are true. Nonetheless, the point remains - those were some of the tenants of National Socialism.

 

[martha]

Both of these statements are true. Nonetheless, the point remains - those were some of the tenants of National Socialism.

Don't forget Stalin!!!!!!111!!!1

 

[Irvine511]

Both of these statements are true. Nonetheless, the point remains - those were some of the tenants of National Socialism.

you have no point. you're drawing a meaningless comparison that amounts to absolutely nothing except to link two entirely disparate things in the same sentence in order to create the perception that they have something in common.

Mussolini made the trains run on time. often, Amtrak runs on time. therefore, Amtrak is fascist.

again, garbage.

would you like to talk about waterboarding, a technique used by the Gestappo and the Khamer Rouge as well as the Bush Administration?

 

[AEON]

Don't forget Stalin!!!!!!111!!!1

I'm not exactly a Tea Bag Party fan, but I do find it always necessary to keep the federal government "in check" for two reasons 1) the Constitution is designed to do just that and 2) I simply do not trust those that seek such positions

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not exactly a Tea Bag Party fan, but I do find it always necessary to keep the federal government "in check" for two reasons 1) the Constitution is designed to do just that and 2) I simply do not trust those that seek such positions

where were you when Bush/Cheney was president and declaring that everything he did was constitutional because he was the president and therefore if he did something it was constitutional?

i share your concern, i just find it odd that this wasn't a concern from 2001-2009, and it's only now that there's a black man in the office that the whites are getting all worried.

(oh, wait, was it wrong to toss race in there? seems far more fair than making Hitler comparisons)

 

[martha]

i share your concern, i just find it odd that this wasn't a concern from 2001-2009, and it's only now that there's a black man in the office that the whites are getting all worried.

(oh, wait, was it wrong to toss race in there? seems far more fair than making Hitler comparisons)

Don't forget the bitch woman who runs Congress. (Does that make me a man-hater?)

 

[martha]

Well played

Yet my other point was unanswered.

 

[AEON]

where were you when Bush/Cheney was president and declaring that everything he did was constitutional because he was the president and therefore if he did something it was constitutional?

I don't agree with everything this administration did. I especially don't agree with the expansion of the government (not a conservative move).

i share your concern, i just find it odd that this wasn't a concern from 2001-2009, and it's only now that there's a black man in the office that the whites are getting all worried.

These concerns were raised with the Clinton Administration as well - he chose a fiscal conservative path. Obama is choosing not to follow Clinton's lead - thus the rallies.

(oh, wait, was it wrong to toss race in there? seems far more fair than making Hitler comparisons)

My point in bringing up those tenants of National Socialism is that big promises from a big government may sound nice - but they come at a significant cost.

 

[Irvine511]

My point in bringing up those tenants of National Socialism is that big promises from a big government may sound nice - but they come at a significant cost.

which is what? genocide? doesn't this strike you as insane? or merely bad thinking?

 

[AEON]

which is what? genocide? doesn't this strike you as insane? or merely bad thinking?

Could be genocide. In the present day, more likely to lead to bankrupty or fiscal insolvency (current examples: see Western European countries like Greece, Spain, Italy...). Could be a loss of liberty which could just as easily work against your sexual orientation (just depends who happens to be in charge of this desired central power at the time).

Strong central authoritative states that promise to "take care of you" do not have a good track record.