Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But, if the underlying principle in the movement is they they feel that their concerns are not being met by those in Washington then I can absolutely appreciate that sentiment.<< I don't know what their underlying principles are. Their complaints are very generalized and all over the map. Basically, anyone distrustful of "The Government" can project upon it whatever they'd like.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>You are fixated on the Tea Party itself. I'm trying to make the case that it isn't about the Tea Party...but the idea that people are not happy with the two parties.<< Nah, not fixated, just commenting. I agree with you. Actually, I'm not happy with either one myself. I'm MORE unhappy with the GOP, because if they weren't so determined to be obstreperous, they might actually be able to have a positive effect on Obama and the Dems' policies. >>I don't know what their underlying principles are. Their complaints are very generalized and all over the map.<< Their underlying principles *are* very generalized. Everything will be fine if we just return (insert inspiring but nonspecific patriotic word here) to our Great God-Blessed Land and get rid of that (insert random distasteful political movement from the past here) Obama. See also: Speeches, Palin, Sarah
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The strange thing is that they name the movement for the Boston Tea Party, and the one thing they all seem to agree on is that taxes are too high. But, of course, the Boston Tea Party was protesting taxation without representation, which is long gone. And Obama hasn't raised anyone's taxes. In fact, he's cut almost everyone's taxes; fully a third of the big stimulus, well over $200 billion dollars, was in tax cuts. There's just an overblown sense among these folks that he MIGHT raise taxes, and being a socialist he's just chomping at the bit to do so. (Again, the triumph of truthiness - he seems like a tax-raiser so he is one; when actually he's been a tax cutter so far). In reality, he might let Bush's tax cuts expire, but that doesn't touch 98% of Americans, including almost all those people at the rallies holding the "Taxed Enough Already" and "Keep your hands off my wallet" signs. And, of course, compared to just about any other democracy worldwide, our taxes are much lower already. I don't deny that there's widespread dissatisfaction with the government, which this movement (if it can be called that) taps into. And lots of anger. "Anger is the easiest emotion to create. It's also the least authentic." - David Foster Wallace
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< if you had your toes in the shallow end of the dark side you might see how we all seem to fall under the same generalities any time conservatives are discussed here. >>> I hope you weren't referring to my comments in #5, as I took great care to point out that my issue was NOT with particular people's opinions or where they fall on the political spectrum.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< In reality, he might let Bush's tax cuts expire, but that doesn't touch 98% of Americans >>> And, for the people that are upset about just that part (for any of several reasons), I would ask them: what is your solution? The solution seems to be "Get Obama out!" and/or "bring the Republicans back into power." I must point out that if the tax rates go up next year because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, who is to blame for that? The current law, complete with its sunset provisions, was passed when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress AND the White House. So, even though next year's tax hike law was actually passed completely by Republicans, the Tea Baggers solution to PREVENT the tax increase is to return Republicans to power.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The strange thing is that they name the movement for the Boston Tea Party, and the one thing they all seem to agree on is that taxes are too high. >>> Well, it's a bit broader than that. I think you'd get broad agreement over opposition to making the country more socialist, government takeovers of industry, and bailouts. This brings up one of my favorite pastimes of late: when a Tea Bagger brings up these issues, I respond by asking them follow-up questions, like if they're talking about things like the multi-trillion dollar TARP program, and they enthusiastically nod their heads in agreement. Getting more specific, I ask what they think of the $25 billion cash bailout for Citibank, which the federal government now owns 36% of? What about the $45 billion bailout for Bank of America, plus much more in loan guarantees? What about the government bailout of AIG, which many might call a takeover, considering that the Fed took ownership of 80% of AIG overnight as a condition of the bailout? Most any Tea Bagger is very riled up at this point, good and angry at what's been happening. Then I ask what they think the solution is, and without exception the answer is to a) get Obama out of office, and b) return the Republicans to power. Then I make my point, which is that each and every thing I described above happened BEFORE Obama took office, during the Bush administration, and orchestrated by the Republican Treasury Secretary appointed by President Bush and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate, and the Federal Reserve Chairman, also appointed by President Bush and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate, and overseen by the collection of Executive Branch regulatory authorities of Bush Administration for the prior 8 years. The response I get back is usually one of two things: a deer-in-the-headlights blank stare of sorts, or a highly-emotional diatribe against Obama personally. The one thing I never get is a reasoned response to the points I made.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm surprised you don't get covered in splatter as their heads explode.
Originally Posted By dshyates <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...03vYYAjA</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<< The strange thing is that they name the movement for the Boston Tea Party, and the one thing they all seem to agree on is that taxes are too high. >>> <Well, it's a bit broader than that. I think you'd get broad agreement over opposition to making the country more socialist, government takeovers of industry, and bailouts.> Oh, sure. Except they usually demonstrate that they don't even understand what socialism IS, or what "government takeovers of industry" means (i.e. we may have given the banks and GM a boatload of money, but they're still running their own businesses). "The response I get back is usually one of two things: a deer-in-the-headlights blank stare of sorts, or a highly-emotional diatribe against Obama personally. The one thing I never get is a reasoned response to the points I made." No kidding. I've done this too, just this past weekend, as a matter of fact. I also added in "Don't you think the banks ought to pay back all the money?" The guy said "Hell, yeah! But you'll never see that under Obama." I asked him if he saw the SOTU address in which Obama insisted he would recover all the money, as Democrats cheered and Republicans sat on their hands. He responded "I didn't watch that propaganda. But I know what he stands for, and you're wrong about that." A little prodding discovered that he didn't watch the SOTU but DID watch FoxNews' recap and "analysis" of it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<A little prodding discovered that he didn't watch the SOTU but DID watch FoxNews' recap and "analysis" of it.>> Therein lies the main problem. These people have already consumed the crazy kool-aid, which prevents them from acknowledging the actual facts. Fox is never going to report the full truth on any of these issues, so these low information voters will continue to elect officials who work against their own best interests. Did anyone else catch Rachel Maddow this week? She's been reporting on the Congressional Republicans who argued against and voted against the stimulus package, then turned around praised the stimulus on their web sites or during public appearances, like ribbon-cutting ceremonies back home for projects funding with stimulus money, in order to appear productive to their constituents, as if they're in DC representing their interests ahead of the lobbyists who have bought them. Absolutely disgraceful! That's the kind of blatant hypocrisy which really pisses me off with these politicians. Not one single House Republican voted in favor the stimulus package last year. But they're sure using the stimulus funds to score points with their voters in praising how wonderful the stimulus has been to bring needed jobs and infrastructure projects to their districts. So they were against it before they were in favor of it? Yeah, sure they are. Some of them are still appearing before Fox News cameras, claiming that the stimulus did "absolutely nothing" to improve the job market or economy. But that's not what they're telling their constituents back home, up close and personal. Makes me sick.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Maddow's bit on this Tuesday night was brilliant. It got a bit repetitive, but only because there were SO MANY Republicans who voted against the stimulus and then not only went home for the ribbon cuttings they had voted against, but actually went on record talking about how useful these funds were for jobs and investment back home - carefully not pointing out that these funds were stimulus funds. It was the conclusion though that was most important. She argued persuasively that Obama and the Democrats should give up the ghost of trying to get GOP cooperation, as they've already proven that they will vote against Obama proposals because they are his proposals, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW they are useful. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35331019/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/ (about 3/4 of the way down) After outlining a ton of Republicans who voted against the stimulus then praised its effects back home, she said: "Shall I go on? I could. I could keep going until the top of the hour and beyond. But you get the idea, right? This stuff isn‘t secret. The conservative newspaper “The Washington Times” had a big feature on this today. “Politico” has reported on it as well calling what the Republicans are doing here a “cash-and-trash” strategy. The blog “Think Progress” has done yeoman‘s work tallying up all the Republicans who have done this and posting pictures of them handing out giant checks representing funds that these politicians voted against even though they‘re now taking credit for handing it over. Even the president has called out Republicans for attending ribbon cuttings for stimulus-funded projects that they voted against. The White House has put some of the documentation of Republican hypocrisy on this in writing. None of this is a secret, which is the most important thing to understand about it. Republicans right now do not care about policy. By which I mean, they will not vote for things that even they admit are good policies. On policy terms, they have been caught bragging on the stimulus as good policy. I have no doubt that some of them think that health reform is good policy. We know they think things like a deficit commission or cap and trade or pay-go are good policy because they‘re on the record supporting them. But they‘re not going to vote for them because - screw policy. Screw what even they believe is good for the country. Screw what even they believe is good for their own districts. They are not voting yes for even things that they agree with, for anything substantive. They are not going to vote yes for anything substantive that this president supports. It‘s not going to happen. You‘re not going to earn Republican votes for a second stimulus, for example, by pointing out it‘s good policy that creates jobs. We know they already know that. They concede that in their home districts and they are still not voting for it. And they are unembarrassed about this fact. They are not embarrassed. Charging them with hypocrisy, appealing to their better, more practical, more what‘s-best-for-the-country patriotic angels is like trying to teach your dog to drive. It wastes a lot of time. It won‘t work. And ultimately the dog comes out of the exercise less embarrassed for failing than you do for trying. Grow up, Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You‘re the majority. Kill the filibuster if they won‘t let you use that majority. The country needs you to. " As much as I may have a "can't we all just work together?" impulse in me (the same impulse I think Obama has), I think she's right. Until the Republicans show that they won't just reflexively vote against things THEY LIKE just because Obama proposed them - GO IT ALONE if you have to, Democrats. It's the only way anything's going to get done right now.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Dabob2... would you please take your OP and create a new topic/thread with it? This is really important stuff here, and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle. Your last paragraph is spot on, and needs to stand alone for discussion. Thanks.
Originally Posted By dshyates They will not vote for anything that will help the people because they want people as miserable as possible for the next election cycle. But are more than happy to take the credit for anything good that does happen to pass even though they tried to stop it from passing. Since they couldn't stop it, best to try and take credit for it.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 That's the frustrating thing to me about the Democrats right now. They have NO backbone. It's maddening that they have power, and are still afraid to use it. Basically, the Republicans are still in control, even though it's not official. I'm upset with both parties at this point.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I think at this point, Obama has to take a full steam ahead approach, no holds barred. I am facing a similar issue right now with a well respected provider who I believe has wasted a huge amount of public time and money. I do not have enough legal evidence, so now I am having to gamble my career and either take them down or quit. My seat belt is fastened. I hope Obama does the same.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Basically, the Republicans are still in control, even though it's not official. >> Not quite. Corporations are in control. They run both parties. That's why you don't see anything remotely positive for the American people getting done.
Originally Posted By Mr X He has replied. (I'm planning to take some time thinking about how best to get back to him...but in the meantime I'm going to ask him those questions I think Sport Goofy put out there in post 2...in particular 37th best but spends the most) ***"Yes- I know we've been there for a long time. It started about 100 years, in fact. I'm not going to deny your experience with your free health care; I know there are some positive accounts out there. What people don't understand is that on the whole and according to American foundational principles it does not work and our government has proven they cannot run anything efficiently; especially without running us into massive debt. It is a proven fact that socialism is an idealistic and unrealistic utopian system which does not work- it has never worked. The only prosperity we've ever known is in a free market system with little government intervention. That's why we prospered in the first 100 years of our country and the system was proven in 1920 when Harding averted an economic collapse by initializing free market principle policies and getting government out of the way. America is known for and was prosperous because of invention and freedom, not for emulating other countries and pooling our resources to support a government structure. Which facts would you say are inaccurate? Can you name one so I can get an idea of what you mean by inaccurate, because I'm getting my facts from multiple sources including history, books, articles, news and news analysis, speeches and quotes, data, etc. Are you saying that all of that is wrong? Socialism doesn't work according to classic economics and human nature alone. Do you know about classical economics? This stuff is as proven as gravity itself. I'm really interested in your response on this since we go back some years and you've been nice enough not to blow up at me and unfriend me (like some people who remain nameless). I'm just interested in talking this stuff out. "*** Like I said...nice guy (don't know who blew up and unfriended him, but I'm guessing that might've been over his religious views rather than politics...he's quite the "come to Jesus" type ).
Originally Posted By Mr X My reply (for now)... ***Why would anyone unfriend you, Brett!? That ain't cool. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and give my reply to you some thought and reflection as you obviously did for me, so I'll write back in full in a while. In the meantime, I have a few questions I'd like your perspective on to see further where you're coming from. 1) do you feel that all governments are incapable of running anything without running up a massive debt, or just America? 2) how do you feel about the fact that America is ranked 37th in global health care systems? 3) what's your take on the fact that America spends twice as much per capita than the number one country (France), and three times as much as the number two (Italy)?*** Thanks for the suggestion, Sport Goofy.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I just have to shudder that your friends would point to someone like President Harding as a shining example of classical economics and politics. Harding is frequently ranked among the worst presidents ever, if not the worst. His administration was rampant with corruption. How does you friend explain away the Great Depression that resulted from a decade of Republican "classical economic" idea run amuck? The parallels with the years leading up to our current economic crisis are quite eerie. If anything, your friend's economic examples give us even more reason to shun those "classical economic" theories. You might also let him know that the existence of a robust and substantial middle class in the United States did not exist until after the New Deal and post-war period.
