Are you happy, Tea Party?

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
Black Swan's picture

marcus is back^

redacted

stranger's picture

calcfa2011 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Teabaggers are racists dressed up in political
> clothing. Google Mark Williams, BO monkey
> pictures, etc. They rebranded, which the RNC is
> top notch at doing, and to distance themselves
> from the overspending, CIA agent outing, Justice
> dept politicizing, EPA, FEMA and SEC castrating,
> wrong war mongering, 8 years of GWB. With 20%
> approval ratings, they needed to do something to
> distance themselves from their mess because even
> lifelong Republicans were leaving the tent after
> that chaos.
>
> Then 2010 brought us Sharron Angle, Christine
> O’Donnell, and Sarah Palin. Who play to the
> victimized bible thumping loyal and literally
> threaten the thinking, reasoning establishment of
> government. Trade a chicken for a doctors visit?
> Im not a witch? I read all them newspapers? These
> people shouldnt be allowed to teach elementary
> school much less hold office.
>
> And Weepy Glenn Beck, whose most recent human
> moment was comparing the murdered children in
> Norwegian school massacre to Hitler youth. Good
> job Teabagger.
>
> Dick Armey, Freedom Works Teabaggers was the House
> Majority Leader for the Republicans in the 90s.
> And now this PAC is Teaparty and not Republican?
>
> This is all just a marketing tactic that works so
> well for the sheeple that make up the American
> public. Just like if you blame Barney Frank and
> Chris Dodd for the housing mess, though they had
> no power to lead their committees until 2007 when
> everyone agrees the first cracks of the financial
> crisis were starting to show.
>
> These guys are crazy and their followers are
> willful ignorants because their political compass
> was wrecked. So instead of admitting their
> mistake, they rebrand, reload, reprogram.
>
> Watch Inside Job that won the 2010 Oscar for best
> documentary to see some real knowledge. Its all
> about compromise, and this POTUS and Congress are
> both doing a sh!tty job of getting us anywhere.
> And anyone stupid enough to call themselves
> Teaparty need to put on their tinfoil hat and
> worry about the great Kenyan Conspiracy to install
> a leftist POTUS who keeps caving to Republican
> demands on all of his agenda items.

Wish more people could see, understand, and accept this.

magicskyfairy's picture

Why do Americans think everything is socialism?

Public health care = socialism
welfare plan of any kind = socialism
progressive tax brackets = socialism
raising capital gains taxes = socialism

Seems like the only thing that isn’t socialism is trickle-down economics

Black Swan's picture

Please explain how those concepts are not socialistic?

redacted

The Righteous Hacksaw's picture

I wish I could auction off my citizenship sometimes.

No Homo

magicskyfairy's picture

so·cial·ism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

None of those things has anything to do with the government owning all means of production. They are not even remotely close to socialism.

CFABLACKBELT's picture

I quit. You guys have gone full retard on these “debates”… you know you’re not supposed to go full retard.

magicskyfairy's picture

Don’t let the door hit your @ss on the way out

Black Swan's picture

magicskyfairy Wrote:
——————————————————-
> so·cial·ism
> n.
> 1. Any of various theories or systems of social
> organization in which the means of producing and
> distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
> centralized government that often plans and
> controls the economy.
> 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory
> intermediate between capitalism and communism, in
> which collective ownership of the economy under
> the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet
> been successfully achieved.
>
> None of those things has anything to do with the
> government owning all means of production. They
> are not even remotely close to socialism.

Look at definition 2.

redacted

magicskyfairy's picture

Black Swan Wrote:
——————————————————-
> magicskyfairy Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > so·cial·ism
> > n.
> > 1. Any of various theories or systems of social
> > organization in which the means of producing
> and
> > distributing goods is owned collectively or by
> a
> > centralized government that often plans and
> > controls the economy.
> > 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory
> > intermediate between capitalism and communism,
> in
> > which collective ownership of the economy under
> > the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet
> > been successfully achieved.
> >
> > None of those things has anything to do with
> the
> > government owning all means of production. They
> > are not even remotely close to socialism.
>
>
> Look at definition 2.

what about it?

bchad's picture

It’s the slippery slope argument. If a public utility provides you water, or you use a government subsidized road, poof! Next thing they are going to do is arrest you in the middle of the night and hold you without due process of law.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

magicskyfairy's picture

I have yet to see a slippery slope argument that I didn’t think was retarded.

Palantir's picture

Yet magically enough, government subsidies for Ag isn’t “socialist”.

Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!

MCalamari's picture

calcfa2011 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Watch Inside Job that won the 2010 Oscar for best
> documentary to see some real knowledge.

If you seriously believed the message that this documentary spouted, why the heck are you on this board? For two hours, I pretty much heard that anybody and everything related to finance was the DEVIL!

bodhisattva's picture

bchadwick Wrote:
——————————————————-
> It’s the slippery slope argument. If a public
> utility provides you water, or you use a
> government subsidized road, poof! Next thing they
> are going to do is arrest you in the middle of the
> night and hold you without due process of law.

come on, that only happens if you’re darker then the outside border of this forum.

calcfa2011's picture

MCalamari Wrote:
——————————————————-
> calcfa2011 Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > Watch Inside Job that won the 2010 Oscar for
> best
> > documentary to see some real knowledge.
>
> If you seriously believed the message that this
> documentary spouted, why the heck are you on this
> board? For two hours, I pretty much heard that
> anybody and everything related to finance was the
> DEVIL!

Then your comment implies that if you dont agree with individuals using their credentials to distort the facts and even reverse them you should refrain from posting on this board? Yes you are a genius and I cower underneath the glow of your wisdom. When you hear PhDs literally stumble over a journalist asking them if they actually MISQUOTED the title of their own working paper, and they brush it off to bad grammar? I have been in grad school, and claiming a literal fabrication of the truth on your CV is a typo that you yourself posted, is a f’ing joke and slap in the face to all grad students who passed the 5th grade and learned to spell.

Denial of the problem is exactly what is wrong with our country and why we will be a has been civilization. The fact that politicians still argue for the laffer curve and trickle down economics shows just how stupid our country is. The fact that the deficit has 2 sides has escaped those folks whose family tree has no branches. Oh and by the way, that dumbsh!t claim that raising taxes hurts “job creators” is a joke too. I know plenty of those “job creators” otherwise knows as business owners. And not one of them has said that they won’t hire another employee because they are paying 39% vs 35% on their income because guess what, $4000 cant get a full time employee.

Lets face it guys, those of you who are still RNC loyalists because you were raised that way and told they are the good guys instead of those lazy Democrats, are either willfully ignorant or stand to inherit money that you want shielded from death taxes. The anti climate change, pro religion, anti muslim, anti gay marriage, anti birth control pill (see Solow growth model) we had nothing to do with the deficit because we cut taxes or debt because we attacked the wrong country party is still the same party no matter how much teabagging you try to do to get the taste out of your mouth.

CFABLACKBELT's picture

^what a bunch of muddle. I personally know a good handful of CEOs/CFOs that won’t hire because of potential increases in taxes and uncertain/more stringent regulations (except in legal, that area is doing swimmingly). Claiming that people are RNC loyalists just because they were brought up that way seems to just be a little bit of stretch doesn’t it? I could say the same that you are just a brainwashed bleeding heart liberal.

This kind of rapport doesn’t help anyone. Is it any wonder why we waited to the last minute with the deficit with this kind of toxic garble spewing around. You are quick to make sweeping assumptions and have no issue with lumping those who have a different viewpoint from your own into one giant group.

Seriously do you even read what your are writing? If anyone is in denial it appears to be you. You seem to have just as much pent up rage as the regular tea bagger and acting just as stupid…

marcus phoenix's picture

Speaking of socialism, how about the welfare queens in defense and healthcare? I sure hope this is triggered…

Debt-limit deal triggers lobbying campaign from health-care and defense industries

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debt-limit-deal-triggers-lobbying...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"USA troop is a public goods for American and World" ---Lord qqqbee, Sep 1, 2010

MCalamari's picture

calcfa2011 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> When you hear PhDs literally stumble over
> a journalist asking them if they actually
> MISQUOTED the title of their own working paper,
> and they brush it off to bad grammar? I have been
> in grad school, and claiming a literal fabrication
> of the truth on your CV is a typo that you
> yourself posted, is a f’ing joke and slap in the
> face to all grad students who passed the 5th grade
> and learned to spell.

You didn’t sense ANY bias while watching that movie? The interviewer was clearly attacking all of the interviewees that had even a shred of decision power, most notably Fred Mishkin, who clearly made a mistake of even showing up. The poor bastard played such a small and indirect part in the grand scheme of things, but according to the movie, he might as well have been the mastermind behind everything.

I’m sure many of us have been in a hostile interview room where we ended up saying something we didn’t mean, but thankfully, it didn’t get recorded, edited out of context, and repeatedly shown to the world. Nobody is claiming that the financial industry did not have it’s faults, but demonizing a few select groups (esp with the drug/prostitution part) is hardly an objectively view of the 2008 crisis.

Chi Paul's picture

bchad, is it your position that slippery slope arguments are never valid, i.e. they are a sort of logical fallacy?

Chi Paul's picture

Calcfa - I hesitate to engage those that subscribe to conspiracy theories, but do you really believe the US Gov would collect greater tax revenues at a 100% rate than they do currently?

bchad's picture

Chi Paul Wrote:
——————————————————-
> bchad, is it your position that slippery slope
> arguments are never valid, i.e. they are a sort of
> logical fallacy?

No, my point is that there is a LONG way between raising the tax rate to the levels of the 1990s or advocating publicly funded roads, and the outcome of Socialist abolition of private property and human rights, and that there are plenty of things that keep it from being slippery.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

Chi Paul's picture

agree, but it seemed to me you were using the same slippery slope argument to discount any such argument.

bchad's picture

I was using hyperbole, because to me, the gap between adjusting tax rates a bit and running gulags was so great as to be laughable.

The post I was responding to implied that definition #2 of Socialism defined by an earlier post demonstrated that any change that involved an increase in government activity, no matter how small, was tantamount to Socialism, because it was therefore an interim ground on the way to Communism.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

cookthebooks's picture

“we need to rescind obamacare to give our companies a chance to compete globally with the german companies kicking our asses! oh wait…they have universal healthcare and have since bismarck’s time?! obamas a socialist repeal everything!”

david wessel had a great column in the wsj talking about how captured our congress is by finance and healthcare and that no recovery is possible until that is reversed.

calcfa2011's picture

CFABLACKBELT Wrote:
——————————————————-
> ^what a bunch of muddle. I personally know a good
> handful of CEOs/CFOs that won’t hire because of
> potential increases in taxes and uncertain/more
> stringent regulations (except in legal, that area
> is doing swimmingly). Claiming that people are
> RNC loyalists just because they were brought up
> that way seems to just be a little bit of stretch
> doesn’t it? I could say the same that you are
> just a brainwashed bleeding heart liberal.
>
> This kind of rapport doesn’t help anyone. Is it
> any wonder why we waited to the last minute with
> the deficit with this kind of toxic garble spewing
> around. You are quick to make sweeping
> assumptions and have no issue with lumping those
> who have a different viewpoint from your own into
> one giant group.
>
> Seriously do you even read what your are writing?
> If anyone is in denial it appears to be you. You
> seem to have just as much pent up rage as the
> regular tea bagger and acting just as stupid…

Deny one fact that I wrote. If it looks like rage, it is based on fact and not ingrained ideological bias. A party who counts those that I mentioned as candidates has some serious issues with denial. Unlike my “denial” that you claim, yet dont dispute on fact, I dont deny evolution, that separation of church and state is in the constitution, or that sex education works when my kids are 0-2 in out of wedlock births.

So come up with some facts of your own, or dispute mine. Calling me a bleeding heart liberal for attacking the Tea Party? Try some facts to dispute my conclusions, I dont see any above. And I lump people together because THEY chose these candidates who ran on THEIR ticket. We saw these elections and rhetoric because it was national. We didnt see each and every one of these congressional elections of candidates who won. Calling BO a Democrat isnt lumping together, its the truth. Even McCain called their actions “foolish”. That was the Republican nominee for POTUS.

If you read into the SP downgrade tonight, they specifically describe the “political climate in DC” as one of their deciding factors. And if you followed the negotiations, you would know that the reason Boehner had so much clout is that he had reps in his party who were willing to let the US default on its obligations. While Im not a fan of Republicans, at least they were willing to negotiate and give a little while taking a little. If you have ever done coursework in bargaining, the strongest position you can ever take is that you are batshit crazy and dont subscribe to logical game theory. Kind of like a game of chicken. Feel free to dispute any facts, or call me a bleeding heart liberal.

This muddle (by the way who uses that word?) is about the lack of understanding of bargaining, the economy, and ideological stubbornness. When subjectivity trumps objectivity, you have a problem. Where is my denial?

By the way, I will accept your observation about executives not hiring, I know smaller business owners that dont care. But attorneys? I know plenty and count them as friends. The ones I know are junior associates and are scared sh!tless about their jobs right now because the partners are losing business or reducing fees to get work in the door. And there was a great article in Bloomberg last month about the new legal assistant/non partner track position many new attorneys are finding themselves in. I have no love loss for this profession, they have been sucking off of other peoples hard work for a long time.

Ghibli's picture

calcfa2011 Wrote:
——————————————————-
> CFABLACKBELT Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > ^what a bunch of muddle. I personally know a
> good
> > handful of CEOs/CFOs that won’t hire because of
> > potential increases in taxes and uncertain/more
> > stringent regulations (except in legal, that
> area
> > is doing swimmingly). Claiming that people are
> > RNC loyalists just because they were brought up
> > that way seems to just be a little bit of
> stretch
> > doesn’t it? I could say the same that you are
> > just a brainwashed bleeding heart liberal.
> >
> > This kind of rapport doesn’t help anyone. Is it
> > any wonder why we waited to the last minute
> with
> > the deficit with this kind of toxic garble
> spewing
> > around. You are quick to make sweeping
> > assumptions and have no issue with lumping
> those
> > who have a different viewpoint from your own
> into
> > one giant group.
> >
> > Seriously do you even read what your are
> writing?
> > If anyone is in denial it appears to be you.
> You
> > seem to have just as much pent up rage as the
> > regular tea bagger and acting just as stupid…
>
>
> Deny one fact that I wrote. If it looks like rage,
> it is based on fact and not ingrained ideological
> bias. A party who counts those that I mentioned as
> candidates has some serious issues with denial.
> Unlike my “denial” that you claim, yet dont
> dispute on fact, I dont deny evolution, that
> separation of church and state is in the
> constitution, or that sex education works when my
> kids are 0-2 in out of wedlock births.
>
> So come up with some facts of your own, or dispute
> mine. Calling me a bleeding heart liberal for
> attacking the Tea Party? Try some facts to dispute
> my conclusions, I dont see any above. And I lump
> people together because THEY chose these
> candidates who ran on THEIR ticket. We saw these
> elections and rhetoric because it was national. We
> didnt see each and every one of these
> congressional elections of candidates who won.
> Calling BO a Democrat isnt lumping together, its
> the truth. Even McCain called their actions
> “foolish”. That was the Republican nominee for
> POTUS.
>
> If you read into the SP downgrade tonight, they
> specifically describe the “political climate in
> DC” as one of their deciding factors. And if you
> followed the negotiations, you would know that the
> reason Boehner had so much clout is that he had
> reps in his party who were willing to let the US
> default on its obligations. While Im not a fan of
> Republicans, at least they were willing to
> negotiate and give a little while taking a little.
> If you have ever done coursework in bargaining,
> the strongest position you can ever take is that
> you are batshit crazy and dont subscribe to
> logical game theory. Kind of like a game of
> chicken. Feel free to dispute any facts, or call
> me a bleeding heart liberal.
>
> This muddle (by the way who uses that word?) is
> about the lack of understanding of bargaining, the
> economy, and ideological stubbornness. When
> subjectivity trumps objectivity, you have a
> problem. Where is my denial?
>
> By the way, I will accept your observation about
> executives not hiring, I know smaller business
> owners that dont care. But attorneys? I know
> plenty and count them as friends. The ones I know
> are junior associates and are scared sh!tless
> about their jobs right now because the partners
> are losing business or reducing fees to get work
> in the door. And there was a great article in
> Bloomberg last month about the new legal
> assistant/non partner track position many new
> attorneys are finding themselves in. I have no
> love loss for this profession, they have been
> sucking off of other peoples hard work for a long
> time.

All that and no response to Chi Paul? I was hoping to see a refute of the LaFfer curve. I’ve never seen an attempt. Maybe we will witness genius of which no one is familiar.

bchad's picture

The Laffer curve makes sense. The only problem is that there’s no way to know on which side of the “cutting taxes means more revenue” hump we are. When taxes on the wealthiest were 90%, it was pretty plausible that cutting taxes would be good for the economy and good for federal budgets. But now, it’s much much harder to tell either. Cutting taxes look likely to reduce budget revenues, and if that means that interest rates rise, it could well be bad for the economy too.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

Pages

Subscribe toComments for "Are you happy, Tea Party?"