And Rasmussen has a new poll:
On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own....
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of those in the Political Class say their views are closer to the president. The Obama Administration has created a significantly larger government and political role in the economy.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Mainstream Americans say their views are closer to the Tea Party.By the way, the Tea Party Express is in Madison tomorrow.
पोस्ट्स
१९७ टिप्पण्या:
Oh my god, hide the black folks, and watch out for militia dressed as retired Americans.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
In other words, maybe they are mostly Republicans, and maybe not. Maybe they are mostly Democrat/independent, maybe not!
I guess a headlines that reads We're Really Not Sure about Party Affiliation wouldn't drive much business towards Rasmussen.
...and I wonder why Independents gets lumped in with Democrats?
I don't think that is an accurate way to describe the results. The article says that 51% of people who said they are "supportive" of the Tea Party claim to be democrats is different than 51% of tea partiers being democrats. Most of the people who are active in any way in the Tea Party events are not democrats. Maybe some who got the calls in this survey are not that clear about that the tea party is so they said, supportive when asked.
I guess my comment should have ended with Gallup, not Rasmussen. And I can't blame fatigue - I've already had one most excellent cup of Indie Coffee Iced Coffee. Best Iced Coffee in Madison!
(Waiting for the obligatory leftist troll comment that because the second poll was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, its methodology skewed the results for the purpose of creating right-wing propaganda.)
===
(Corrected an editing error.)
wv:undedgi ... John McCain?
Awesome, the rally is less than 10 mins from me. I wonder what special guests might I be treated to, from their About page? Could be Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, or Victoria Jackson. Enough is enough!
@MadisonMan: I was wondering that too.
These numbers, even with the +/- ratio are why the frantic and desperate efforts of the MSM on the behalf of the Obama administration to spin the Tea Party as a bunch of radical, racist, rednecks is futile.
People (other than those who live in the liberal elite bubbles of San Francisco, NYC and other insular areas) will know one or more people who belong to or support the Tea Party movement. Those people will tend to be normal. Neighbors, retired friends, moms at baseball practice, the clerk at the grocery store and so on. Sure, there might be an annoying person who goes over the top or even a real radical or two....BUT.....
Normal people who in no stretch of the imagination are comparable to 60's radicals. The papers and the media can spin it all they want. People will believe their own eyes.
What does the Administration and it's allies think when they see reports like these? They must be aware that after their time has come and gone, all of us will be able to point back at very specific incidents where the President deliberately and maliciously misled the American people in order to consolidate power. Similarly, there will be no way to delete his statements about the economy when we hold them up beside contemporaneous economic figures. After all the manipulation of emphasis and "adjustments" have been reconciled and the numbers are set in stone, he'll be shown to be as disingenuous a man as any who's ever held the Office.
The survey says that only 14% of democrats have a favorable view of the tea party.
Tons of former Republicans call themselves "independent" these days.
99% of Tea Partiers will vote. 1% will be stranded on buses disabled by leftist operatives.
Who pays for the Tea Party Express III, and their fleet of buses trekking across the country, I wonder.
garage,
Big Business, Big Oil, Big Wall Street, Big Tonsil, Big Fat Cats...
The fact that America even has a "political class" is the primary problem we face.
"Who pays for the Tea Party Express III, and their fleet of buses trekking across the country, I wonder."
We need to find out so we can call them racist spitters too. Where do they store their garbage? I need to do some "research".
I'm thinking about going to the rally, with a sign that says "STOP Socialism! End Medicare and Social Security NOW!"
How many of the Independents were Republicans until juuust recently, when they became Libertarians?
@garage:
Well, to give you credit, that's a more concise message then "End federal economic redistribution programs designed to create constituencies that politicians can play off each other so they can keep getting re-elected by promising these groups even more, by taxing everyone else."
Hard to fit all that on one sign.
garage mahal: I'm thinking about going to the rally, with a sign that says "STOP Socialism! End Medicare and Social Security NOW!"
You won't actually do it, because it would be the first sensible thing you've said since beginning to post on Althouse, at least.
The fact that it took less than a year for the "Tea Party" notion to garner so much support is extraordinary. Obama has pitted himself against his own citizenry and can't understand why we don't just sit down, shut up and do as we're told.
The yammering "anti-war" douchebags couldn't get half this much support despite decades of practice and daily tongue baths from the media.
This is gonna be a good year for common sense, I can feel it.
"Sixty-three percent (63%) of Mainstream Americans say their views are closer to the Tea Party. "
What the hell is a "Mainstream American"; is that the new third party?
I'm thinking about going to the rally, with a sign that says "STOP Socialism! End Medicare and Social Security NOW!"
Me too. Plus I would add to my sign.....
"I WANT A REFUND OF ALL THE MONEY THEY HAVE TAKEN FROM ME FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS.......PLUS INTEREST"
You do realize that Social Security and Medicare are (supposedly) funded by involuntary contributions taken from people's paychecks?
The problem is that instead of actually funding SS and Medicare, the programs have been turned into a piggy bank for welfare programs.
Hello? No small number of former Democrats call themselves "Independents" today. Especially since the 2004 campaign. Count me as one of them. 1964 to 2004 a Democrat. Today? Neither.
Being from Michigan, there's no difference between Demlican or Republicrat, so it is "independent." Period.
You do realize that Social Security and Medicare are (supposedly) funded by involuntary contributions taken from people's paychecks?
It's time to end this tyranny. It's eerily like the health insurance reform just passed, which we know is tyrannical, and definitely socialism. Think I'll get any takers at the Tea Rally?
If you are not in the mainstream, are you a Tributary American or a Stagnant Pool American?
"It's time to end this tyranny. It's eerily like the health insurance reform just passed, which we know is tyrannical, and definitely socialism. Think I'll get any takers at the Tea Rally?"
Let's find out.
My hypothesis is that the tea party as currently constituted is mostly about intergenerational conflict.
It's time to end this tyranny. It's eerily like the health insurance reform just passed, which we know is tyrannical, and definitely socialism.
I think the better question should be: How much of our paycheck should we be allowed to keep?
@garage:
We get it. If you're against the HCR that just passed, for whatever reason, then you must be against Social Security and Medicare. You want grandma to be evicted, and die of cancer, simultaneously.
Which means liberals that opposed the HCR bill that passed because it didn't have a public option are mean, dirty, racist spitting bastards too.
Bag: And if you are mainstream, there's a good chance you've been "dammed"!
@ Garage
I agree
Average income of $40,000 for 45 years. Sometimes MUCH higher but to average out the college years $40K is a good average. And the figures below are inexact because payroll deduction rates have changed over time.
HOWEVER: eat this.
Payroll taxes currently are 6.2 %Social Security and 1.45% Medicare with an equal match by the employer to equal an annual average contribution of 15.3%. So we can just average it at 15% a year.
40,000 x 15%= $6000
X 45 years = $270,000 total contribution
If you compound it at an average of 3% interest a year I should have approximately $556,319. (Or at least half of that since my employer was also extorted for the other half.)
And that is just ME. It doesn't include my husband.
I also know that I could have invested at much better than an average of 3%
Where is my money??!!!???
I want a refund.
So. Yes. I say end Social Security and Medicare and give me back my money plus interest.
Hoosier:
I think the better question should be: How much of our paycheck should we be allowed to keep?
Obama to Joe the P: We need to spread the wealth around.
He was talking about your paycheck. so the answer is - you can keep what Bark (woof), Nancy and Harry think is ok, and they don't like you that much.
What makes you think you own your own paycheck? Remember, it belongs to the big zero, and he'll let you have some. Maybe.
The Tea Party Express in Madison is at a T. Wall Property, I think, or adjacent to it (the wife had her laser surgery out there). I wonder if Mr. Wall is trying to hitch his Senatorial campaign to it.
I also know that I could have invested at much better than an average of 3%
If you give investment advice to someone, and they take it, and they simultaneously keep track of what they would have done had they not listened to you, and their path would have lead them to greater wealth than your suggestions did, do you give a refund?
Obama to Joe the P: We need to spread the wealth around.
Preaching to the choir there. My questions was really to the liberal commentariat here. They seem to hold the belief that cutting the taxes of people who actually pay them (an ever decreasing number BTW) is akin to stealing from babies.
I'd be less incensed over government spending if the other 48% of the folks out there were kicking into the Federal income tax coffers but they ain't.
And yes garage, they ain't and the IRS data proves it.
Just as Republics missed/are missing an opportunity to strengthen support among Hispanics, the Dems are blowing an opportunity here by continually demonizing the Tea Partiers
And DBQ, you could have used half of that to buy private insurance giving you even better coverage that would not now be able to consider your income before paying. And both you and your insurance would be solvent, unlike our government programs.
Let's find out.
I'm down. I'll be there, will you?
@DBQ:
I'll play devil's advocate here and say that structurally, if Soc. Security was voluntary, that would be a major structural change in the economy as people opted out and invested money themselves. As has been shown with Fannie and Freddie and the Wall Street meltdown, you could have found yourself invested in the "safe, conservative" home mortgage market, and now have a portfolio of toxic assets. A defined pension, like Soc. Security, means you plan around it.
However, with TARP, and the bailouts, government would have probably bailed you out too.
Hoos
You're so right. The flip side question that never gets answered is: what limits are there on fed, state, local gov'ts? What areas can't they "regulate?" How much gov't is too much?
"the Dems are blowing an opportunity here by continually demonizing the Tea Partiers"
You will see this change very soon in as carefully constructed a fashion as possible.
So we can just average it at 15% a year.
40,000 x 15%= $6000
X 45 years = $270,000 total contribution
So you want to collect your employers contributions as well?
Remember: if you support some current government programs you must support all future programs.
The fact that SS and Medicare have $70-$80 trillion in unfunded obligations - and adding a new entitlement program makes no sense - must not be mentioned.
You still must support it.
So sayeth the Mahal of Garage.
RE: MM
"If you confiscate someone's money, say you'll invest it for their retirement and instead squander it buying political favor, do you give a refund?"
Fixed.
How much gov't is too much?
Well that's what I want some liberals to answer. I think few conservatives think we should get rid of every safety nets for the most vulnerable but the question is when is it too much.
It seems when it comes to issues of national security or securing our borders, liberals have no problem protesting government involvement. But if its installing another big tick social program then you just simply can't have enough government.
Maybe for an example of when you have too much government, just look at Greece.
I'll play devil's advocate here and say that structurally, if Soc. Security was voluntary, that would be a major structural change in the economy as people opted out and invested money themselves.
I'll agree with you here in that most people wouldn't have the discipline to invest the contributions and LEAVE it invested over the years. They would end up with nothing.
This is why I really liked the Bush proposal of allowing a portion of the contributions to be self controlled and a portion to remain in an involuntary account. This would at least guarantee that those who can't/won't invest will have something and the rest of us could get better than a 1% return on the discretionary account.
Young people should have been all over this concept. Too bad.
bagoh2o, the Idolatry fan in me is still getting a huge kick out of your avatar.
Thank you for the chuckles.
You are reading the numbers in the Gallup poll in a rather skewed and funky way.
28% of those polled said they were a Tea Party supporter.
Of those:
49% are Republicans
43% are Independents
8% are Democrats
This does not speak for the other 72% of voters.
The way I read it is Republicans make us almost 50% of the Tea Party movement. And the 'independent' voters here are sort of the Bill O'Reilly type. They say they are independent but clearly vote one side most of the time.
So, really, it's pretty safe to say that the Tea Party is made up of CONSERVATIVES. Oh yeah, it actually shows that too: 70% are Conservative.
40,000 x 15%= $6000
X 45 years = $270,000 total contribution
So you want to collect your employers contributions as well?
I see you have selectively cut out the part where I acknowledge that half of it is my various employer's contributions.
Just think.....if they hadn't been forced to pay into the broken system...I might have had a pay raise and been able to save more. Or they might have been able to hire more people. OR...even put that money into their OWN retirement.
Woo hoo.
@garage:
She wants to collect the contribution the employer made because the idea is that they thought her valuable enough to pay her 'x' amount, whether it went to FICA or Medicare. Your point is valid that if the employer wasn't forced to pay her half of the FICA tax, they wouldn't have.
Then again, no one forces companies to have matching contributions to their employee's 401K plans, but many do. Also, in professions where someone works under contract, it's why the contract price seems so high relative to salary. The contractor is paying their own FICA and insurance.
MM - DBQ didn't hire the US Gov't for investment advice. She (and me and you) were forced to give up a certain amount of money per paycheck that was "invested" for us (yeah, right - and it's in that LOCKBOX too!)....
wv: triskica - thirteen something
@DBQ:
Yeah, neither Bush or Republicans proposed an all-or-nothing "you must put x% of soc. security into private investing" scheme.
garage mahal said...
"I'm down. I'll be there, will you?"
Yes.
Email me and we can meet up and take a poll together:
Social Security, Medicare, (and now National Health Care) are funded by Involuntary Taxes.
Do you:
Consent ☐
Not Consent ☐
Social Security, Medicare, (and now National Health Care) are funded by Involuntary Taxes.
On the sruface these are all perfectly good and benevolent programs. Until you start running out of people to pay for it.
I would just like one liberal to tell me how much of our paychecks should be subject to government confiscation to pay for all the wonderful programs that they want. Its a pretty simple question.
Garage, your social security was ended last week. The fund is upside down with more going out than is coming in. See, they spent your payments like they spent your tax dollars. Your "contributions" are gone.
Does that make you mad? That Republicans and Democrats spent your retirement funds that they made you pay them?
If it does, there is room in the tea party for you too.
Trey
This is why Alpha et al. drip venom when the subject of Tea Parties is raised.
froggyprager said...
The survey says that only 14% of democrats have a favorable view of the tea party.
That would be 1 in 7 Democrats. I can imagine how the DNC types writing the talking points at Puffington and Kos would have their drawers in a knot over that one.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
I'm thinking about going to the rally, with a sign that says "STOP Socialism! End Medicare and Social Security NOW!"
Me too. Plus I would add to my sign.....
"I WANT A REFUND OF ALL THE MONEY THEY HAVE TAKEN FROM ME FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS.......PLUS INTEREST"
You do realize that Social Security and Medicare are (supposedly) funded by involuntary contributions taken from people's paychecks?
About those "involuntary contributions taken from people's paychecks", the word is withholding and it was dreamed up by the Roosevelt administration during WWII to take the worry out of people's lives when figuring their taxes. The IRS will tell you (I know, I worked for them about 20 years ago) it's all based on voluntary compliance, but I have yet to hear of someone who volunteered not to pay and got away with it.
You are right about your money. Surveys over the years have shown that wealth, even modestly invested, would yield a much greater return than what the Feds give. And garage probably knows that better than most.
themightypuck said...
My hypothesis is that the tea party as currently constituted is mostly about intergenerational conflict.
Some truth to what you say, but photos tend to suggest a bigger cohort is younger than the polls do. These are people wondering where they'll get a job, how long they'll be able to keep the one they have, etc. Part of that "intergenerational conflict" is a reaction to the "greedy geezer" phenomenon ("I got mine") and the knowledge that the younger people will be required to pay into a bankrupt system to support the old folks when they know they'll never see a penny of that money themselves (SS officially started paying out more than it took in last month).
I remember running the numbers back in the 90s when I was an anti-SS crusader. People exempted from SS tend to do way way better with their pension than SS will pay. Not sure if that is still true but I bet it is, even with the meltdown.
themightpuck
But it sure as hell will be true when and if SS becomes insolvent,
I was thinking about young people and jobs and was wondering if there are still "bridge" jobs in the USA. Back in the mid to late 90s I had smart friends without college degrees who got jobs as tech support people in call centers and moved up the ladder to become tech savvy experts in things like network security. Eventually many had to go to school to keep moving up, but without that bridge job they probably would be cooking meth.
But it sure as hell will be true when and if SS becomes insolvent,
sssshhh..
don't look now.
The gov't can debase the currency to deal with SS insolvency. Private actors typically don't have that kind of power.
Eventually many had to go to school to keep moving up, but without that bridge job they probably would be cooking meth.
There are no such jobs anymore. It's become a society of the haves and have-nots. Welcome to Dickensenian America.
You know, it's real damn funny to hear the liberal spin.
"I call independents conservatives here, so only 30% of the Tea party are democrats!"
Dude, that's still a fucking huge problem for the democrats who demonize the TEA party. That's enough to swing many, many elections this November, and if Obama doesn't somehow change things majorly, that sea change will continue for a long time.
They all the TEA party a bunch of right wing racist insanos, and this shows that's a load of crap. But just going to a TEA party protest and realizing these are the best people in the country: nice caring, smart people, clean people who don't litter, people who don't hate you for disagreeing with them, and people who will vote for sure, shows you that the liberal spin on the TEA party is the most unfair demonization in many decades.
And the TEA party will be growing. MORE democrats than these are lost to Obama's false huge tent (where he's all things to all people).
@Slow Joe,
I'm pretty sure the Tea Partiers will vote to throw the bums out in November but the question is, will it mean that the Tea Party supports the Republicans? I don't think so. I don't think anyone should be able to count on them for 2 election cycles.
Email me and we can meet up and take a poll together:
If I can get the wife to give up her Tues trivia night, I will email you and meet up there.
"30% of the Tea party are democrats!"
Those are the spitters.
One statistic you will not see on Hardball with Chris Matthews
And the TEA party
Is TEA an acronym?
Yes, TEA is an acronym. Good Lord.
No, I wasn't shouting it.
Taxed Enough Already.
I think it's a stupid name for the movement, but that's pretty damn well known outside Madison.
And I think Obama recognized the implicit concept when he lied so much about not taxing the hell out of us. He tried to run as a conservative republican on finance, and a social democrat on entitlements. And now, a lot of democrats think he's a douchebag.
Meade
I'd like to add a question to our survey as well.
How much have your federal taxes gone up under Obama?
the mighty puck,
I think the Tea or TEA party, however you like it, was always pretty likely to help the GOP a lot. They do have great credibility on spending when compared to democrats, though obviously that's damning with faint praise.
The deficit before and after Pelosi took over, or the change from pre 1995 onward, says something. A lot of TEA partiers are pretty informed on that.
But it's really a matter of degree. The personal hatred shown to the movement has galvanized them.
I think the left's hysterical reaction to good normal folks as a bunch of turn of the century democrats (Klansmen) has really polarized them into wanting the most effective opposition to the democrat party possible. They are pragmatic. The idea that they are idiots who will split into a third party is really just born from the concept they are all extremist insanos who have no idea what's going on.
That's just a useful myth for the left with now. They won't support all of the GOP. But they will generally help the GOP replace some democrats. Without the polarizing hate from the left, this probably wouldn't be quite the case.
I'd like to add a question to our survey as well.
How much have your federal taxes gone up under Obama?
Well that is pretty much a foregone conclusion isn't it garage? I mean we can't sustain a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit forever and there just aren't enough fat cat rich folk to soak to pay for it.
I mean you do realize that income taxes for the half of the country that pays them will have to go up to pay for all this. That's pretty much the central focus of the movement garage. The folks out there protesting know it doesn't come in a pot at the end of the rainbow.
btw, we've already had enough elections to see a huge difference, and how it helps the GOP.
Scott Brown is not exactly a far right wing extremist. And he's not exactly the first or last upset for the democrats. The GOP will be the primary beneficiary until they decide to fuck up again. It took them a while to do that in 1994. Who knows. I want the best result I can attain, which sadly is not a very good result.
So no tax hikes, yet? Should be interesting surveying tomorrow. Hope to hell I can go.
Has anyone seen this video yet? Warning, the content is graphic:
http://the-raw-deal.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-releases-video-depicting-us-military-slaying-of-dozen-iraqis-including-two-reuters-employees/
Nathan R. Jessup
http://the-raw-deal.com
@Slow Joe,
I don't know why the left is going so hard after the Tea Party folks. To be fair, I'm not involved so only know what I get from the media but they don't seem anything like a crazed bunch of racist rednecks as portrayed. It is standard political procedure to demonize your opponents as radical but does it work if the charges don't stick? This is especially true if half of them voted for you in the last election.
"Nathan R. Jessup"
That's from one of my favorite movies, though that specific character was a hollywood slur against Marines (I still loved that character).
Not surprising someone on the left would use it in another spam attack on the military.
"This is especially true if half of them voted for you in the last election."
And a lot of these people were just sick and tired of a dishonest GOP full of big spenders and entitlement promisers.
It's amazing the democrats decided to make themselves the enemy and the GOP the great hope. I think part of this is because Obama's not a very smart leader and doesn't understand politics outside Chicago well enough. This shit would have worked up there.
So no tax hikes, yet?
garage, is there some mental or biological condition you suffer from that prevents you from addressing the question? I mean you like to toss out your strawman 'have your taxes gone up??' yet ignore the simple fact that we can't run trillion dollar deficits indefinitely.
Guess the Tea party folks are smarter than you when it comes to how the government will pay for all these ponies.
garage mahal said...
Meade
I'd like to add a question to our survey as well.
How much have your federal taxes gone up under Obama?
Okay. And while we're at it, let's ask them if they are:
1. a racist
2. a homophobe
3. all the above
Let's keep it on topic Meade.
4. when did you stop beating your wife?
I mean you like to toss out your strawman 'have your taxes gone up??' yet ignore the simple fact that we can't run trillion dollar deficits indefinitely.
The health care bill reduces the deficit according to the only neutral budget referee we have, that both Dems and Repubs use. Contrast that to 4-5 huge programs that 100% of it went onto the deficit from the last bunch. Seems to me tea partiers should have been out protesting that. Maybe we can get some clarity on that tomorrow night!
The health care bill reduces the deficit according to the only neutral budget referee we have
I assume you're referring to the CBO, which, as you well know, will calculate results based on whatever assumptions they're given, as opposed to basing their calculations on actual real-life data.
In other words, it works much like the computer program used by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the results are equally credible.
themightypuck said...
@Slow Joe,
I'm pretty sure the Tea Partiers will vote to throw the bums out in November but the question is, will it mean that the Tea Party supports the Republicans? I don't think so. I don't think anyone should be able to count on them for 2 election cycles.
That's the issue. The Tea Partiers are leery of people like Lindsey ("Just call me Arlen") Graham, the Weird sisters from Maine, and, yes, John McCain. I think the primary, as well as the general election, will be a big focus for them.
garage mahal said...
Meade
I'd like to add a question to our survey as well.
How much have your federal taxes gone up under Obama?
Let's start with all those taxes that kick in for ZeroCare (come on, you know this stuff). According to one article, they'll go up for small business by about 25%.
WV "pressesp" What the Establishment Media uses to determine Tea Partiers are racists, misogynists, and homophobes.
The health care bill reduces the deficit according to the only neutral budget referee we have, that both Dems and Repubs use.
Yes we're spending about a trillion dollars over 10 years which will reduce the $1.5 trillion deficit by...wait for it...$130 billion over the same period. Sounds like a great plan for deficit reduction.
Contrast that to 4-5 huge programs that 100% of it went onto the deficit from the last bunch.Seems to me tea partiers should have been out protesting that.
I think they did at the polls in 2006 and 2008. Good possibility your side is going to get a taste of that in November.
I assume you're referring to the CBO, which, as you well know, will calculate results based on whatever assumptions they're given, as opposed to basing their calculations on actual real-life data.
I remember quite clearly Republicans doing press conferences with a CBO report, in their hands, using it as justification to oppose an earlier health care bill draft. Was it wrong then too
" The health care bill reduces the deficit according to the only neutral budget referee we have, that both Dems and Repubs use.
Yes we're spending about a trillion dollars over 10 years which will reduce the $1.5 trillion deficit by...wait for it...$130 billion over the same period. Sounds like a great plan for deficit reduction.
Contrast that to 4-5 huge programs that 100% of it went onto the deficit from the last bunch.Seems to me tea partiers should have been out protesting that.
I think they did at the polls in 2006 and 2008. Good possibility your side is going to get a taste of that in November.
4/5/10 1:29 PM
Blogger garage mahal said...
I assume you're referring to the CBO, which, as you well know, will calculate results based on whatever assumptions they're given, as opposed to basing their calculations on actual real-life data.
I remember quite clearly Republicans doing press conferences with a CBO report, in their hands, using it as justification to oppose an earlier health care bill draft. Was it wrong then too"
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at relativism. Just lazy. Everyone knows the CBO drastically understates costs, and when the GOP pointed to it as evidence, they also noted costs would be even higher.
And Garage acts like they stopped at some point and decided the CBO was proving them wrong, making them hypocrites. No, the entire time, the CBO has reported an insanely expensive bill that will *without any doubt* cost far more than reported.
Even CBO recognizes it will cost more than the CBO analysis. Hell, the delay in the 2014-onward costs alone has cut the CBO analysis by over a trillion.
And we all know it. So why lie about it? That the GOP used CBO to make their point doesn't mean the CBO wasn't then and now drastically understating costs.
I'm just curious, is TEA something most of you didn't know was an acronym? Maybe this is an Austin TEA party thing, and I look like I'm screaming TEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! all the time.
FREEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!
Garage: Has, to your knowledge, any government program come in at or under the CBO cost estimates, ever?
themightypuck, that 16th amendment is the most amazingly overlooked one.
It's the source of a lot of the power, corruption, and problems and inefficiencies in our country.
If you don't want kids drinking at 20, you take billions of highway pork and promise it to the states that ban 20 year olds drinking.
That's a stupid way to handle it.
I think there's no going back without the destruction of our financial system.
Garage: Has, to your knowledge, any government program come in at or under the CBO cost estimates, ever?
Good question. This bill, in theory at least, is paid for though. When was the last large bill been paid for, to the best of your knowledge?
This bill, in theory at least, is paid for though
In theory?
"
Good question. This bill, in theory at least, is paid for though. When was the last large bill been paid for, to the best of your knowledge?"
That's just not true. And it's this kind of attempt to lie about stuff, hide the truth, and make everything so vague and hard to scrutinize that is why the GOP is going to stomp on the democrats for several years.
Sorry, there's a reason most of this crap doesn't come into place for years, and it's because it's not paid for. What is the cost of ten years of Obamacare? CBO says it's over 3 trillion dollars. But not the first ten, if you count the years of taxing without benefits. Then it's just about 1 trill.
That's a huge lie. And nothing is paid for. We're in ridiculous debt. Nothing is paid for. We're borrowing money to pay for the paper this bill was printed on.
But the loyalists will just find some asinine way to twist it all away. They know they look stupid, but they were able to make discussion too tedious for many for years. They don't realize it's failing now. They won't realize it when Obama is kicked out of office.
This bill, in theory at least, is paid for though.
I'm glad we're talking theory here rather than the realities of actually being able to collect sufficient tax revenue to pay for this bill.
I remember when they initially set enough money aside for that wonderful Cash for Clunkers program. Theoretically.
51% of Tea Partiers are either Independent or Democrat — according to Gallup.
49% are Republican.
Which is why it is exceptionally stupid for liberal media, black leaders, the Left to attempt to demonize and smear such people as reactionary, racist, losers.
The tea partiers and people that know them seem to think they are normal...and it is hard not to see a backlash coming more at democrats and their media enablers than to establishment Republicans that also ill-served the nation in the reckless spending, kick all America's domestic problems down the road Bush years.
It is not reactionary to think America was better off in the 80s and 90s. It was.
People see Bush and the Republicans left us a huge mess, now Democrats and Obama are making matters worse. Which has more convincingly reformed?
The Democrats? Or the earmarking Republicans that cheered as Bush never vetoed a single spending bill, cost us over a trillion in elective wars outside our vital interest, and turned a blind eye to signs of financial destruction emenating from "Freedom-Loving!! Deregulated Wall Street"???
One group has 7-8 years of well-deserved ill-Will, the other Party, the Democrats, have done more in 1 year than pork-happy Wall-street/free trade loving, neocon war eager Republicans did in 4-5 years.
Lots of incumbents will go. But right now, the Democrats are being set up by rabid Leftists, angry blacks, and their sleazy media lapdogs for more Tea Party ire than the Republicans are.
When was the last large bill been paid for, to the best of your knowledge?
Well, I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but I'll offer 10 to 1 odds that its *actual* costs far exceeded its *theoretical* costs so that it did not *in fact* pay for itself.
The Theory Of Relativity didn't cost us anything. So, there's that one.
I'm glad we're talking theory here rather than the realities of actually being able to collect sufficient tax revenue to pay for this bill.
That's what the mandate is for. Premiums pay for the program. Speaking of [lost] revenue, who paid for the Bush tax cuts? Where do you think they come knocking for those billions in lost tax receipts?
When you look at the true costs of ten years of fully implemented Obamacare, the extra couple of trillions cannot be realistically paid for by anything. Not mandated insurance coverage, not reigning in costs. Nothing.
And they know it. It's just more of the staggering entitlement shortfall we already face. The dems know that the GOP has no choice but to attempt to completely undo this entitlement system, and that the dems can oppose it with a lot of convincing tear jerker stories. And even though the system will ultimately collapse (just as the ACORN Fannie mortgage lies of the democrats already did), they will not accept blame. They don't even really care. Pelosi and Obama and all the rest will get their slice of the pie, and aren't worried about reality. They are worried about theoretically creating a world with enough pretending to cover them.
In theory, if you don't charge for this and you rake in tons for that, you can break even while burning your wallet.
Will the GOP fix it? Of course not. We're kinda fucked. The GOP will slow it down quite a bit, but they won't fix it.
"Garage: Has, to your knowledge, any government program come in at or under the CBO cost estimates, ever?
Good question. This bill, in theory at least, is paid for though. When was the last large bill been paid for, to the best of your knowledge?"
In theory SS and Medicare were paid for. Grade school arithmetic
says otherwise.
The left uses Enron as the penultimate symbol of corporate criminal irresponsibility but loves Enron accounting techniques.
Barack Obama = Jeffery Skilling
That's what the mandate is for. Premiums pay for the program.
Where does one even begin….
Speaking of [lost] revenue, who paid for the Bush tax cuts?
What lost revenue?
Now if you want to argue that we spent more than we took in then I’ll join you hand in hand on that one.
Where do you think they come knocking for those billions in lost tax receipts?
I know where they come knocking. To the 50% of the population that's paying the load for the other 50%.
The left uses Enron as the penultimate symbol of corporate criminal irresponsibility but loves Enron accounting techniques.
I got a kick out of Henry 'The Nostril' Waxman getting all exorcised over those evil companies downplaying their revenue outlooks.
Evidently Henry forgot about that whole Sarbanes-Oxley thing. Funny how the law of unintended consequences can come back to haunt ya. I'd be sending my CFO to the hearings he wants along with a copy of the law for his perusal. Probably be the first time he read it.
"So no tax hikes, yet?"
Garage, you would have made a great home mortgage broker around 2007.
The Theory Of Relativity didn't cost us anything.
It cost me my dreams of galactic conquest.
In theory, Medicare and Social Security are solvent.
In fact, they are insolvent.
In theory, the new health care reform pays for itself or saves money.
The facts will show deficits forever, or until the government defaults. It has ever been thus with any public health care plan everywhere.
And who gives a shit anyway?
It's unconstitutional, goddammit, and that should be reason enough to oppose it.
Next up: Pluralities are still as meaningful as majorities and the breakdown of two parts of 51% might be really lopsided.
You're just not understanding the point, Garage. Unfunded tax cuts are simply not, repeat: NOT, a form of government expenditure. The Republicans and Tea Partiers told me so. In fact, debt only counts if the government does something useful with it. But if the government just gives more money away than it takes in so as to pay tribute to its private sector cronies, that's not debt, capisce?
It's their own little Bizarro version of the Theory of Relativity. And you'd better not argue with it.
"Unfunded tax cuts"?
Oh, you mean, money the gummint doesn't take from me, and I get to spend it as I damn well see fit?
Yeah, that pisses you off, don't it, Ritmo, to see the proles decide what to spend their own money on?
An effing crime, isn't it?
Gee Matt (11:05 AM). It looks like you're actually interested in telling the full story behind that poll. Naughty, naughty!
Gee Matt, you discovered the TEA party is composed of economic conservatives.
The man's a genius!
Ritmo/Garage: I paid a lot more in taxes during the Bush regime than I have or will during the Obama administration. Why? Because I invested more frequently during Bush and turned my investments more frequently given the beneficial tax rate. When the tax rate goes up w/ the expiration of the Bush tax cut I will pay no capital gains taxes at all. Zero. Why? I won't sell. Capital gains taxes are voluntary. But if you want to search for the "missing" revenue you can blame it on people like you who are apparently not tuned in to why revenues can go up when taxes go down.
Yeah, that pisses you off, don't it, Ritmo, to see the proles decide what to spend their own money on?
Hey, you want to design a tax form that allows everyone to break down their entire individual contribution to the departments (or perhaps even charities) of their choosing, I'd consider it. But first you'd have to tone down the crotchetiness, stop the demonization of others and improve your powers of persuasion, sociability, outreach and compromise sufficiently to grow a coalition that can make that happen.
But you're just a silly old physician who likes to grouch about how politics works for everyone other than the politically uninclined. So I suppose you can afford to just sit back and lazily whine like a grouchy old bird from atop your perch while basking in the sort of privilege others can only dream of.
Plus, I wonder if pediatrics is leading you to identify with a child's understanding of morality. Very oversimplified and not very mature, effective or socially complex.
Seriously, you could afford to incorporate some maturity into your views every now and then, Pogo. At least be open to it.
The man's a genius!
I'm not sure I'm qualified to give an assessment of Matt's genius. But he obviously doesn't see a point in spinning a poll in order to sensationalize it and make it appear that the subjects polled represented a more mainstream cross-section of voters than they really do.
It shouldn't have to take a genius to tell an accurate version of an event. Just someone honest.
Ann,
Do you have any credibility left to squander? When 70% of respondents say that they are conservative, why make the argument that "51% of Tea Partiers are either Independent or Democrat — according to Gallup."Why?
Or are you just having a laugh (as usual)?
P.S. More photography posts would be appreciated. Of the many things you blog about, they make up for such posts as these.
"Hey, you want to design a tax form that allows everyone to break down..."
Blah blah blah.
Avoiding the issue, as usual.
I merely pointed out that your use of the term "unfunded tax cuts" suggest a leftist position, that the gummint actually owns the money someone earns, and gets to decide what to do with it. Letting them keep their own money is not just a tax cut, it's unfunded, somehow.
"But first you'd have to tone down the crotchetiness..."
Bullshit. Typical lefty call for 'civility' now being bandied about by the Congressional whiners afraid to come out and defend their destruction of the Constitution.
They have made it mean nothing: no spending is too egregious to be a child of the commerce clause, no bill too ridiculous that it cannot be passed in bullshit backroom fashion thru reconciliation.
And "maturity"? What the hell does that even mean here anyway? Roll over? Puh-lease.
Slow Joe:
"Nathan R. Jessup"
That's from one of my favorite movies, though that specific character was a hollywood slur against Marines ...
No, he wasn't.
The incident portrayed actually took place, the commander's misconduct was portrayed reasonably accurately, and he really did melt down on the witness stand and incriminate himself.
I don't know the commander's real name, but HE was the slur against the Marines.
Good on the Marines for getting rid of him.
Uh oh... too late?
Letting them keep their own money is not just a tax cut, it's unfunded, somehow.
2.48 trillion dollars. That's what the two Bush tax cuts costed, financed on the deficit.
Avoiding the issue, as usual.
I merely pointed out that your use of the term "unfunded tax cuts" suggest a leftist position, that the gummint actually owns the money someone earns, and gets to decide what to do with it. Letting them keep their own money is not just a tax cut, it's unfunded, somehow.
Were they paid for? They were a form of deficit spending. And... oooooohhhhh! Use of the term "leftist", as usual! High-minded debate tactic, there!
No one is even debating the cockamamie idea of repealing the income tax, and the Tea Partiers (your last hope for a coalition - however small - that you can piggyback onto as the legitimate voice of your unresearched ideas) are against debt - or so they say they are. So that is the issue. But like the political ignoramus that you are, you want to bring up the issue of taxation, period, and disregard the fact that the Tea Partiers realize they have no credibility unless they proclaim their retroactive opposition to Bush's massive deficit spending as well. They say they are concerned with fiscal solvency, so you'd better get with the program. Or did you think there is room for physician-sized egos who want to go it alone in the Tea Party?
"But first you'd have to tone down the crotchetiness..."
Bullshit. Typical lefty call for 'civility' now being bandied about by the Congressional whiners afraid to come out and defend their destruction of the Constitution.
Are you really this dense? I don't care how civil you are (Although you're more civil than most of the commenters here who happen to share the intensity and direction of your shallow views). I just point out how funny it is that you want political change and yet can't figure out how to engage - let alone persuade - people who don't agree with you. Works for dictators and anarchists. Democratic political factions? Not so much.
Silly, self-defeating Pogo!
They have made it mean nothing: no spending is too egregious to be a child of the commerce clause, no bill too ridiculous that it cannot be passed in bullshit backroom fashion thru reconciliation.
So, do you have a legal argument that you believe you're capable of understanding or is this just some more propaganda for you to spew?
And remember, if it's just propaganda, you've already absolved yourself of any political competence! So there's really not much point to bleat other than to just get things off your chest. Feel better?
And "maturity"? What the hell does that even mean here anyway? Roll over? Puh-lease.
Suit yourself and live with your prone to fail Lord of the Flies-tinted political views. Your loss, bumhug. Not mine.
But if the government just gives more money away than it takes in so as to pay tribute to its private sector cronies, that's not debt, capisce?
Ritmo are you suggesting that when the government lets me keep more of the money I earn = gives money away?
2.48 trillion dollars. That's what the two Bush tax cuts costed, financed on the deficit.
Well I would have preferred the tax cut and reduced government spending as opposed to increased taxes and more government spending.
Which do you prefer?
Actually garage that $2 trillion loss in revenue youquote, is that from an officual government source or from Paul Krugman?
Cause that CBO report I linked to, you know, that neutral body you said Dems and GOP use, said income tax revenue grew!
How can that be possible????? Maybe it was magic!
When I listen to Pogo bleat, I get the impression of someone who comes across in about as authoritative a voice as a ventriloquist talking through the statues that adorn the front of 18th-century ships, but who doesn't care how fatuous that seems - as long as he makes a stand. Pogo's stoic like that. A whiny little voice of rebellion inside a quiet man, too gentle to care whether his impact is meaningful. He doesn't care if his convictions reverberate beyond the confines of his own soul - (despite how apocalyptic they sound) - as long as he got to make some noise about them. Whether he was understood and/or listened to or not seems entirely not to matter to him.
Ritmo are you suggesting that when the government lets me keep more of the money I earn = gives money away?
I'm suggesting that if debt is really your (or the Tea Partiers') concern, you'd best learn how to focus on that and stop defending the payoffs to cronies that also, you know, increased the debt.
The Tea Partiers seem to realize that, but apparently credibility, consistency and integrity is not your concern. Good luck trying to influence others to share your views that way!
Payoff to cronies? That would be the take over of GM and Chrysler to save the unions, right? Or the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie?
I'm suggesting that if debt is really your (or the Tea Partiers') concern, you'd best learn how to focus on that and stop defending the payoffs to cronies that also, you know, increased the debt.
Um...I think the massive bailout followed by a 3/4 of a trillion spendulus bill is kinda what spurred the tea party. But I'm going to go look back and see where I defended payoffs to cronies.
.
.
Ok I looked and didn't see where I defended payoffs to cronies.
The Tea Partiers seem to realize that, but apparently credibility, consistency and integrity is not your concern.
Are you a mind reader now? Do you pretend to know what I defend or not? Gee Ritmo and here I thought that particular ability was reserved to the Almighty.
No Ritmo, I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative. I don't care much for welfare whether its for a 19 year old single mom who shits out kids every year or for Wall Street and car manufacturers idiots who need to learn bankruptcy is the consequence for piss poor business practices.
I have no problems with consistency and integrity. Sorry if that irks you. I'm sure you'll get over it.
Ritmo: If the only way the tea party can honestly be against debt is to have formed up during the Bush regime, then you have created an insurmountable argument. On the other hand, if it is possible for people to change their minds, or finally to have had enough, then the argument is not so sound. Spending coupled with overt disdain of the citizenry is animating this movement.
"It shouldn't have to take a genius to tell an accurate version of an event. Just someone honest."
Political "truth" is personal.
HONEST! It is!
Spending coupled with overt disdain of the citizenry is animating this movement.
Gotta love the way 20 some-odd percent of the electorate can now be substituted for the entire "citizenry". As Reverend Jeremiah Wright might say, that's a bit, um, audacious, isn't it?
You guys are more like your enemies than you know. Except in the important ways.
Garage and Ritmo continue to evade the point.
Tax cuts aren't, 'unfunded', only spending is unfunded.
Taxes uncollected aren't gummint money foregone. It's an individual citizen's own money.
Not all spending is necessary.
When taxes are reduced, so should spending fall.
GOP and Democrats have for decades acted as if citizen money belongs to them, unless they deign to return it.
And Ritmo, you are a rather reliable negative bellwhether; whatever you say, one is best to do the opposite. Achievng agreement with you would mean one has veered terribly wrong.
But I'm going to go look back and see where I defended payoffs to cronies.
.
.
Ok I looked and didn't see where I defended payoffs to cronies.
See, that's because if you had any integrity you'd admit that the economically unnecessary upper-class tax cuts were payoffs to the same cronies who support the Republicans with contributions. In exchange they expect to keep the financial markets (and any other market) safe from regulation that would have prevented the 2008 crash. This overt effort to increase inequality (coupled with a phony scam to look the other way while pretending they could grow the economy on a real estate bubble) was precisely what your buddies on Wall Street and in the ugly suburban McMansions wanted, and they got it!
More of the same, you're crying to the voters!
Garage and Ritmo continue to evade the point.
Tax cuts aren't, 'unfunded', only spending is unfunded.
Taxes uncollected aren't gummint money foregone. It's an individual citizen's own money.
Not all spending is necessary.
When taxes are reduced, so should spending fall.
GOP and Democrats have for decades acted as if citizen money belongs to them, unless they deign to return it.
And Ritmo, you are a rather reliable negative bellwhether; whatever you say, one is best to do the opposite. Achievng agreement with you would mean one has veered terribly wrong.
You can continue to play this "You say tomato, I say to-mah-to" game until you're blue in the face (like the child you are and wish you could remain). The fact that you had nothing to say in prediction of the 2008 crash says it all. And what's left over? Oh, that's right! Your use of the word "should", as in "what the government should do". Well, sorry to break your fantasy that you can make the perfect the enemy of the good. But your understanding of politics as a completely theoretical construct, completely divorced from the reality of what makes parties viable, is what makes you not worthy of being listened to by anyone.*
*I make exceptions to junior high schoolers reading Cliff's Notes to Political Theory as Understood by Members of The John Birch Society.
P.S. Learn to spell bellwether, butthead!
"the economically unnecessary upper-class tax cuts were payoffs to the same cronies"
Again, the gummint does not own my money.
Not charging me taxes, whether I am rich or poor, is not a payoff.
Keeping my own money is not a payoff.
The issue, as George Washington out it, is whether we want to be free men or slaves.
The democrats are just another King George.
And "economically unnecessary"?
To hell with that. Who are you and who is the state to say they know best how to spend my money?
And what economist has ever agreed that gummints are more efficient at spending money?
What does that mean, anyway, "economically unnecessary", except that you want power over someone else?
Fascist creep.
"The fact that you had nothing to say in prediction of the 2008 crash says it all.
Now you've just become a complete lunatic.
But kudos on the misspelling catch, Ritmo; those are clearly the greatest of all internet pwnage.
Tea Partiers seem to be playing a soundly conservative tune on the National level, and in most cases on the State level as well.
Where it all gets dicey is at the LOCAL level.
Sorry to say, but I think this is where the movement will fall apart as being "fiscally conservative".
Fiscal conservatives want their kids to have access to sports programs through the schools. Fiscal conservatives do not want to see any disruption in waste removal, or neighborhood road repair. Fiscal conservatives want the full contingent of police and fireman for their communities.
I could go on, but I won't.
Instead I will say, again, that political "truth" is personal.
What makes libertarian-minded people (such as many Tea Partiers) believe that rolling back government will free them to pursue their own ends rather than leave them at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control?
Isn't consolidated industrial might a far greater threat to personal autonomy than our somewhat feckless government?
How old were you when you learned the word "fascist", little man? Or was the definition explained to you by a four-year old?
Bankrupting the government is not an economically sound option. Furthermore, good luck getting your (bowel) "movement" off the ground on a platform of abolishing taxes!
You are a dumb, ignorant, self-satisfied little child who lives in a fantasy and wouldn't know how to convince a good Samaritan to help you out of a paper bag!
Stop reading your patients' literature and learn to separate fantasy from reality. You are supposed to be a professional, remember? As imaginative as the kids are, try to stop thinking like one of them.
Or maybe that's why you're drawn to them. They validate your version of reality.
Again, the gummint does not own my money.
Actually, it owns the portion collected by the IRS. If you disagree I suppose you could always fly a plane into a building and see where that gets you.
Not charging me taxes, whether I am rich or poor, is not a payoff.
More accurately, from a political standpoint, lowering your rates is the payoff.
Keeping my own money is not a payoff.
Yawn. Want your rattle back, too?
See, that's because if you had any integrity you'd admit that the economically unnecessary upper-class tax cuts were payoffs to the same cronies who support the Republicans with contributions.
That's some projection there! Lets parse this down shall we?
Economically unnecessary tax cuts. See Ritmo, unlike you, I believe that the money we earn belongs to us. I expect the government to tax to the extent in which to provide the basic servcies expected and no more. Considering that the CBO said that Federal tax revenue grew after 2003, I'd say your 'unecomonic' descriptor is, shall we say, flawed? Yeah, I'll say it.
Then you make the fantastic claim that the tax cuts went to 'Republican cronies'. Really? So Bush went down his list, checked it twice to see who was Republican and nice and with a stroke of his pen, provided tax cuts which benefited ONLY THOSE PEOPLE who supported Republicans. I had no idea there were no upper class people, none at all, who support Democrats. I guess all those rich folk who supported Obama just hit the lottery last year right?
Are you hitting the bottle tonight Ritmo? Cause you're sounding an awful like Robert Cook. I mean when you refer to Republican cronies, its a matter of time before we start talking about oligarchs and plutocrats. Put the Chomskey down Ritmo and back away slowly.
"Bankrupting the government is not an economically sound option."
Bankrupting the government is the current Democratic Party platform. And as Meade's link shows, we're quickly headed that way, thanks to your fascist friends.
I learned about fascism by reading about socialism, like in 'National Socialism'. Interestingly, FDR and Mussolini were mutual admirers before WW2, and both had nice things to say about fascism. FDR, fascist. A forgotten tidbit of history.
P.S. Ritmo, I ain't a pediatrician. More of your idiocy.
Not all spending is necessary.
Look at the Fascist Creep who declares himself sole arbiter of which of his republic's expenditures are necessary and which aren't!
Care to go through it line by line, P-Man?
No, really! I'm sure you'd make a great accountant! (If you were in charge of a fascist dictatorship, that is).
As Inigo Montoya said, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Your political vocabulary (and comprehension) is stuck at the level of complexity of an elementary school student.
Bankrupting the government is not an economically sound option.
I could not agree more. You'd think one of the brain trust that make up Obama's advisors would tell him to stop spending money we don't have.
Or maybe that is his plan. I mean his parents didn't care for the country. His spiritual advisor clearly hates the country. His wife only recently became proud of her country if for only self serving reasons. I find it odd he wouldn't feel the same unless his close personal relationships have no bearing on his beliefs and views which of course we know is impossible.
FDR, fascist. A forgotten tidbit of history.
Except by John Birchers, apparently.
Didn't know lack of intimate familiarity with every detail of a pseudonymous web commenter's professional life constitutes idiocy, but I'm sure you'll fill me in the details.
Didn't know lack of intimate familiarity with every detail of a pseudonymous web commenter's professional life constitutes idiocy
Well you assumed he was a pediatrician and you know what happens when you assume ;-)
Then again I would say that after 'debating' you time and again, Pogo could probanly switch specialities to proctology.
Economically unnecessary tax cuts. See Ritmo, unlike you, I believe that the money we earn belongs to us. I expect the government to tax to the extent in which to provide the basic servcies expected and no more. Considering that the CBO said that Federal tax revenue grew after 2003, I'd say your 'unecomonic' descriptor is, shall we say, flawed.
And I'll say that your pretension to defining "basic servcies" (sic) on behalf of everyone, as if it were a foregone conclusion that everyone agrees with you on that, is just as flawed.
Then you make the fantastic claim that the tax cuts went to 'Republican cronies'. Really? So Bush went down his list, checked it twice to see who was Republican and nice and with a stroke of his pen, provided tax cuts which benefited ONLY THOSE PEOPLE who supported Republicans. I had no idea there were no upper class people, none at all, who support Democrats.
Just the ones who have consciences and don't believe that every misfortune incurred by someone is deserved. Just the ones who don't believe that infrastructure is a dirty word.
Just the ones who don't believe that self-interest regulates itself.
Then again I would say that after 'debating' you time and again, Pogo could probanly switch specialities to proctology.
And how do you know he isn't? Given the flimsy basis of his reasoning on... well, just about everything, I'd predict such a specialty would provide ample, fertile ground for guiding his way of thinking.
"What makes libertarian-minded people (such as many Tea Partiers) believe that rolling back government will free them to pursue their own ends rather than leave them at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control?"
EXCELLENT point, William. Except of course we have Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare and now the new safety nets from this nasty Healthcare legislation...and for JUST such occasions. Plus we can SUE someone if we have a true emergency and need a few extra bucks.
And I'll say that your pretension to defining "basic servcies" (sic) on behalf of everyone, as if it were a foregone conclusion that everyone agrees with you on that, is just as flawed.
More (**MORE!!**) spelling pwnage! Clearly, a god of teh internets.
Fine. Let's keep it simple.
What level of spending, as percent of GDP is prudent and safe for a gummint to take?
How did you arrive at the figure?
What level is too high?
Hint 1) Read Meade's link:
Lost amid last month's passage of the new health care law, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing that within this decade, President Obama's own budget sends the U.S. government to a potential tipping point where the debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product.
Economists Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University have recently shown that a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio usually touches off a crisis.
This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of GDP, a ratio that has ignited crises in smaller wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their debts were below where the United States is shortly headed."
Hint 2) Gummint spending beyond a certain percentage (somewhere south of 40%) leads to economic stagnation.
Yet you demand more and more money and deem it all "basic services".
You make people yet unborn poor.
Why do you hate people, Ritmo?
And I'll say that your pretension to defining "basic servcies" (sic) on behalf of everyone, as if it were a foregone conclusion that everyone agrees with you on that, is just as flawed.
I have no doubt that many, including you, would insist that basic services include cradle to grave care via Uncle Sam.
Just the ones who have consciences and don't believe that every misfortune incurred by someone is deserved. Just the ones who don't believe that infrastructure is a dirty word.
Oh Ritmo there you go changing the narrative! Well I tell you what. You get me a list of all those A-List rich folks who thought their tax cut was resulted in a starving child or a collapsing bridge, who turned around and wrote a check for the difference to charity.
Perhaps if the other half of the working folk could chip in to the Federal coffers maybe it wouldn't be necessary to keep cutting taxes for those who are actually the only ones paying into the system.
Maybe you should stop assuming that the people who create the wealth in this country are the problem. No poor man ever gave me a job.
Fiscal conservatives want their kids to have access to sports programs through the schools. Fiscal conservatives do not want to see any disruption in waste removal, or neighborhood road repair. Fiscal conservatives want the full contingent of police and fireman for their communities.
Fiscal conservatives also realize that all of those things are better controlled on a local level and not by fiat from the Federal Government.
Fiscal conservatives recognize that only 30% of our tax dollars (or less) are actually given back to the local level and the remainder are siphoned off by government parasites and bureaucrats along the way. Fiscal conservatives would rather see the most money spent locally and in the most efficient way.
Fiscal conservatives also realize that not one size fits all. The amount of local decision making as to what actually constitutes a "full contingent" of fire or police will vary from community to community and that over funding or over staffing with top heavy administrative positions isn't a fiscally conservative position.
Fiscally conservative tax payers will be more likely to want to fund sport and other extra cirricular activities when they also have some control and input into which activities are best suited for their areas.
We can go on with this all night.
Fiscal conservatives are tired of seeing the money that they could spend locally wasted on programs that they don't approve of,don't benefit from and they especially see are full of graft and corruption.
"Just the ones who have consciences ..."
Every socialist economy has ultimately left its 'equalized' subjects worse off than the poorest quartile of capitalist economies.
How can you do that to people, in good conscience?
How can you make people worse off, Ritmo, and sleep at night?
Or is that what fascist dreams are made of?
Oh Ritmo there you go changing the narrative! Well I tell you what. You get me a list of all those A-List rich folks who thought their tax cut was resulted in a starving child or a collapsing bridge, who turned around and wrote a check for the difference to charity.
Since you're the one making the insinuation, the onus is on you to provide that list. And the argument should be about efficacy. If our poor starving children are better off than poor starving children in countries that devote a greater percentage of public funds to caring for them, then your point is moot. Unless we want to throw the idea of empiric data completely out the window.
Perhaps if the other half of the working folk could chip in to the Federal coffers maybe it wouldn't be necessary to keep cutting taxes for those who are actually the only ones paying into the system.
This is the most circuitous argument I've ever heard. It's not even clear what you're trying to say.
But, if you're trying to say that:
The tax burden is too low (even unfairly low!) on the poor and classes under the ultra-rich,
then you not only have a warped understanding of revenue (and perhaps basic quantitation), but you are even more cruel and inhumane than I realized.
There is a reason politicians don't make the assertion you just did. People might that expect a heartless (and ignorant) asshole could be lurking within a politician's suit, but they don't believe he would actually come right out and say it. Luckily for the Democrats, you just did.
Maybe you should stop assuming that the people who create the wealth in this country are the problem. No poor man ever gave me a job.
The fact that you see social problems like joblessness and taxation as unidimensional and given to personal accusation rather than multifactorial and potentially objective, says a lot.
But your brazen and nakedly stated contempt for the poor is probably what you use to justify this ridiculous and disproportionate sense of victimization.
Every socialist economy has ultimately left its 'equalized' subjects worse off than the poorest quartile of capitalist economies.
This makes no sense at all. It's basically gibberish. Kindly rewrite and provide evidence from less biased sources, perhaps even to the left of John Birch or a Conservative Think(TM) Tank, and then we'll see if it had any purpose apart from justifying your invective.
"This makes no sense at all. "
Your lack of understanding of things economic has always been rather evident.
What makes libertarian-minded people (such as many Tea Partiers) believe that rolling back government will free them to pursue their own ends rather than leave them at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control?
We're subjected to economic forces beyond our control whether the government is involved or not. The only question is how much freedom you have in dealing with those forces.
You're just not understanding the point, Garage. Unfunded tax cuts are simply not, repeat: NOT, a form of government expenditure.
You, garage, and the Republicans are all mistaken.
Tax cuts aren't expenditures, but they also aren't really tax cuts if they are paid for by borrowing. Borrowing is just delayed taxation; ultimately, you have to pay that money back, and that means somebody's got to get taxed for it.
The total amount spent by the government equals the amount the government taxes. That's inescapable. All you can do is shift the payments around in time or in space.
BLACKS OVER-REPRESENTED IN TEA PARTY! Help me understand the argument that the Tea Partiers are too white. As I remember it, about 95% of the black population voted for Obama. That means around ½ % of the total U.S. voting population were blacks voting for McCain (5% times 11%).
So if Obama had retained his support from blacks, only about ½ % of the TOTAL Tea Party should be black. Since the Gallup survey revealed that 6% of the Tea Partiers are black, that means that there are now 12 TIMES as many blacks opposed to Obama as there were in 2008. It looks to me like the black population is frantically LEAVING Obama!
Pogo said...
Garage and Ritmo continue to evade the point.
Tax cuts aren't, 'unfunded', only spending is unfunded....
No, not really.....
When Dubya passed his tax cuts, he did not cut spending, making existing funded programs suddenly unfunded.
We all know the philosophy, the intoxicating liquor that the Bushies drank.
1. DEficits don't matter under supply side theory.
2. Because all tax cuts eventually pay for themselves, like magic!!
(Or as his Daddy once said, Voodoo..)
3. And of course tax cuts making the rich richer don't spread the huge gap between owners/execs and rank and file employees wider, because Saint Reagan said it all "trickles down".
4. And certain spending, of course, was called "investment" instead by the Bushies, not spending.
Exs: A.
The "Ownership Society" Bush said would put the poor in 400,000 houses and both create new wealth and make the owners more responsible amd productive citizens and the banks just fugured out how to put all sorts of cheap money at nearly everyones fingertips.
B.
All government growth in national security, the noble Iraqi democracy and nation-building Bush said didn't count as spending, didn't require new taxes like in previous wars because they were investments guaranteed to grow the US economy by helping make our country and the world safer for Freedom-Lovers!!
5. Not vetoing the Republican Congresses massive pork and earmark activity for wealthy donors for 6 years - was justified as needed to maintain the tax cuts and an unquestioning backing of Bush on the War on Terror. And Iraqi Freedom..
Since you're the one making the insinuation, the onus is on you to provide that list.
You must be hittin the bottle. YOU are the one who said the tax cuts when to the GOP cronies who donate to GOP causes. The insinuation is that only GOP upper crusty folks got tax cuts which, if one follows logic, means no upper crusty Democrats got one.
And the argument should be about efficacy. If our poor starving children are better off than poor starving children in countries that devote a greater percentage of public funds to caring for them, then your point is moot.
You're the one who brought it up Ritmo not me. Last time I checked, the problem with our childrens is feast not famine. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to
Michele Obama's fight against child chubbiness!
Unless we want to throw the idea of empiric data completely out the window.
Hey why not. It seems to work for you.
This is the most circuitous argument I've ever heard. It's not even clear what you're trying to say.
For someone who writes so well I would assume reading comprehension goes hand in hand. I guess not. IRS stats show that roughly 98% of Fed taxes are paid by 48% of wage earners. Maybe if more of the wage earners chipped into the system, we wouldn't have so much depended on so few.
The tax burden is too low (even unfairly low!) on the poor and classes under the ultra-rich,
Low? Try non-existant. I'm hardly ultra rich and I haven't had a tax refund since I was 26 which means Uncle Sam has been keeping every penny they deduct from me.
then you not only have a warped understanding of revenue (and perhaps basic quantitation), but you are even more cruel and inhumane than I realized.
Oh dear! Now the concept that I should be allowed a tax cut has me right up there with people who kill fuzzy bunnies! No my dear Ritmo, not a warped understanding but a well reasoned one based upon IRS data.
People might that expect a heartless (and ignorant) asshole could be lurking within a politician's suit, but they don't believe he would actually come right out and say it. Luckily for the Democrats, you just did.
Sorry Ritmo but you're the ignorant asshole who simply assumes you can take more from me so John Q. Non-taxpayer doesn't have to pay into an ever increasing entitlement program. See in your deluded, ignorant world the only ones who pay taxes are the Gates and Buffets and not the middle and upper middle class who busted their fucking ass and didn't make piss poor life choices that left them working at the local 7-11 demanding that Patel who owns it pay him/her a living wage.
But your brazen and nakedly stated contempt for the poor is probably what you use to justify this ridiculous and disproportionate sense of victimization.
I only have contempt for those who lack ambition and only demand what we can do for them. I believe everyone is entitled to one monumental fuck up in their life and should get a mulligan. You on the other hand have nothing but contempt for those who create wealth and those that, through hard work and sacrifice crawl up the ladder of success because in your sick, twisted world, they must have cheated and its not fair! They must pay!
To which I say, 'you need your bottle and rattle?'
Well it was fun tearing you a new one. I actually thought you would give me a better run than this but regurgitating Chomskey seems all you're capable of anymore. Have a nice night.
"Your lack of understanding of things economic has always been rather evident."
So says the man who has the gall to bitch about what he's owed while availing himself of a legal labor monopoly.
"mariner said...
Slow Joe:
"Nathan R. Jessup"
That's from one of my favorite movies, though that specific character was a hollywood slur against Marines ...
No, he wasn't.
The incident portrayed actually took place, the commander's misconduct was portrayed reasonably accurately, and he really did melt down on the witness stand and incriminate himself.
I don't know the commander's real name, but HE was the slur against the Marines.
Good on the Marines for getting rid of him."
Can you provide any kind of evidence? And please, no NYT. They pass a lot of stories about military atrocities that turn out to be fabricated, though I know there are misdeeds done in the military.
Indeed, I never heard 'based on a true story' when watching that film, and I've watched it many times. Still, that wasn't normal Marine behavior at the time, of course, just as a story about normal Army life showing Abu Ghriab wouldn't really be accurate.
The insinuation is that only GOP upper crusty folks got tax cuts which, if one follows logic, means no upper crusty Democrats got one.
Bad logic if that's how it goes, seeing as how it did nothing to increase his support among Democrats. BTW, what percentage at that level of income are registered as (D) versus (R)? Bake your noodle on that one?
But I stopped assuming W. was any less incompetent than you are long ago, so maybe that actually was his calculation.
Last time I checked, the problem with our childrens is feast not famine.
Or the problem is that cheaper food is fattier, more processed, less healthy and takes less time to prepare. But hey, you know so much about the poor so why am I telling you this.
Hey why not. It seems to work for you.
Your lack for facts is matched only by your lack of reason in this clusterfuck of a rejoinder.
For someone who writes so well I would assume reading comprehension goes hand in hand. I guess not.
IRS stats show that roughly 98% of Fed taxes are paid by 48% of wage earners. Maybe if more of the wage earners chipped into the system, we wouldn't have so much depended on so few.
Your guesses are as wrong as your knowledge, to say nothing of your ignorance of math. If 2% of taxes are still paid by 52% of wage earners, then they are still "chipping" into the system.
Of course, the only thing that matters is what percent of their income they are "chipping" and how much of it is left over to cover basic expenses - perhaps by figuring whether that leaves them above the poverty level. But such a sensible approach as that wouldn't fit into your talking point - which was basically propaganda disguised in what must count in Indianus as high-falutin' number talk.
Low? Try non-existant. I'm hardly ultra rich and I haven't had a tax refund since I was 26 which means Uncle Sam has been keeping every penny they deduct from me.
Try getting an accountant who isn't as inept with numbers as you apparently are.
Oh dear! Now the concept that I should be allowed a tax cut has me right up there with people who kill fuzzy bunnies! No my dear Ritmo, not a warped understanding but a well reasoned one based upon IRS data.
Well, not if you're not (as you put it) "ultra rich". I mean, I'll fully back a subsidy to pay for your highly necessary brain and heart transplant, and they don't come cheap - even for the "ultra rich".
Sorry Ritmo but you're the ignorant asshole who simply assumes you can take more from me so John Q. Non-taxpayer doesn't have to pay into an ever increasing entitlement program.
This ranks right up there with "I know you are but what am I?"
What, exactly, did I take from you, asshole?
Ah, finally found something. Apparently the 'A Few Good Men' was inspired by an assault case, but of course, no one died and the rest of the details were made far more dire and dramatic and really have no basis in reality.
Of course, there's no way to tell if Mariner is right that someone melted down on the stand. It happens. But if Mariner really knew this basis for the movie, then he knows I am right, that this is not a realistic depiction. When you add in a huge aspect of the story, such as murder and the suicide, you have fundamentally changed the details. Only Mariner is pretending this is reality... he's the disgrace, not Tom Cruise or Rob Reiner, who admit it's fiction.
See in your deluded, ignorant world the only ones who pay taxes are the Gates and Buffets and not the middle and upper middle class who busted their fucking ass and didn't make piss poor life choices that left them working at the local 7-11 demanding that Patel who owns it pay him/her a living wage.
Really? I wasn't aware that this was the way I view "my world".
Until you get specific with actual numbers and brackets then it is clear you are too much of a pussy to debate an empirical topic (one involving... ta-da "numbers"!) with actual... numbers. For you it's all about stereotypical anecdotes of billionaires and janitors. No one in between? Name the fucking bracket and let's get specific with the numbers on each one, fuckface. Until then, either put up or shut up.
I only have contempt for those who lack ambition and only demand what we can do for them.
I'm glad you feel so qualified to judge which of each and every one of 300 million citizens (who are unfortunate enough to share their nationality with you) lacks ambition and only demands what can be done for him. You must know a lot of people. Too bad they're all no-good scroungers. But maybe that reflects your own socialization.
Maybe you should get out more and meet better people, with more decent morals - regardless of the luck life has dealt them. But, naaah.... doing something like that just wouldn't be your thing, now. Would it?
I believe everyone is entitled to one monumental fuck up in their life and should get a mulligan.
Can I get some more specific details rather than just mealy-mouth talk about "fuck ups" and "mulligans"? Or is everyone's situation the same to you?
You on the other hand have nothing but contempt for those who create wealth and those that, through hard work and sacrifice crawl up the ladder of success because in your sick, twisted world, they must have cheated and its not fair!
Really? Then let's compare wealth "created" between me and you. I mean, as you said, you're not "ultra rich". But I feel I live at a pretty comfortable level and have done some good things with that life, both economically and morally. Of course, in your mind it seems those two things can only be connected in a negative way - which is something Bill Gates would probably disagree with when he's travelling to Africa and curing disease. So perhaps your gripe is really with the way he and other philanthropists who note the value of national and community infrastructure really think. I'm sure they'll have an open ear for listening to what a hateful dickwad (who has the added distinction of not being "ultra rich") like you has to say about the matter! How credible you must feel you are when you ingratiate yourself to people who must be your heroes, despite the fact that - all your fellating of them notwithstanding, your lack of self-respect and security must be very visible to them, and not very becoming.
I'm not into Chomsky - (and BTW, you really should learn how to spell the names of people that figure so prominently into your thinking), so there's nothing to respond to on that. At least I know whom I respect, though, and I try to have an idea of what would constitute self-respect in their eyes as they view me. Sorry I can't say the same for you. But whatever keeps you warm at night, Hoosier!
"...while availing himself of a legal labor monopoly."
The monopoly was a collusion between a guild and the gummint, a practice I oppose.
I suppose one can demand purity, that one must not participate in an economy one disagrees with, but that would be completely stupid, if not impossible.
So not an unusual postion for Ritmo.
In any event, I'm curious about Hoosier's society devoid of janitors and 7-11 employees. Apparently no 7-11 employee ever "busts his ass". As for Gates, he was born into wealth (not that that makes much of a difference other than to add some needed perspective to Hoosier's myopic and somewhat fictionalized anecdotes. It's not likely he would have gone to Harvard and met fellow upper-cruster Steve Ballmer had that not been the case. On the other hand, a janitor at 7-11 might be well on the way to improving his life quite significantly compared to how he had it in Bangladesh. But I digress. The vicissitudes of history are not visible, let alone tolerable to Hoosier).
However, they are not lost on Buffett. How much do you want to bet his views are not aligned with "Hoosier's" (although I hasten to add that it is not clear whether anything that spews forth from Hoosier's keyboard can be properly called a "view") regarding the estate tax? As with Gates, there are probably things that the Imp from Indiana doesn't agree with him on regarding social and fiscal policy, but it's interesting that he aspires to be like people who must be heroes - despite his inability to respect the reasoning behind views they hold which almost surely differ from his. Funny that.
Well, actually not. Years of Republican myth-making have convinced Americans that wealth is NOT relative, that everyone can be a millionaire, and that there will be no need in this society for low-wage labor - (or that if there is, and if you fulfill it, you are a low-life). Such is the retardation that led to the 2008 myth that convinced a fabulist plumber that he was well on his way to becoming a millionaire, if only his taxes were decided rightly.
Anyone else believe this line of bullshit?
I suppose one can demand purity, that one must not participate in an economy one disagrees with, but that would be completely stupid, if not impossible.
And yet, this is exactly what you said you would do once the bill passed. You said you would slow down your workload, not lift an extra finger for the patients, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum. That's what you said you would do, so the purity is as much yours as is your hypocrisy, turdling.
ALSO, Pogo lives in a completely theoretical world where politicians and political factions shouldn't ever have to make compromises (as long as they're the ones he supports. But who knows who he supports anyway. Offering support in any form to others relinquishes his self-serving illusion that he can be in control of everything in his life. The classic physician-narcissist. It's all about him).
"Fiscal conservatives also realize that all of those things are better controlled on a local level and not by fiat from the Federal Government."
Those examples were given to show just how PERSONAL our politics is, and how terminology, like "fiscal conservative" is usurped on a case by case basis, and generally as it "suits" folks, right down to their GPS coordinates.
"And yet, this is exactly what you said you would do once the bill passed."
Non sequitur, Ritmo. You said I "...avail[ed] [my]self of a legal labor monopoly." What has that got to do with what follows after saying 'once the bill passed'?
Nothing.
More evasion and obfuscation.
You are good at it. Mendacity is second nature, or first, for you. Hard to tell.
"You said you would slow down your workload, not lift an extra finger for the patients, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum."
Bullshit.
What I said was I was not working for free, and Medicare/Medicaid enslave me by price-fixing well below the cost of providing the service. Even if I were to see Medicare patients without personal payment, I would still lose money because it doesn't pay the overhead.
So I will not perform free labor any longer.
The question is only this: are we to be free men, or slaves?
Ritmo wants to enslave physicians, and all of healthcare, to the Obama socialist utopia.
No thanks, Chairman Mao.
"Pogo lives in a completely theoretical world where ...blah blah blah ....his self-serving illusion ...blah ...classic physician-narcissist. Blah".
What, nothing about 'capitalist wreckers'? Typical marxist class war envy crap.
Try harder next time, Momtana Ritmo.
Or change your name again and come back as yet another new guy spouting the same drama queen illogical obtuse and wordy rants.
Reading this thread I see how it is going to feel when people with the ideas and reasoning of Ritmo and Garage are running the new improved state. A little like it feels now only worse. Stunning incomprehension of the opposition's point of view. Stunning disdain for ideas that do not comport with their own. Anger passing for passion.
dream on Jm....that is one stupid poll,
14% of dems approve of tp-ers. Nothing frantic.
P.S. to Ritmo:
I left a misspelling or two for your mad internets pwnage skillz.
Until you get specific with actual numbers and brackets then it is clear you are too much of a pussy to debate an empirical topic (one involving... ta-da "numbers"!) with actual... numbers. For you it's all about stereotypical anecdotes of billionaires and janitors. No one in between? Name the fucking bracket and let's get specific with the numbers on each one, fuckface. Until then, either put up or shut up.
Oh dear. Looks like I Ritmo in a lather what with the 3rd grade taunts and ad hominem attacks.
Want to play the data game Ritmo? Well I did put up but you just don't want to look at the figures because the truth will shatter your fragile belief system.
Sorry Ritmo, but you are the one with belief that its the rich and poor with no in between. See I'm not rich by any stretch but as I said, I have yet to receieve a fed refund for the better part of 15 years. No ma'am, its the middle class and above who shoulder the burden out there. Here's the data again, click if you have the testicular fortitude.
Oh and here is some more data.
Maybe someday Ritmo when you mature (maybe even start shaving), you can handle a reasonable debate without being such a shrill who resorts to such juvenile retorts. Until then I think I'm done toying with you. There is little satisfaction to be gained in debating someone whose mind isn't so much closed as its underdeveloped.
everyone can be a millionaire, and that there will be no need in this society for low-wage labor - (or that if there is, and if you fulfill it, you are a low-life). Such is the retardation that led to the 2008 myth that convinced a fabulist plumber that he was well on his way to becoming a millionaire,
And this right here speaks volumes about the mindset of Ritmo. How dare some hoi polloi plumber think he can actually do better than $30K a year! Who does this upstart think he is? Thank you Ritmo for displaying the atristocratic elitism that exemplifies today's liberals.
No Ritmo, America is the land of opportunity which is why immigrants flock here probably with dreams to be more than a ditch digger if not for them but maybe their kids. But to the Ritmo's of the world, we should all be happy with our lot in life and don't have silly aspirations of becoming a millionare.
Thank you for displaying your true beliefs. True honesty among hack leftsist like you is indeed a rare thing.
Hoosier, I am sorry to say that you are profoundly mistaken. Putting lots (and lots, and lots, and lots, of words on paper does not equal "writing well".
Heh.
And saying lots and lots and lots of words doesn't mean one is well-spoken.
Like, say, Obama giving a 17 minute response to a simple question.
Hoosier, I am sorry to say that you are profoundly mistaken. Putting lots (and lots, and lots, and lots, of words on paper does not equal "writing well".
I was trying to be nice :-)
Revenent, you say "We're subjected to economic forces beyond our control whether the government is involved or not. The only question is how much freedom you have in dealing with those forces."
That is exactly the question and the heart of the problem: There are no curbs on consolidated industrial power except for legal restrictions imposed and enforced by government.
How is it that people perceive the government as "big brother" instead of the giant conglomerates that, barely constrained, influence so much of our daily lives?
Government has grown tremendously, but much of that growth has been to offset the enormous growth in the power and influence of industry.
It's hard not to wonder if too many of us aren't fighting the wrong enemy.
Actually, among the American people the Tea Party polls as popular as socialism.
The Tea Party is 13% Democratic, not one-half as Althouse falsely implies.
To quote Steve Benen, a far more thoughtful blogger:
If an analysis is going to lump Tea Party-friendly Independents with one of the major parties, it makes far more sense to say 85% of movement members are Republicans or Independents.
While about a third of the nation at large approves of the Republican Party, with the Tea Party crowd, GOP approval is a whopping 71%.
* A whopping 79% of Tea Party supporters are non-hispanic whites. Only 65% of Americans were non-hispanic whites as of 2008. .
Tea Party = Out of step with America. And deluded.
Repeating your stupid point doesn't make it any more accurate, let alone pertinent.
But we get your point. Rich people pay a larger share of the taxes. Also just in: They have a lot more to tax and would still contribute a disproportionately larger share of the tax revenue - even under a flat tax system.
It's called mathematics. Did you learn about ratios and proportions in elementary school and junior high?
In any event, even if you had the brains to bring up the only feasible compromise proposal, a flat tax - you do realize that not even Republicans could bring themselves around, as a bloc, to supporting that? The progressive tax is hurting no one and it isn't going anywhere. Just ask Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and, oh, probably just about every one of your other heroes of money who just so happen to think that you are full of shit and don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, and BTW, here's your hero addressing health care and market failure. Here he is addressing the moral failings of both markets and governments. Just because I felt like it.
What righteous indignation you must feel toward him for expressing such an opinion! Who died and made him Hoosier! How let down you must feel! There goes your hero... What will you do now?
As for your hero-worship of Sam Wurzelbacher, I'm sure some plumbers here and there will go on to own their businesses, and perhaps even become millionaires. The vast majority, however, will not and should not expect that they will. It's called supply and demand and I'm not sure why you see fit to argue with it. Oh yeah, economics for you is a religion that reinforces your own faith in the superiority and inferiority of those whom you deem to be superior and inferior to you, and not an empirical science.
You are clearly a very irrational man.
Although medical schools require their students to memorize quite a bit of information, apparently Pogo can't remember his own words. This is what he said:
I suppose one can demand purity, that one must not participate in an economy one disagrees with, but that would be completely stupid, if not impossible.
Which is precisely what he claimed he would do once health care reform passed. He said he would commit a strike. A low-level, pussy strike of just slowing down a bit, but a strike nonetheless. By definition, in doing so he proclaimed that he would decrease his participation in an economy that he disagrees with, on account of his purity. So he contradicts himself.
I don't advise listening to someone who can't even remember what he himself said, let alone the implications of it. If you give them any respect, you may start to condone senility as a normal aspect of communication. Bad idea.
Oh, and regarding brevity Pogo, I get your point. Blah blah blah yourself.
Was that any less responsive than your own series of non-sequiturs? Ok, how about this: Blah blah blah Chairman Mao socialist utopia blah blah blah.
There! I just learned to speak Pogo!
He longs for the gulag with a wistfulness not seen since the Tories pined for the monarchy! So elegiac, that Pogo.
In any event, Medicare payments will increase under the bill. Further, no one's forcing him to see Medicare patients. Never has he been forced to structure his "business" that way.
Pogo, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.
And here's one more example of it:
"Pogo lives in a completely theoretical world where ...blah blah blah ....his self-serving illusion ...blah ...classic physician-narcissist. Blah".
What, nothing about 'capitalist wreckers'? Typical marxist class war envy crap.
It takes a pretty delusional shit-for-brains to take "theoretical world", "self-serving illusion", and "classic physician-narcissist", and turn that into "marxist class war envy crap".
BTW, how many rungs above me in the class scale does Pogo honestly believe he stands? Given his bitching and moaning about breaking even, I can't guess it's very many, if any.
Enjoy your imagined financial superiority to me, little turdling!
Oh, one more thing, or two. (What can I say? Lies require a lot of sunshine to be beaten into them).
When Pogo says, "More evasion and obfuscation," he seems to take humbrage that I am not addressing his ideological point. If that's the case, he's right. And I say "ideology" deliberately. If he had any interest in empiric fact or reason (rather than rhetoric and hot air), then we could actually label his diatribes "philosophy" and address them with the respect that an actual philosophy deserves. But he does not.
I believe it is possible to address these these matters in primarily empirical term. Luckily, Hoosier at least makes the attempt to do so as well, but while betraying a basic understanding of such complicated mathematical concepts as proportions and ratios.
Also, I find it curious that a man who derides those who apparently made "piss poor life choices that left them working at the local 7-11 demanding that Patel who owns it pay him/her a living wage" has the presence of mind to accuse me of "displaying the atristocratic elitism that exemplifies today's liberals."
Hoosier's railing at the very same elitism attitude that he displays, while accusing me of being the one with said attitude, is pretty rich.
What I said is that it's not likely that a plumber will become wealthy, based on supply and demand. No condemning any one to any lot in life on my part, or calling them lazy or someone who makes "piss poor life choices". Just an objective note as to which occupations tend to make more money than others.
And yet, Hoosier accuses me of "elitism".
Did I ever say that Joe the Plumber wouldn't make any money in life, ever? No. (Although happiness should be the standard one aspires to, not wealth. And happiness doesn't require a hierarchy of ranking. But whatever. Got to satisfy someone's need for superiority and inferiority, if not "elitism"). I said it was unlikely that a plumber would become a millionaire.
Not sure where the elitism comes into play, but I have an idea that it's better applied to someone who accuses some unnamed person whom he doesn't know of having made "piss poor life choices that left them working at the local 7-11 demanding that Patel who owns it pay him/her a living wage", than it is to someone who objectively notes the longstanding median income of various occupations.
Elitism...?
Anyone hear any elitism in that screed Hoosier courageously mounted against a "living wage"?
Keep using that word, Hoosier. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm sure Ritmo has moved on but I felt compelled to respond to his latest string of incoherence:
Oh, and BTW, here's your hero addressing health care and market failure.
This is called projection. Don't ever recall commenting that Bill Gates was my hero. Little disingenuous of you Ritmo but in earnest, I don't expect less of you. (George Patton is my hero btw)
But we get your point. Rich people pay a larger share of the taxes. Also just in: They have a lot more to tax and would still contribute a disproportionately larger share of the tax revenue - even under a flat tax system. It's called mathematics. Did you learn about ratios and proportions in elementary school and junior high?
Indeed I did get edumacted on that stuff Ritmo! In fact I understand it better than you because my argument is not an issue of proportion but rather exclusiveness. That is, the top 50% of earners pay ALL the Fed income tax. It’s not a higher proportion, its ALL. Proportion doesn't come into the picture. Get it or should I draw you a picture? Oh and it’s not just RICH people its middle class people too which I fall squarely in. Seems you have the problem in thinking there is just rich and poor.
As for your hero-worship of Sam Wurzelbacher
Again with the projection. Never claimed he was my hero. But when you don’t have a valid point, make stuff up.
Also, I find it curious that a man who derides those who apparently made "piss poor life choices that left them working at the local 7-11 demanding that Patel who owns it pay him/her a living wage" has the presence of mind to accuse me of "displaying the atristocratic elitism that exemplifies today's liberals."
Is it elitism to criticize someone who makes poor life decisions? Hey, I don’t begrudge anyone from aspiring to nothing more than being a check-out clerk at the Piggly Wiggly. Just don’t start crying me a river that you can’t support a family of four on $8 an hour. Either get skilled and more pay or don’t have a family of four. Decisions have consequences Ritmo. It’s not elitist to point out a fact of life.
On the other hand your display of elitism is evident and had nothing to do with supply and demand. You simply assume the odds are against becoming wealthy so the implication is don’t bother.
The problem with you that I noticed is you refuse to argue in good faith as evidenced by your projection and creation of stawmen to bolster your weak positions. At some point (if ever) you wish to engage on a reasonable level and lose the juvenile name calling maybe we can pick this up again.
You must be pretty upset with W. Bush then, Hoosier, for shifting the tax burden up to those high-wage earners the way the Treasury says he did:
The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to
higher income taxpayers. In 2005, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect
(e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax
share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers
will rise.
Pretty interesting that this comes from the very source that YOU cite.
I didn't vote for him and I didn't support his tax cuts. Blame yourself and STFU if you did. If you didn't, then perhaps you might want to try making an argument that actually, you know, supports your own position.
As for elitism, the tone of your own language regarding this fictional 7-11 you describe employee amply demonstrates your contempt for him.
It's ludicrous to claim that skillz (in some generic sense) will make everyone better off. Income disparities are not erased by everyone choosing some singularly spectacular field of work, because at that point the field will become saturated.
OTOH, societies require all sorts of labor and specializations and simply don't compensate each of these fields, on average, equally. What contempt have I shown by stating this obvious fact? Do you disagree with it? You have so far put off addressing the truth or falsity, let alone the validity of it. That says something about your own honesty as a "good faith" debate on the matter hinges on it.
But as far as "skillz" go, I am glad to see that Obama is working with the department of education and private organizations to encourage vocational training (after early graduation) for all the 16-year olds who don't dream of attending the same colleges and universities your friends on the right constantly disparage. It's about time we recognized the value of honest, manual labor and took it seriously both in terms of its value to society and in terms of the satisfaction that so many people are right to derive from it.
But unless they earn a lot of money, then you hate them! I see. You're not decrying their station, just their income. Thanks for clarifying, Hoosier.
You must be pretty upset with W. Bush then, Hoosier, for shifting the tax burden up to those high-wage earners the way the Treasury says he did:
I'm pretty upset with Bush for a whole raft of issues Ritmo.
Pretty interesting that this comes from the very source that YOU cite.
What's so interesting about it? It proves my point moron.
I didn't vote for him and I didn't support his tax cuts. Blame yourself and STFU if you did. If you didn't, then perhaps you might want to try making an argument that actually, you know, supports your own position.
What, the position that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of income taxes? That has been my position. Are you so thick you can't follow a simple argument? Christ you are a tool.
As for elitism, the tone of your own language regarding this fictional 7-11 you describe employee amply demonstrates your contempt for him.
Again your demonstrating your inability to comprehend simple English. I have no contempt for somone who has no aspirations beyond being a 7-11 clerk. I could care less. I just don't want to hear whining that you can't get ahead being a clerk at the 7-11.
It's ludicrous to claim that skillz (in some generic sense) will make everyone better off.
It is? Really? Funny cause the better trained and educated a society the better off it is. Maybe if you left your parents basement and took a look at the world you might be enlightened.
Income disparities are not erased by everyone choosing some singularly spectacular field of work, because at that point the field will become saturated.
Can you actually debate without building a strawman? Seriously, where did I ever say a "singularly spectacular field"? If you want to make shit up Ritmo go ahead but quit being a disingenuous tool and attributing them to me.
This is why I'm done even trying to talk with you. Your entire mode of debate is creating strawmen and attributing claims to me I never made which this entire post of yours has done. I think I'm done here as debating with you has devolved to the Jeremy level.
What, the position that the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of income taxes? That has been my position. Are you so thick you can't follow a simple argument? Christ you are a tool.
It's an argument you backed up with a document printed in 2005, claiming that Bush's tax cuts shifted the proportion of the burden upward.
So unless you come out in favor of returning to the higher rates on the top margins that existed before BUSH cut them, then what the hell kind of a point are you trying to make?
Did you know that Bush was president in 2005?
You might want to try reading the dates on the documents you cite, Hoosier. It might save you the embarrassing spectacle of unwittingly arguing in favor of something I'm pretty sure you oppose.
The only thing worth clarifying on my end is that a education does make society as a whole better off, but not necessarily at the level of every individual. Nor should that be expected. There is a difference between population-based statistics and individual circumstances. The bettering of society that results from any kind of wealth, whether that be from education or whatever, should also go, to some extent, into improving the infrastructure. But I see I'm about to veer off on a not-very controversial point that I predict you will nevertheless seek to paint as "socialist" or whatever, so I'll just stop there.
As for the rest of it, my points stand. Not every one of them is a direct refutation of something you said, so you can cut out the "straw man" bullshit. Some of them are points that obviate yours. That is to say, not everything you say is worth disagreeing with. Some of what you say is clearly wrong, but some of your points are merely so petty, insignificant or poorly researched that it's not hard to just draw attention to the larger point that you missed with all your details.
And no, I don't think the ambition to "get ahead" (whatever that means) should be required to draw a living wage. The willingness to work at a level commensurate with the training that someone has received by the time they are allowed to enter the adult work force is all that should be required.
So I'm like Jeremy now? How about something completely different?Like....: Suck on this, Hoosier!
Duh!
(Satire).
Lighten up, Dude.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा