All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
In befo da lock. :yeah:
Are you off your meds?
I thought another major concern of the markets is Italy?
Quote from: katmai on August 05, 2011, 03:16:24 AM
Are you off your meds?
I'm always off my meds. :huh:
There is a flaw in the analysis somewhere :D
Quote from: Monoriu on August 05, 2011, 03:17:25 AM
I thought another major concern of the markets is Italy?
Shut your filthy Tea Bagger mouth.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 05, 2011, 03:28:07 AM
There is a flaw in the analysis somewhere :D
Shut your filthy Tea Bagger mouth.
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
:hmm:
You can vote for the "Tea Party"? :huh:
I thought I told you this Mart, but she's not interested in the Tea Party anymore... she was at first, but then a bunch of right-wing Christian extremist wackjobs muscled in, took the "party" over, and ruined everything.
I always thought she was interested in real tea parties, the ones with cakes and dormice.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 05, 2011, 06:06:32 AM
I always thought she was interested in real tea parties, the ones with cakes and dormice.
She is. Maybe that's what drew her to the "Tea Party" initially. :)
The original Tea Party was attended by mermaids.
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2011, 05:59:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
:hmm:
You can vote for the "Tea Party"? :huh:
I thought I told you this Mart, but she's not interested in the Tea Party anymore... she was at first, but then a bunch of right-wing Christian extremist wackjobs muscled in, took the "party" over, and ruined everything.
The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.
You are welcome.
Quote from: Siege on August 05, 2011, 07:21:55 AM
The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.
How does your Jewish wife feel about being married to an Arab? I imagine that's awkward.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 07:43:29 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 05, 2011, 07:21:55 AM
The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.
How does your Jewish wife feel about being married to an Arab? I imagine that's awkward.
She's going to be pissed when Siege takes a twelve-year-old for his second wife.
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
Shut your cock holster
I shudder to even take this thread seriously, but as I was specifically called out, I can't resist. :menace:
First off, let's establish two facts:
1) There is no singular Tea Party entity. If I refer to Tea Party in the singular, I'm talking about the movement as a whole. You cannot vote for the Tea Party, there is no national organization of the Tea Party into which all the disparate entities feed, and a Tea Party organization in one city probably varies quite a bit from one in another city. The Tea Party issues relevant to Louisville, for example, are probably not the same in their entirety as those in Arizona.
2) As Caliga aforementioned, I no longer consider myself aligned with the majority of Tea Party organizations. When the movement began, it was an effort to scale back government and increase fiscal responsibility. It was a direct response to TARP and other government bailouts, not Obama, because it started even before Obama took office, and most people I've met in the Tea Party are just as derisive about Bush et al as they are about Obama. The movement originated to deal specifically with financial issues. One thing that most voters seem to agree upon, no matter the vast array of things that they disagree on, is that it's been a long time since we had a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Our government is of the privileged, by big money, for the perpetuation of itself. THAT status quo is what the Tea Party was started to fight. These are principles espoused by the likes of Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Rick Santelli, whose now-infamous rant against mortgage bailouts kicked the whole thing off. The day that I began to distance myself from the overall Tea Party movement was the day I got an email asking whether I thought a particular Tea Party organization should take a stand about the Arizona immigration debate. Obviously, anyone true to the original intent of the Tea Party would answer that with a resounding "No", which I did. That they were even asking the question, however, indicated to me that the movement had lost its focus. So I left all the groups I was subscribed to for email updates, and stopped going to events.
Both of the main parties have lost their way... they no longer serve the people who elected them. We are in this position today because of years of fiscal mismanagement, of unchecked growth of federal power and government policies that favor behemoth companies and create a hostile environment to smaller businesses. This is not limited to either Democrats or Republicans. In the end, we've been duped to believe there's a difference. There isn't. These two books may have different covers, but the plots are the same - screw over the individual taxpayer in favor of paying back the financial favors given to them by big business and special interest lobbies.
For example...
Imagine if the government had taken all the money invested in TARP and the stimulus (on non-shovel-ready projects) and returned that money to the taxpayer. The point of TARP was to recapitalize the banks, right? If you gave the taxpayer $10,000, one of several things would happen:
1) The taxpayer would buy stuff. Money goes to retailers, retailers either create jobs, invest in expansion, or bank the capital. Money back to banks.
2) The taxpayer would pay off debt. Banks hold debt. Money goes to banks.
3) The taxpayer would save. Savings TYPICALLY go into banks and investments. Sure, some people might bury it in the yard, but that's a tiny minority.
Banks would have been recapitalized, but the taxpayer (and in some cases, retailers) would have benefited first. The average taxpayer would have been in a healthier position at the end of the crisis than they were at the beginning. So why not give it to the taxpayer first and let it have exponential benefits? Instead, we're spending millions to, among other things:
Send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants. ($1.9M)
Study improvised music. The project will involve jamming with "world-renowned musicians" to "hopefully also create satisfying works of art." The project "seeks to understand, model, and support improvisation, or real-time collaborative creativity, in the context of jazz, Indian classical, and avantgarde art music." (Approx. $750k)
Develop a computerized choreography program that its creators believe could lead to a YouTube-like "Dance Tube" online application. (Approx. $750k)
In the grand scheme of things, $750,000 may not seem like much. But that would support 25 people at a $30,000/year salary, above what people get on unemployment. We have a government that believes that the above projects (with limited employment created, if any, and likely completely unsupervised in their progress/use of funds) are worthwhile, job-creating investments during a crisis.
The inmates are running the asylum. Blaming the status quo on the Tea Party is a hilariously irrelevant and poorly-conceived notion.
Er, why are there lines through my post? <_<
Probably a formatting error on your part Prin. Go back and edit it, and take out the {s} code (though it would be "[" instead of "{").
You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants? :bleeding: It's such a miniscule part of government spending, and it gets trotted out annually by some right-wing analyst or another as the source of all government spending.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants? :bleeding: It's such a miniscule part of government spending,
Ironically, it's perhaps the best value-added government spending there is.
I didn't see anything weird in there when I went to edit it. Anyway, it's still legible.
On the whole, in a good economy, I agree with you that sponsoring academic research is a good idea. But in an economic crisis, no one is ever going to be able to convince me that spending almost a million dollars on studying improvisational music by conducting "jam sessions" is a good idea. That's just ridiculous.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
Probably a formatting error on your part Prin. Go back and edit it, and take out the {s} code (though it would be "[" instead of "{").
You started out fine, but to start railing against academic grants? :bleeding: It's such a miniscule part of government spending, and it gets trotted out annually by some right-wing analyst or another as the source of all government spending.
Heh, in this case, it's a teapot in a tempest. :D
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
For once I'm in total agreement. Although not the last part, since I don't know her personally. Just with the general seniment.
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
We tanked because of Italy. So thank your Euro bretheren.
First Tea Party rally occurred in 2009. http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/ There were no Tea party rallies that occurred during the Bush administration.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:10:11 AM
I didn't see anything weird in there when I went to edit it. Anyway, it's still legible.
On the whole, in a good economy, I agree with you that sponsoring academic research is a good idea. But in an economic crisis, no one is ever going to be able to convince me that spending almost a million dollars on studying improvisational music by conducting "jam sessions" is a good idea. That's just ridiculous.
You have a [-s-] (without the dashes) right where the strikeout starts. That's what causes the line.
Good to see you posting here.
You just lose credibility when you take such a miniscule example. Your suggestion on TARP was also pretty, err, no offense, laughable. The TARP money was almost entirely repaid - while direct grants to citizens would not be, and thus would be 100% borrowed money. I didn't think a tea party supporter would support Keynesian economics. :huh:
Heh, Princessa brings out the socialist in BB. :D
We need you here more often, P. Keep posting!
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 10:21:14 AM
First Tea Party rally occurred in 2009. http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/ There were no Tea party rallies that occurred during the Bush administration.
Right, because organizations usually hold a rally the day they start up. Wikipedia states that the first rally was held 1/24/09, but that the movement is often credited to the momentum of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. I first started hearing these things gen up during TARP - and I was in a position to notice, since my job at the time was to track the economic downturn. It may be that the first rallies weren't held until 2009, but the movement began to coalesce in 2008.
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2011, 10:27:56 AM
Heh, Princessa brings out the socialist in BB. :D
We need you here more often, P. Keep posting!
I attacked Prin for advocating Keynesian stimulus. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. :huh:
Thanks for the help on the formatting, BB.
I never claimed that the stimulus consisted of only those things. But in the crisis we're in, to spend even $2 million dollars on crap like that, when real unemployment is/was well over 10%, is practically criminal.
For criminy's sake, at least research something with job creation capacity! Improvised music?! Don't get me wrong, music is great, but I'd rather have critically-useful technology. Hell, if we're gonna piss away $2M, how about at least pissing it away in physics research or space research or SOMEthing...
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2011, 10:27:56 AM
Heh, Princessa brings out the socialist in BB. :D
We need you here more often, P. Keep posting!
I attacked Prin for advocating Keynesian stimulus. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. :huh:
What?! When the hell did I advocate Keynesian stimulus? I mean, I'm just operating from the assumption that SOME stimulus was inescapable. Personally, I pretty much just want the government to provide for international treaties, national defense, and critical infrastructure. But that's a separate discussion.
ETA: Just to clarify, I was opposed to stimulus period. My only argument is IF we're going to drop that kind of money, give it to the people first. It would have still gone to the banks for recapitalization. And as for TARP being repaid, that's a murky subject. From what I've read, there's some sleight of hand going on between the US Treasury and the Fed that makes that not necessarily true. But as I am not an expert on that, personally, I don't really feel qualified to get into it in more detail. Suffice to say I am skeptical.
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2011, 05:59:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
:hmm:
You can vote for the "Tea Party"? :huh:
I thought I told you this Mart, but she's not interested in the Tea Party anymore... she was at first, but then a bunch of right-wing Christian extremist wackjobs muscled in, took the "party" over, and ruined everything.
Last time I remember she was spouting some Tea-partyish stuff on Facebook. :P
Government grants employ people too.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Government grants employ people too.
Of course. But every dollar utilized by the government is taken from either an individual or an entity, and thereby reduces their ability to do anything with that money, themselves. Either way, I think that $2M I cited could have been utilized in a capacity that would have given us more bang for our buck.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:31:09 AM
Thanks for the help on the formatting, BB.
I never claimed that the stimulus consisted of only those things. But in the crisis we're in, to spend even $2 million dollars on crap like that, when real unemployment is/was well over 10%, is practically criminal.
For criminy's sake, at least research something with job creation capacity! Improvised music?! Don't get me wrong, music is great, but I'd rather have critically-useful technology. Hell, if we're gonna piss away $2M, how about at least pissing it away in physics research or space research or SOMEthing...
US total government spending is approx 3.5 trillion dollars.
The $2 million dollar study accounts for 0.000000057% of federal government spending. (I may have missed a decimal place, but you get the idea). It is useless to even discuss such expenditures if you want to get US government spending under control (which you absolutely want to do).
It's like spending time worrying about some cigarette ash that has landed on your couch while your living room is engulfed in flames.
Quote from: Siege on August 05, 2011, 07:21:55 AM
The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.
You are a lucky man. You have an intelligent wife.
I used to wonder how your marital life looks like, what with your paleolitic approach to social mores and stuff. Now I realize she is probably just humoring you and nodding politely when you spout your bullshit, but then has a decisive say on all important decisions affecting your life.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:32:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2011, 10:27:56 AM
Heh, Princessa brings out the socialist in BB. :D
We need you here more often, P. Keep posting!
I attacked Prin for advocating Keynesian stimulus. Doesn't sound very socialist to me. :huh:
What?! When the hell did I advocate Keynesian stimulus? I mean, I'm just operating from the assumption that SOME stimulus was inescapable. Personally, I pretty much just want the government to provide for international treaties, national defense, and critical infrastructure. But that's a separate discussion.
ETA: Just to clarify, I was opposed to stimulus period. My only argument is IF we're going to drop that kind of money, give it to the people first. It would have still gone to the banks for recapitalization. And as for TARP being repaid, that's a murky subject. From what I've read, there's some sleight of hand going on between the US Treasury and the Fed that makes that not necessarily true. But as I am not an expert on that, personally, I don't really feel qualified to get into it in more detail. Suffice to say I am skeptical.
You advocated Keynesian stimulus right here:
Quote from: PrincescaImagine if the government had taken all the money invested in TARP and the stimulus (on non-shovel-ready projects) and returned that money to the taxpayer. The point of TARP was to recapitalize the banks, right? If you gave the taxpayer $10,000, one of several things would happen:
1) The taxpayer would buy stuff. Money goes to retailers, retailers either create jobs, invest in expansion, or bank the capital. Money back to banks.
2) The taxpayer would pay off debt. Banks hold debt. Money goes to banks.
3) The taxpayer would save. Savings TYPICALLY go into banks and investments. Sure, some people might bury it in the yard, but that's a tiny minority.
Banks would have been recapitalized, but the taxpayer (and in some cases, retailers) would have benefited first. The average taxpayer would have been in a healthier position at the end of the crisis than they were at the beginning. So why not give it to the taxpayer first and let it have exponential benefits? Instead, we're spending millions to, among other things:
Such money would not be "returned to the taxpayer" - the US is in a masive government deficit. In order to give taxpayers $10,000 that money would be borrowed. Borrowing money to give to citizens to stimulate the economy is the very definition of keynesian stimulus.
It also conveniently forgets that the majority of TARP money has already been repaid, with even more of it expected to be repaid in the future.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2011, 10:17:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
We tanked because of Italy. So thank your Euro bretheren.
We are not a part of the Euro zone. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 10:43:56 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 05, 2011, 07:21:55 AM
The same happened to me. I voted for the Tea and then the local wackjobs started praying something about their twisted version of religion. It was carefully worded, but I can read between the lines. Anyway, my wife voted demoncrat, as always, and that voided my vote.
You are a lucky man. You have an intelligent wife.
I used to wonder how your marital life looks like, what with your paleolitic approach to social mores and stuff. Now I realize she is probably just humoring you and nodding politely when you spout your bullshit, but then has a decisive say on all important decisions affecting your life.
Oh, wouldn't life be fun if all our SOs started posting in Languish? :D
QuoteUS total government spending is approx 3.5 trillion dollars.
The $2 million dollar study accounts for 0.000000057% of federal government spending. (I may have missed a decimal place, but you get the idea). It is useless to even discuss such expenditures if you want to get US government spending under control (which you absolutely want to do).
It's like spending time worrying about some cigarette ash that has landed on your couch while your living room is engulfed in flames.
Man I hate it when Languish doesn't save my posts. I am having formatting issues today. Grr.
Anyway, that $2M were just THREE examples. There are exhaustive lists online of things I think are just as ridiculous under these circumstances. Your assertion is like saying that if you're a family in economic crisis, you don't have to worry about that $14/month World of Warcraft bill, or the couple of Starbucks you get every week, because hey, those are small potatoes, right? Small things add up. In this case, small things add up to a whole lot of wasted opportunity.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Government grants employ people too.
Of course. But every dollar utilized by the government is taken from either an individual or an entity, and thereby reduces their ability to do anything with that money, themselves. Either way, I think that $2M I cited could have been utilized in a capacity that would have given us more bang for our buck.
:lol:
You are just as retarded as you were when I defriended you on Facebook.
It's too bad you seem to have bad memories of that time, Marti. It was one of happiest days of my life. :yeah:
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Government grants employ people too.
Of course. But every dollar utilized by the government is taken from either an individual or an entity, and thereby reduces their ability to do anything with that money, themselves. Either way, I think that $2M I cited could have been utilized in a capacity that would have given us more bang for our buck.
I don't think that the quest for extreme fiscal efficiency ends in a place that you want to live.
At any rate, it's certainly within the realm of acceptable political discourse as to how efficient you want your spending to be, but it seems that since the Depression, the US has decided to put some money into keeping creative types employed, and the Manhattan Project and the space program were evidence that the US clearly has a compelling interest in advancing research.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:48:28 AM
Man I hate it when Languish doesn't save my posts.
Anyway, that $2M were just THREE examples. There are exhaustive lists online of things I think are just as ridiculous under these circumstances. Your assertion is like saying that if you're a family in economic crisis, you don't have to worry about that $14/month World of Warcraft bill, or the couple of Starbucks you get every week, because hey, those are small potatoes, right? Small things add up. In this case, small things add up to a whole lot of wasted opportunity.
My assertion is that if you're trying to make ends meet on a, say, $75,000 budget, you absolutely should not worry that you dropped a penny on the ground last week and decided not to pick it up.
Sometimes things are so small they do not, in fact, add up.
If you want to talk about defense spending - great! Medicare and social security - have at er! But listening to a rant about academic grants reminds me too much of bad talk radio.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Government grants employ people too.
Of course. But every dollar utilized by the government is taken from either an individual or an entity, and thereby reduces their ability to do anything with that money, themselves. Either way, I think that $2M I cited could have been utilized in a capacity that would have given us more bang for our buck.
I don't think that the quest for extreme fiscal efficiency ends in a place that you want to live.
At any rate, it's certainly within the realm of acceptable political discourse as to how efficient you want your spending to be, but it seems that since the Depression, the US has decided to put some money into keeping creative types employed, and the Manhattan Project and the space program were evidence that the US clearly has a compelling interest in advancing research.
True - one never knows what future applications may come from the study of thousands of exotic ants.
[Actually, I'm serious ;)]
But you're harping on one small point in my entire argument, BB. Which was only an illustration anyway. My point was to say that Marti blaming the Tea Party for this crisis is like blaming your local Girl Scout because the cookies suck now.
Do you agree with that?
FYI - I'm all about reducing defense spending. I advocate ending all current wars and vastly reducing our presence in the global theatre. It's time we started nation building at home.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 10:21:14 AM
First Tea Party rally occurred in 2009. http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/ There were no Tea party rallies that occurred during the Bush administration.
Right, because organizations usually hold a rally the day they start up. Wikipedia states that the first rally was held 1/24/09, but that the movement is often credited to the momentum of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign. I first started hearing these things gen up during TARP - and I was in a position to notice, since my job at the time was to track the economic downturn. It may be that the first rallies weren't held until 2009, but the movement began to coalesce in 2008.
It doesn't take five months to organize a rally. And this rally was not even about TARP. Sorry, but this is occurred during the Obama administration. It's unlikely it would have occurred during a Republican presidency. The Tea Party isn't really new, it's simply the most recent manifestation of right wing populism, it pops up ever so often when Conservatives feel threatened. In the 1990's it was the Reform party and the militias. In the late 60's and 70's it was the Silent Majority. 50's it was McCarthyism. In the 30's the Silver shirts and the Black Legion. In the 1920's it was the Klan.
Take a look at this: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1892/tea-party-republicans-divide-cuts-federal-spending Tea Party member go on about "out of control" spending, and the need to make severe cuts. But where do they want to make the cuts?
Education? Nope. Agriculture? Nope. Defense? Nope? Social Security? Nope. Veterans benefits? Nope. Medicare? Nope.
There are four things that a majority of Tea Party members want to cut. Healthcare (Obamacare! Death Panels!), Environmental protection (Global Warming hoax!), Foreign AID (filthy America hating foreigners), and unemployment ( lazy bums). You aren't going to balance the budget cutting those. It's miniscule bullshit. What this tells me is they mad, but not exactly sure why they are mad. Obama is President and there is a deficit, but beyond that... there's nothing. Just populist ignorance.
As it happens, a great deal of the Pork tends to go to Republican districts, since they tend to be rural and have difficulty paying for projects like highways and bridges. I believe your state happens to get more in federal funds then it pays it's citizens pay in taxes. I doubt Senator McConnell is interested in removing the subsidies that so benefit his state.
Incidentally my Congresswoman (who rode the Tea Party wagon to victory in 2010 got 3/4th of a million dollars in farm subsidies. As you point out you could pay 25 people at a $30,000/year salary with that. A better deal then overpriced soy beans. I doubt my Congresswoman is interested in ending that farm subsidy either.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Government grants employ people too.
Yeah, I don't understand the TPish value of given people money rather than spending that money to employ them.
But, then, I am not a member of the tribe and so maybe don't speak the language. The bleat that
QuoteOur government is of the privileged, by big money, for the perpetuation of itself. THAT status quo is what the Tea Party was started to fight.
ignores the fact that that
status quo is what the Republican and democratic parties were founded to fight, as well. The reality is that, to some extend, all three parties have been hijacked by people who want to promote their own private interests. I think Princesa says that she understands this, but hasn't thought through the implications.
The TP was unequivocally a reaction to bank bailouts.
Raz: I'm not going to go into defending the Tea Party. It wasn't the point of my post, and, like I said, I don't consider myself a part of it.
But the Tea Party is not responsible for tanking global markets. Every rating agency has said that, debt ceiling deals aside, we are still cruising for a downgrade because of having no coherent plan to deal with our out of control debt.
I'm pretty sure the Tea Party didn't borrow trillions of dollars on behalf of the American people.
Grumbler: No, I understand you. Both parties have been hijacked. I agree. The TP was also hijacked, which is why I left it. Like I said, not here to defend the TP as a whole. Just saying that Marti's original assertion is asinine.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2011, 10:58:27 AM
The TP was unequivocally a reaction to bank bailouts.
Or the Savings and Loan buyouts. They both happened before the Tea party formed.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
Of course. But every dollar utilized by the government is taken from either an individual or an entity, and thereby reduces their ability to do anything with that money, themselves. Either way, I think that $2M I cited could have been utilized in a capacity that would have given us more bang for our buck.
I think that there is no question about this. However, i don't think that the government could have done it. It would have cost far more than $2 million, I suspect, to have a government bureaucracy look at the two million and figure out the most efficient way to spend it.
While it is nice to think that the government could be efficient enough to know that the $2 million would have been better-off untaxed, I think that that is asking for too much. Two million isn't even visible in the rounding error for the federal budget. What is needed is better rules for Congressional pork, and I think we have seen the first steps down that path taken.
Anyway, welcome back, and I hope you stick around.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:59:08 AM
Raz: I'm not going to go into defending the Tea Party. It wasn't the point of my post, and, like I said, I don't consider myself a part of it.
But the Tea Party is not responsible for tanking global markets. Every rating agency has said that, debt ceiling deals aside, we are still cruising for a downgrade because of having no coherent plan to deal with our out of control debt.
I'm pretty sure the Tea Party didn't borrow trillions of dollars on behalf of the American people.
They had no problem when trillions of dollars were borrowed over the last decade. They were notably silent when the country went from surplus to deficit. Hell, most they probably voted for a man who promised to do exactly that.
The Tea Party congressmen who held up the debt ceiling vote spooked the markets. They now think there is a chance that the US will just decide to default because of some stubborn ideologues. Perhaps rating agencies will downgrade American debt someday, perhaps 10 years from now, perhaps a hundred years from now, but not today. That's not why the markets are in a tizzy.
Comparing the debt ceiling crisis to the increasing debt the US has is like comparing a cigarette to a bullet in the head. Yeah, they both will kill you eventually, but bullets are the ones that are going to cause a bit more worry in the immediate future.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2011, 11:05:17 AM
Anyway, welcome back, and I hope you stick around.
:yes:
I certainly don't want to scare you away.
PLus if more women post here, maybe I can convince my wife to come back again. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Bah you are inspired by our shining beacon of freedomness deep down.
Nah... I'm not easily scared off or offended, but I can't say that I have much desire to talk politics anymore. The past several years since the Patriot Act have pretty much burned me out worse than a can of Sterno at a Overeaters Anonymous buffet. :licklips:
But I'll stick around to dish on the non-political stuff. Only did this because I was mentioned by name. Someone's got to defend my honor. Ahem, Cal. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 10:56:01 AM
But you're harping on one small point in my entire argument, BB. Which was only an illustration anyway. My point was to say that Marti blaming the Tea Party for this crisis is like blaming your local Girl Scout because the cookies suck now.
Marti blames the Tea Party because he is ignorant and ill-informed.
QuoteFYI - I'm all about reducing defense spending. I advocate ending all current wars and vastly reducing our presence in the global theatre. It's time we started nation building at home.
The problem with that is that US prosperity at home is built on international trade and global stability. If we're talking about rolling that back, we're talking about rolling back American standards of living as well.
In Cal's defense we are so used to Marty insulting people personally it does not really register much.
:lol:
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 11:23:55 AM
The problem with that is that US prosperity at home is built on international trade and global stability. If we're talking about rolling that back, we're talking about rolling back American standards of living as well.
Our wars in crap localities in Asia are securing international trade and global stability?
When is a party "not hijacked", or "pre-hijacked" ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 05, 2011, 11:38:55 AM
When is a party "not hijacked", or "pre-hijacked" ?
A party is "hijacked" at the point where it stops saying what you want to hear and starts saying what more people want to hear. it's a moving target.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 10:56:21 AM
It doesn't take five months to organize a rally. And this rally was not even about TARP. Sorry, but this is occurred during the Obama administration. It's unlikely it would have occurred during a Republican presidency. The Tea Party isn't really new, it's simply the most recent manifestation of right wing populism, it pops up ever so often when Conservatives feel threatened. In the 1990's it was the Reform party and the militias. In the late 60's and 70's it was the Silent Majority. 50's it was McCarthyism. In the 30's the Silver shirts and the Black Legion. In the 1920's it was the Klan.
Some of these things aren't like the others. I mean, I can see what you're talking about with Perot and Paul, and the militias on the extreme end of the scale. The Silent Majority wasn't a group, it was a speech and it seems that they worked, seeing as Nixon got won twice. McCarthyism was a panic, not a real political movement. Pelley's Silver Shirts were a ridiculous sideshow of Nazi-wannebes and were never a serious political movement. The Klan was a region-specific group of militant conservative Democrats and not a national political movement.
But then again, you're just trolling, aren't you?
QuoteEducation? Nope. Agriculture? Nope. Defense? Nope? Social Security? Nope. Veterans benefits? Nope. Medicare? Nope.
There are four things that a majority of Tea Party members want to cut. Healthcare (Obamacare! Death Panels!), Environmental protection (Global Warming hoax!), Foreign AID (filthy America hating foreigners), and unemployment ( lazy bums). You aren't going to balance the budget cutting those. It's miniscule bullshit. What this tells me is they mad, but not exactly sure why they are mad. Obama is President and there is a deficit, but beyond that... there's nothing. Just populist ignorance.
People didn't care about the deficit when it was in numbers that they could understand. But as soon as you talk about 'a trillion dollars', it scares people. Just wait until the debt hits a quadrillion dollars, and then you'll see another panic.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2011, 11:25:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 11:23:55 AM
The problem with that is that US prosperity at home is built on international trade and global stability. If we're talking about rolling that back, we're talking about rolling back American standards of living as well.
Our wars in crap localities in Asia are securing international trade and global stability?
That was certainly the idea. Then US troops in Korea and Japan and the US arms in Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly doing that.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 11:51:20 AM
That was certainly the idea. Then US troops in Korea and Japan and the US arms in Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly doing that.
The Saudis buy our stuff with good money, The Koreans and Japanese are rich and perfectly capable of defending themselves, and it is debateable us helping Israel is really promoting world wide stability. Yeah not really seeing it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2011, 12:19:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 11:51:20 AM
That was certainly the idea. Then US troops in Korea and Japan and the US arms in Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly doing that.
The Saudis buy our stuff with good money, The Koreans and Japanese are rich and perfectly capable of defending themselves, and it is debateable us helping Israel is really promoting world wide stability. Yeah not really seeing it.
That's because you're forgetting the true nature of humanity and how they operate unless there is a greater force restraining them.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2011, 11:24:34 AM
In Cal's defense we are so used to Marty insulting people personally it does not really register much.
:yes: Noting that Marti is a moron is like noting that water is wet.
whatever, you should be looking at long term for your stocks. People who fuss over every dip and hike just annoy everyone else who knows that shit happens, things change stocks go up and down. sky not falling, it's the sky.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2011, 11:48:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 10:56:21 AM
It doesn't take five months to organize a rally. And this rally was not even about TARP. Sorry, but this is occurred during the Obama administration. It's unlikely it would have occurred during a Republican presidency. The Tea Party isn't really new, it's simply the most recent manifestation of right wing populism, it pops up ever so often when Conservatives feel threatened. In the 1990's it was the Reform party and the militias. In the late 60's and 70's it was the Silent Majority. 50's it was McCarthyism. In the 30's the Silver shirts and the Black Legion. In the 1920's it was the Klan.
Some of these things aren't like the others. I mean, I can see what you're talking about with Perot and Paul, and the militias on the extreme end of the scale. The Silent Majority wasn't a group, it was a speech and it seems that they worked, seeing as Nixon got won twice. McCarthyism was a panic, not a real political movement. Pelley's Silver Shirts were a ridiculous sideshow of Nazi-wannebes and were never a serious political movement. The Klan was a region-specific group of militant conservative Democrats and not a national political movement.
But then again, you're just trolling, aren't you?
QuoteEducation? Nope. Agriculture? Nope. Defense? Nope? Social Security? Nope. Veterans benefits? Nope. Medicare? Nope.
There are four things that a majority of Tea Party members want to cut. Healthcare (Obamacare! Death Panels!), Environmental protection (Global Warming hoax!), Foreign AID (filthy America hating foreigners), and unemployment ( lazy bums). You aren't going to balance the budget cutting those. It's miniscule bullshit. What this tells me is they mad, but not exactly sure why they are mad. Obama is President and there is a deficit, but beyond that... there's nothing. Just populist ignorance.
People didn't care about the deficit when it was in numbers that they could understand. But as soon as you talk about 'a trillion dollars', it scares people. Just wait until the debt hits a quadrillion dollars, and then you'll see another panic.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Klan. In the South it was Democratic. In Northern States like Indiana and Maine it was Republican. In the 1920's the Klan was very large. Several million people.
I think the reason Barrister jumped on Prin like that was because going on about government spending on exotic ants is exactly what's was wrong with the Tea Party movement. Tea Party members are fed stuff about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent for dance schools and other irrelevant bullshit, because the the guys organizing these protests and paying speakers don't actually care about the deficit. They wanted Republicans to return to government. They want people to be angry at the President and Congress, but that's about it. So they try to focus attention on tiny things that are likely to infuriate folks, but not the big things (which people are less likely to be angry about). They certainly don't want to solve these perceived problems. After all, they want to be able to haull it out again ten years down the line when they need an ace up their sleeves. Besides, many of people funding these things profit quite a bit from Government contracts. They sure as hell don't want to lose that.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 01:01:06 PM
I think the reason Barrister jumped on Prin like that was because going on about government spending on exotic ants is exactly what's was wrong with the Tea Party movement. Tea Party members are fed stuff about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent for dance schools and other irrelevant bullshit, because the the guys organizing these protests and paying speakers don't actually care about the deficit. They wanted Republicans to return to government. They want people to be angry at the President and Congress, but that's about it. So they try to focus attention on tiny things that are likely to infuriate folks, but not the big things (which people are less likely to be angry about). They certainly don't want to solve these perceived problems. After all, they want to be able to haull it out again ten years down the line when they need an ace up their sleeves. Besides, many of people funding these things profit quite a bit from Government contracts. They sure as hell don't want to lose that.
Please don't speak for me on this. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 12:53:02 PM
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Klan. In the South it was Democratic. In Northern States like Indiana and Maine it was Republican. In the 1920's the Klan was very large. Several million people.
I suppose. One tends to think of the later Klan fighting integration when one thinks of the Klan. Still, that's not especially important. The Tea Party isn't remotely comparable to the Klan, which was an organization devoted to criminality and thuggishness. Even if you disagree with their goals, the Tea Party seems to be dedicated to working within the legal system. I suppose you can say that they are similar in that both groups have an extremely short lifespan, but you could say that of all sorts of groups, from the Deaniacs to the Vancouver Grizzlies NBA team.
Rax, wiki describes three separate KKK movements. First was reconstruction era, second was the 1920s, and third was civil rights era.
In that second era the KKK was (mostly) a legal frateral organization, and did contain significant northern membership. And even in the 1920s it was much more strongly identified with the Democratic party than the Republican.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 01:37:42 PM
Rax, wiki describes three separate KKK movements. First was reconstruction era, second was the 1920s, and third was civil rights era.
In that second era the KKK was (mostly) a legal frateral organization, and did contain significant northern membership. And even in the 1920s it was much more strongly identified with the Democratic party than the Republican.
In the South it was Democratic. In the North it was more Republican. The Klan essentially controlled the State of Indiana through the GOP. Northern Democrats tended to use big city machine politics and their stalwarts were the Catholic vote. The Klan which was explicitly anti-Catholic wouldn't carry much weight. The commonality between the Southern and Northern Klans was it's essential conservative populism. The Klan's opposition to foreigners, and socialists, evolutionists, etc would be familiar to the modern conservatives of the Tea Party. Other aspects such as explicit anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, racism etc were dropped in the period from the 1950's to the 1970's, though certain aspects of those remain.
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
Hitler was called a socialist by himself and by others and he was heavily into big government. Hitler was a socialist and an immigrant. :yuk:
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
You wouldn't consider the 1920's Klan an essentially conservative organization? I think the 1920's Klan should be considered a conservative reaction to the Progressive era. It would be difficult to call them "fringe" since they had a very significant membership.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
You wouldn't consider the 1920's Klan an essentially conservative organization? I think the 1920's Klan should be considered a conservative reaction to the Progressive era. It would be difficult to call them "fringe" since they had a very significant membership.
I'll admit you have a point when the Tea Party burns a cross on the White House lawn.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
You wouldn't consider the 1920's Klan an essentially conservative organization? I think the 1920's Klan should be considered a conservative reaction to the Progressive era. It would be difficult to call them "fringe" since they had a very significant membership.
And would you call the Communist Party of the Soviet Union an essentially progressive organization?
:rolleyes:
No. I would call the Klan an essentially racist organization.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:47:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
You wouldn't consider the 1920's Klan an essentially conservative organization? I think the 1920's Klan should be considered a conservative reaction to the Progressive era. It would be difficult to call them "fringe" since they had a very significant membership.
And would you call the Communist Party of the Soviet Union an essentially progressive organization?
:rolleyes:
No. I would call the Klan an essentially racist organization.
We aren't talking about comparing organizations of different countries. I'm not comparing the Tea Party to say Nazis or French Monarchists. These are movements and organizations that exist in the same country and often include the same people. The young Klansmen of the 1920's would be the red baiters and Dixiecrats of the 1940's and 50's. Those people didn't just go away. They stay dormant for a while and join the next manifestation of conservative populism.
QuoteAtwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[6][7]
You don't consider the GOP an essentially racist organization?
No.
Rather, I consider you a fundamentally stupid person when discussing politics. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
You don't consider the GOP an essentially racist organization?
:lmfao:
I don't know what Marti's ticked about anyway. In Poland, how would anyone be able to tell if the economy collapsed?
Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2011, 03:37:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 05, 2011, 03:30:35 PM
You don't consider the GOP an essentially racist organization?
:lmfao:
I messed that one up. It should have read "Do you consider the GOP an essentially racist organization". Republican strategist deliberately courted the racist vote in the South. The people who came up with the strategy openly said so at the time. I don't consider the GOP a racist organization, but a conservative one. I consider the Klan a conservative organization in the 1920's. At that time racism and conservatism often went hand in hand (note that a lot of progressive and liberal types were racist as well). I genuinely don't see a difference between people who rave about Muslim immigrants and socialism today and the people who rave about Catholic immigrants and socialism in the 1920's. The second Klan was not as focused on blacks, as they were a largely suppressed by then. The main focus was on radicalism and non-protestants. Had D.C. Stephenson not turned out to be a rapist and murder I think the Klan would have had longer tern popularity and perhaps might still be considered mainstream.
I'll admit there was some overlap between Progressives and the Klan. For instance the Klan was strongly prohibitionist and prohibition was major progressive issue.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2011, 02:04:55 PM
Raz, your argument is on par with Convervatives calling Hitler a socialist because his party was named the National Socialists.
You can make the connection, but it is extremely weak and tenuous.
Goer
Actually I believe that the Nazis did have a strong socialist wing. At least for a while. They were mostly purged during the Knight of Long Knives.
Quote from: Josephus on August 05, 2011, 10:10:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
For once I'm in total agreement. Although not the last part, since I don't know her personally. Just with the general seniment.
You've jumped the shark Josephus. :(
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 03:12:18 AM
All stock markets are plunging. Fuck you and your dysfunctional political system.
Special message to Caliga: tell your stupid wife, who voted for the Tea Party, to go fuck herself.
Marty? The US market is a sideshow to what's happening in Europe. You guys are entering your 2008 crash. Good luck. Try not to keep infecting us with it on this side of the pond. Might want to change the thread title.
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
But I'll stick around to dish on the non-political stuff. Only did this because I was mentioned by name. Someone's got to defend my honor. Ahem, Cal. :rolleyes:
I don't post from work anymore. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2011, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: Princesca on August 05, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
But I'll stick around to dish on the non-political stuff. Only did this because I was mentioned by name. Someone's got to defend my honor. Ahem, Cal. :rolleyes:
I don't post from work anymore. :)
What do you do all day now?
Angry Birds and Farmville maybe.
Way belated response, but I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the flaw with the "money back to the taxpayers" argument, e.g. a case of selective amnesia. The original "stimulus package" didn't give $10k back to each taxpayer, but it did give up to $1k back to each taxpayer. It was decided not to repeat that mistake because we failed to account for a fourth possibility:
4) The taxpayer uses the money to pay off delinquent accounts, which are already accounted for in a business's financials as an unfunded liability.
It was decided not to repeat the direct pay because, whether it was delinquent accounts or "burying it in the backyard," the percentage of the stimulus that presented itself to recapitalize retail business and banks was dismal. The government lost major money on that gamble, and yes, that's gone into that deficit that every fiscal conservative, myself included, has been railing against.
?
What are you talking about? Original stimulus package? $1000 to each taxpayer?
What I like most about this thread is that only a little bit before, Marti was excited about the increase in purchasing power of the zloty.
Quote from: garbon on August 06, 2011, 07:09:49 PM
What I like most about this thread is that only a little bit before, Marti was excited about the increase in purchasing power of the zloty.
I admit, I like Zloty women.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 03:35:17 PM
?
What are you talking about? Original stimulus package? $1000 to each taxpayer?
Yeah, my numbers were off, as usual. My bad. $300/person, actually. :blush:
Wiki cites a source with no link that looks suspiciously like a token article that points out a 3.5% increase in spending due to the stimulus.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 06, 2011, 10:21:50 PM
Yeah, my numbers were off, as usual. My bad. $300/person, actually. :blush:
Wiki cites a source with no link that looks suspiciously like a token article that points out a 3.5% increase in spending due to the stimulus.
Still don't know what you're taking about. I remember The Shrub sent out 500/1000 after the dotcom crash, but I don't remember any gift certificates as part of Obamastimulus. Seniors got 250 each but everyone else got reduced payroll taxes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 06, 2011, 10:24:18 PM
Still don't know what you're taking about. I remember The Shrub sent out 500/1000 after the dotcom crash, but I don't remember any gift certificates as part of Obamastimulus. Seniors got 250 each but everyone else got reduced payroll taxes.
2009, yeah. I'm talking about Bush
2's 2008 stimulus payouts.