|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 5, 2010 13:25:50 GMT
Not Beth, but I'll chime in.
The tea bag movement was started primarily by some extremely wealthy Republicans. The richest Americans saw their incomes jump an incredible 600% over the past decade, all the while enjoying unprecedented low federal income tax rates. Consequently this much wealth concentration combined with reduced tax rates resulted in unprecedented deficits. Adding to this sea of red ink were two under-funded wars, one resulting in a prolonged and expensive occupation, and the other an open ended conflict without resolution. The prime mover in the tea bag movement is public debt, yet it's their policies that created it, ironically enough.
It's not idealism at work, but primarily unadulterated greed and selfishness. Many of the typical tea bag conservative supports massive military build ups and military action, but not only refuses to contribute to these war efforts, but also don't want to pay for them.
The government they want is one that is singularly focused on military expansion, corporate welfare, and increased police powers, anything, that is, which will make them feel safe. As wealthy people, primarily from wealthy families, they have no immediate need for public education, labor laws, safety nets, etc., and disregard the consequences of a pure plutocracy on a society, and ultimately the adverse effect it will have on their seemingly insulated world.
With such financial and political backing, they have waged a successful campaign of populist revolt. Much of their rhetoric is found in links from DAS, such as 'wealth confiscation' and 'income redistribution'. Similar rhetoric was employed during the Clinton years with some success and Reagan is hailed, naturally, as a conservative icon. What is missing, of course, is the fact that Reagan, while overall irresponsible, raised taxes more often than he cut them.
The three primary movers behind the tea bag movement are:
1. Don Blankenship. Billionaire CEO of Massey Engery. It's been said that if Blankenship held public office, such as US Senator, he'd lose power. He is often seen wearing shirts made of US flags. Very patriotic looking. He loves his money and couldn't care less what happens to his country, however. 2. Charles and David Koch. CEO and Exec VP of Koch Industries. Multi-billionaires who run the nation's largest private energy company. 3. David Ratcliffe, head of Southern Company, second largest energy utility in the nation.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 12, 2010 0:43:22 GMT
Oh please stop it with the nonsense. The Tea Bag Movement is just a grass roots effort by concerned Americans who want to take the country back from the far left Socialists that Obama represents.
Beth's question re who the best hope is for the Republicans in 2012, I think it's too early to say. My personal choice would be Newt Gingrich who I consider far better than any Democrat and a true national leader.
We just have to ride out the Obama mistake and hope there are no big crises like 9/11 prior to the end of his term. He's an extremely weak President surrounded by incompetents like Biden, Reid, and Pelosi. He is completely unqualified for the job. However, he's no where near as bad a President as Bill Clinton.
Hopefully there will be another GW Bush clone to step up when we need him in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2010 8:25:01 GMT
Oh please stop it with the nonsense. The Tea Bag Movement is just a grass roots effort by concerned Americans who want to take the country back from the far left Socialists that Obama represents. Beth's question re who the best hope is for the Republicans in 2012, I think it's too early to say. My personal choice would be Newt Gingrich who I consider far better than any Democrat and a true national leader. We just have to ride out the Obama mistake and hope there are no big crises like 9/11 prior to the end of his term. He's an extremely weak President surrounded by incompetents like Biden, Reid, and Pelosi. He is completely unqualified for the job. However, he's no where near as bad a President as Bill Clinton. Hopefully there will be another GW Bush clone to step up when we need him in 2012. Obama is a far left socialist? What utter nonsense. What is it with right-wing Americans that they fail to understand basic political terminology? First they turned the word 'liberal' into a swear-word, despite the fact that liberalism has a proud tradition over hundreds of years, and that liberalism is actually a doctrine of the right. (Thatcher, for instance, was far more a liberal than she was a conservative, with her emphasis on free markets and individidual liberty.) Now they are trying to make 'progressive' a swear word. Like it's politically immoral to want to make things better. I read a lot of American political websites. There are people out there who still believe Obama is a) not American and b) Muslim. Political debate and disagreement is good and healthy, but what the nutjobs of the American right do to the language of politics is so silly it makes me weep rather than laugh. Obama is not a socialist. That's fantastically ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 12, 2010 13:47:23 GMT
Socialism means government taking over. Bigger and bigger government (vs private enterprise) means a trend toward Socialism. That's a system of government that's been tried many times in many different countries with zero success. Obama's health care plan is just one example of his tendency to embrace Socialism.
Right Direction or Wrong Track 25% Say U.S. Heading In Right Direction Wednesday, March 10, 2010
For the second straight week, just 25% of U.S. voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Last week’s finding marked the lowest level of voter confidence since just before President Obama took office in January 2009.
A sizable majority (71%) believe the nation is heading down the wrong track, the highest level of pessimism measured in 14 months.
Leading up to Obama's inauguration, the number of voters who felt the country was heading in the right direction remained below 20%. The week of his inauguration, voter confidence rose to 27% and then steadily increased, peaking at 40% in early May 2009. Confidence has declined since. As is often the case, there was a brief burst of enthusiasm at the beginning of the year when 32% said the country was heading in the right direction, but that quickly faded.
African-American voters are now almost evenly divided on this question: 46% say right direction, while 45% say wrong track. Two weeks ago, 60% of blacks felt the country was heading in the right direction, and only 32% said it was headed down the wrong track.
The vast majority (89%) of Republicans and 77% of voters not affiliated with either major party think the nation is heading down the wrong track. The new findings continue the pessimism Republican and unaffiliateds felt for most of 2009.
These findings are a sharp contrast to how Democratic voters feel. Forty-five percent (45%) are confident in the nation’s current course, but slightly more (48%) feel the country is heading down the wrong track. Still, in May of last year, 68% of Democrats said right direction, and just 26% said wrong track.
Thirty-four percent (34%) of Americans expect the unemployment rate in the United States to be higher a year from today. That marks a five-point increase from December.
Americans are now evenly divided over whether it’s possible for anyone who wants to work to find a job: 45% say that’s true, while another 45% say it’s not. Only 48% now think it is possible for anyone in the United States to work their way out of poverty. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree and say it’s not possible.
The president is now trying to get his health care reform plan back on track in the Congress, even though most voters continue to oppose it. But 55% would rather see Congress scrap the original plan and start all over again. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the plan working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports, including health care, but the gap between the two parties has grown narrower on several of them.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters think politics in the nation’s capital will become more partisan over the next year. That’s a 13-point jump from the 52% who felt that way just after Obama’s State of the Union speech in late January in which he talked about trying to work with Republicans.
Just 23% of voters say they prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes over one with fewer services and lower taxes. But 55% of Americans think the government doesn't spend enough on public education.
The U.S. Supreme Court is wrestling with a major case questioning whether Chicago’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, but 69% of Americans say city governments do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning such guns.
The U.S. Postal Service hopes to end Saturday mail delivery to fight its growing budget deficit, and 58% of Americans think that’s a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2010 14:16:16 GMT
Socialism means government taking over. Bigger and bigger government (vs private enterprise) means a trend toward Socialism. . Good grief! Even a quick read of Google - which is not what you might call an academic source for political philosophy - should be sufficient to disabuse you of this ludicrous notion. I'll even give you the link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismSocialism is a broad term, which encapsulates various economic theories based on ownership of the means of production. Giving more people free health care is not socialism. The only even vaguely Socialist thing I can think of that Obama has done is to intervene more directly in the banking/finance sector, and he only had to to that because the libertarian approach of non-intervention, which had been seen for so long as a sacred cow, failed utterly and nearly collapsed the banking system. As I said, I really wish right-wing Americans would stop turning hundreds of years of political philosophy and thought into simple insults with no meaning behind them. Liberalism is, of course, pretty much the opposite of Socialism (broadly.) And progressive is a neutral term which could refer equally to the right or the left (in so far as those terms are still useful.)
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 12, 2010 18:05:11 GMT
I've had a few experiences with 'socialism', and none were disappointing.
I attended a public school, which was free and, until age 16, compulsory. I learned many things, I had some excellent teachers, discipline was even handed, and we had the right mixture of leisure and study, along with a variety of electives. Whenever any of my grades failed to meet expectations, it was my own indolence that caused it.
I attended a publically subsidized university for a higher education. Again the results were positive and I had more selective courses of study.
I use the US mail regularly and none of my letters or parcels failed to reach their intended destination; consequently, I've never had trouble receiving mail. I also like the price, it's cheap enough for even those less fortunate than myself to use it to the fullest.
If my neighbor's home were to catch fire, I am reasonably certain that the municipal fire department will extinguish the blaze without delay and even perhaps save my own property.
The few times I've had to call the police, they have been prompt in their reply.
The roads in my region take a terrible pounding, but fortunately thanks to public funding, they do get repaired.
My trash was picked up without incident until last year; the city outsourced the service to a for-profit company four years ago and they've since spilled my rubbish. The first company lost the contract, and the new folks seem to do a better job.
My grandparents and parents have collected social security. The funding here is less than ideal; it's regressive in nature because FDR listened to that Wall Street banker Morganthau instead of the rest of his advisers. Morganthau was wrong in 1937 when urged FDR to curb domestic spending, and he was wrong on funding social security.
I and others I know have had to seek unemployment compensation in the past, and it allowed all concerned to sustain themselves during temporary periods of economic hardship. It makes no sense to create a class of homeless people who would, without assistance, have little or no chance of once again becoming productive.
Medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and it's almost criminal that actual reform has festered this long. The first guy to propose it has his likeness on Mount Rushmore: Ted Roosevelt, a gilded age political figure.
In sum, there is nothing radical about internal improvements or taking care of the infirm or less fortunate. The conservatives in opposition are blinded by their own greed to realize it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 21:45:00 GMT
your last sentence is the whole thing in sum total. opposition to health care is ONLY greed, and nothing else
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 12, 2010 21:53:17 GMT
Socialism means government taking over. Bigger and bigger government (vs private enterprise) means a trend toward Socialism. . Good grief! Even a quick read of Google - which is not what you might call an academic source for political philosophy - should be sufficient to disabuse you of this ludicrous notion. I'll even give you the link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismSocialism is a broad term, which encapsulates various economic theories based on ownership of the means of production. Giving more people free health care is not socialism. The only even vaguely Socialist thing I can think of that Obama has done is to intervene more directly in the banking/finance sector, and he only had to to that because the libertarian approach of non-intervention, which had been seen for so long as a sacred cow, failed utterly and nearly collapsed the banking system. As I said, I really wish right-wing Americans would stop turning hundreds of years of political philosophy and thought into simple insults with no meaning behind them. Liberalism is, of course, pretty much the opposite of Socialism (broadly.) And progressive is a neutral term which could refer equally to the right or the left (in so far as those terms are still useful.) take it easy on poor das. he merely regurgitates the totally discredited lunacy of rush, sean, and ann. thankfully, he is a very small minority. the majority of americans know that people are more important than cigna profits
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 13, 2010 1:37:54 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 13, 2010 3:09:33 GMT
I've had a few experiences with 'socialism', and none were disappointing. I attended a public school, which was free and, until age 16, compulsory. I learned many things, I had some excellent teachers, discipline was even handed, and we had the right mixture of leisure and study, along with a variety of electives. Whenever any of my grades failed to meet expectations, it was my own indolence that caused it. I attended a publically subsidized university for a higher education. Again the results were positive and I had more selective courses of study. I use the US mail regularly and none of my letters or parcels failed to reach their intended destination; consequently, I've never had trouble receiving mail. I also like the price, it's cheap enough for even those less fortunate than myself to use it to the fullest. If my neighbor's home were to catch fire, I am reasonably certain that the municipal fire department will extinguish the blaze without delay and even perhaps save my own property. The few times I've had to call the police, they have been prompt in their reply. The roads in my region take a terrible pounding, but fortunately thanks to public funding, they do get repaired. My trash was picked up without incident until last year; the city outsourced the service to a for-profit company four years ago and they've since spilled my rubbish. The first company lost the contract, and the new folks seem to do a better job. My grandparents and parents have collected social security. The funding here is less than ideal; it's regressive in nature because FDR listened to that Wall Street banker Morganthau instead of the rest of his advisers. Morganthau was wrong in 1937 when urged FDR to curb domestic spending, and he was wrong on funding social security. I and others I know have had to seek unemployment compensation in the past, and it allowed all concerned to sustain themselves during temporary periods of economic hardship. It makes no sense to create a class of homeless people who would, without assistance, have little or no chance of once again becoming productive. Medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States, and it's almost criminal that actual reform has festered this long. The first guy to propose it has his likeness on Mount Rushmore: Ted Roosevelt, a gilded age political figure. In sum, there is nothing radical about internal improvements or taking care of the infirm or less fortunate. The conservatives in opposition are blinded by their own greed to realize it. Fine post, Clemie. ping
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 13, 2010 8:57:23 GMT
the question of obamas declining popularity...mmm first ask was he ever popular in the first place all i saw was a lot of hype mainly about the colour of the mans skin...which wasnt so much popularity as a political..social stance and no way to elect a leader the man is an excelent political speaker...no doubt about it...but whether he is an excelent polito or good leader/head of state remains to be seen so far he seems pretty run of the mill
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 13:14:37 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense. And has Obama increased your taxation? 'Socialist leaning' . . that's really dumb Bushad. I've been pointing out to you for several days now that you're mis-using political labels badly. Do you not read my posts, or do you not agree with me? I wish you would tell me, because it just feels like you're ignoring me.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 14:44:13 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense. And has Obama increased your taxation? 'Socialist leaning' . . that's really dumb Bushad. I've been pointing out to you for several days now that you're mis-using political labels badly. Do you not read my posts, or do you not agree with me? I wish you would tell me, because it just feels like you're ignoring me. all of das' material is canned. he simply repeats what he hears the lunatics at faux news, and nutjobs such as rush, say. since the facts are against him, he tries to dazzle with bullshyt. people who are capable of thinking for themselves and finding the truth recognize it for what it is and toss it in the garbage where it belongs. since he can't rationally refute anything that you've said, he just continues to add more bs
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 14:46:23 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense. your preference for having your money unfarily confiscated by corporations rather than government doesn't say much for you
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 14:50:59 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense. how about this lad? we could do it simple, and totally fair to everyone. the government can just set the rates that insurance companies can charge, so that EVERYONE, including the minimum wage earner, can afford it. that way, there would be no need for the government to get any money from you for healthcare reform, and it would be fair for EVERYONE
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 13, 2010 15:54:40 GMT
Trying to hang onto your own money and not have it unfairly confiscated by a Socialist leaning government is not greed. It's common sense. Taxes are the price of civilization, and the wealthy, whether their money is earned or made or simply given to them, benefit and profit the most from civilization. That is the moral behind what the right wing calls ‘confiscation’. The alternative is life in nature, and there a tea bagger isn’t worth a nickel. Like the war in Iraq, the rich want it all, but they are unwilling to pay the price. Thus is the moral bankruptcy of the tea bag conservative movement. Most of the rich and poor alike work hard for their keep, and moreover most jobs, from top to bottom, share a degree of dignity. Those with the most to contribute absorb most of the burden – it’s been that way ever since the concept of civilization existed. That is the sensible thing, common or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 17:42:28 GMT
And has Obama increased your taxation? 'Socialist leaning' . . that's really dumb Bushad. I've been pointing out to you for several days now that you're mis-using political labels badly. Do you not read my posts, or do you not agree with me? I wish you would tell me, because it just feels like you're ignoring me. all of das' material is canned. he simply repeats what he hears the lunatics at faux news, and nutjobs such as rush, say. since the facts are against him, he tries to dazzle with bullshyt. people who are capable of thinking for themselves and finding the truth recognize it for what it is and toss it in the garbage where it belongs. since he can't rationally refute anything that you've said, he just continues to add more bs It was a genuine question for our American posters. Has Obama increased your taxes?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 13, 2010 19:50:46 GMT
Quote: It was a genuine question for our American posters.
Has Obama increased your taxes? Not directly, RG. The only annoying difference I've noticed lately is soaring grocery prices. But, to be honest, I suspect it's some kind of diabolical conspiracy between Kroger (our grocery store chain) and some of their suppliers - like P&G, Hormel, Bob Evans, etc.. Doubt that's Obama's fault. All the whining I've heard comes from the high income group who does not want Bush's huge tax cuts to expire. Then, some whose incomes are not high enough for them to be affected whine because they want to identify with the rich even if it's against their best interests - IOW, exceptionally stupid people.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 20:13:33 GMT
all of das' material is canned. he simply repeats what he hears the lunatics at faux news, and nutjobs such as rush, say. since the facts are against him, he tries to dazzle with bullshyt. people who are capable of thinking for themselves and finding the truth recognize it for what it is and toss it in the garbage where it belongs. since he can't rationally refute anything that you've said, he just continues to add more bs It was a genuine question for our American posters. Has Obama increased your taxes? no, and there is no plan to increase taxes for regular people. in fact, the plan is to decrease taxes for the regular people. simply allowing the rich to pay their FAIR share will fund all the programs and also cut the taxes of the middle and lower class
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 20:22:59 GMT
It was a genuine question for our American posters. Has Obama increased your taxes? no, and there is no plan to increase taxes for regular people. in fact, the plan is to decrease taxes for the regular people. simply allowing the rich to pay their FAIR share will fund all the programs and also cut the taxes of the middle and lower class Well what's the beef then Bushadmirer?
|
|