The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.
I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?
When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?
If you think the best way towards recovery is as simple as cutting spending without raising taxes and infusing capitol into the economy, then, yes, I would question your understanding of the principles you supposedly teach. Timothy Gaithner has pretty strong credentials himself, but I assume you think him unequipped to fix this crises?
What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.
What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.
My reasoning is that once the top 5% get taxed and that still doesn't fix the problem, the rest of us are next in line to pay our "fair share".
And "fair share" should not be used anymore then a term like "death panel". Call a spade a spade. It's insulting to say someone who made $500K and payed $175K in taxes to pony up and pay their "fair share". The term should be, "hey-man-we-really-fucked-up-with-our-budgeting-and-we-really-need-some-of-your-money share".
My reasoning is that once the top 5% get taxed and that still doesn't fix the problem, the rest of us are next in line to pay our "fair share".
I think we ought to look really hard at closing these tax loopholes and shady accounting practices that are about as wide as the Grand Canyon. If we could get the rich to pay what they honestly owe, without hiding behind their accountants, that would be a nice start.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.
I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?
When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?
If you think the best way towards recovery is as simple as cutting spending without raising taxes and infusing capitol into the economy, then, yes, I would question your understanding of the principles you supposedly teach. Timothy Gaithner has pretty strong credentials himself, but I assume you think him unequipped to fix this crises?
I think you meant Timothy Geithner, wise one.
So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals.
What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.
Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite.
More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%.
So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
- I was unaware of the editorial standards of the Pearl Jam message board. My apologies to Mr. Geithner and his family.
"So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals."
"Seriously, man. Grow up."
- As it relates to the current U.S. economic crises, yes. The "grow up" part was a nice touch, though. Really shows off your humility.
What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.
"Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite."
- And I would argue that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 - what followed was an economic boom; conversely, Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and, well, here we are.
"More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%."
- How well has that worked over the last 10 years?
the whole tea party movement reminds me alot of the Prosperity Gospel that gave us so many televangelists. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and the lot. Fraudulent hucksters preying on innocent people.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
This article is spot on! The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government. They held the nation hostage for months and now, as a result, the markets are free falling ... and taking the rest of us along for the ride.
hahahhahhahha......
The ballz on those terrorists... actually demanding that Congress balance their budget.
Makes Bin Laden look fiscally conservative, those tea party terrorists!!
Fuckin hilarious....
They do whine about the government and demand a balanced budget, but I haven't seen any concrete proposals on how they plan to do this or even a concise vision from their leaders (whoever they are). If anyone can post a link to this info, I'd appreciate it.
Last time you asked for something I tried posting a link but then you didn't say anything so perhaps you missed it? Anyway, here is the thread I posted a link to:
The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.
I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?
When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?
as an economist how can you support the tea party? do you choose to just disregard the history of legal economic disparity that minorities and women had to deal with in this country? the tea party makes no logical sense to me...we'll oppress you, make you live in the worst housing areas, go to the worst schools, not allow you to have credit cards, then give a few things back for like 10 years, and then throw our hands up and say "everyone's on an even playing field - go"! that is the most asinine, ahistorical, bullshit economic policy I've ever heard of. so yes I would say you do not have a basic understanding of history. people can get PhDs without having a basic understanding of history (see: Ron Paul).
come down to baltimore for one day and ride down Park Heights next to Pimlico and tell me that anyone born there chose to be in the situation they're in
as an economist how can you support the tea party? do you choose to just disregard the history of legal economic disparity that minorities and women had to deal with in this country? the tea party makes no logical sense to me...we'll oppress you, make you live in the worst housing areas, go to the worst schools, not allow you to have credit cards, then give a few things back for like 10 years, and then throw our hands up and say "everyone's on an even playing field - go"! that is the most asinine, ahistorical, bullshit economic policy I've ever heard of. so yes I would say you do not have a basic understanding of history. people can get PhDs without having a basic understanding of history (see: Ron Paul).
I had no idea the Tea Party was able to accomplish so much in less then two years! Wow! :shock:
as an economist how can you support the tea party? do you choose to just disregard the history of legal economic disparity that minorities and women had to deal with in this country? the tea party makes no logical sense to me...we'll oppress you, make you live in the worst housing areas, go to the worst schools, not allow you to have credit cards, then give a few things back for like 10 years, and then throw our hands up and say "everyone's on an even playing field - go"! that is the most asinine, ahistorical, bullshit economic policy I've ever heard of. so yes I would say you do not have a basic understanding of history. people can get PhDs without having a basic understanding of history (see: Ron Paul).
I had no idea the Tea Party was able to accomplish so much in less then two years! Wow! :shock:
That's your response really? How about a discussion of a history which is what this debate was about? That history is something Tea Party people choose to ignore, because it essentially rips apart any argument they present. The whole point of the Tea Party and Libertarian economic policy is to put everything on the free market and let the market decide what everything is worth. What these idiots don't get is that the social and economic value placed on particular things have been generated through a history of over and under valuing particular things (i.e. how is what Phil Knight does worth billions, while a housewife makes nothing? B/c the market bears is ridiculous, it's because we've socially conditioned one thing to be worth more than another). Additionally it provides the false sense of self-accomplishment to people with the stupid argument that "I got what I got because I worked hard" with no sense of social issues whatsoever. The only way that is true is if parents are not allowed to spend money on their children because that's a form of welfare, or send their kids to better schools because that's a form of welfare, or feed them healthier food because that's a form of welfare, and so on. Then we test these kids for various forms of aptitude (academic, athletic, musical, etc.) and place them according to their abilities not who mommy and daddy were. Then they go and earn their way to what they got. Sounds ludicrous right? Because it is ludicrous, but it's really the only way anyone can actually argue they got to where they did with no help. Now of course a bunch of you will claim that isn't true and offer pithy defenses for an idiotic economic policy, but the Tea Party is really about trying to create a economic caste system in America so that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Think about it why would you be trying to not help the poor because your being taxed is so patently unfair. What a joke.
If you want more history, as taxes on the wealthy have been reduced over the last 30+ years of this Reagonomic (the historical impetus mixed with Ayn Randian wet dreams for the Libertarian party) nightmare social class standing for the average american has cemented itself. So when moving from one social class to another once took an average of 6 generations and was falling now is 8. How? We have accomplished this through the destruction of unionized labor which has in turn forced families to have at least 2 full-time workers, seen the real wages of everyone but the top 2 percent fall or remain the same as inflation continues to rise, and Tea Partiers sit and frigging cheer for these morons who are trying to destroy our country begging for more. Like I said next time you get out of your country club why don't you take a ride down Park Heights Ave. in Baltimore and tell me this is a good idea.
The thing is most libertarians are either small-business owners or 2 full-time working families who idiotically blame their plight on the poor lazy people on welfare (75% of whom have at least one full-time job but let's not let facts get in the way of a good commercial) instead of the rich motherfuckers who have been creating this mythology and have the wealth to shove it down our throats. Ask who benefits most if Libertarians win? The people who already have the cash plain and simple.
If you want more history, as taxes on the wealthy have been reduced over the last 30+ years of this Reagonomic (the historical impetus mixed with Ayn Randian wet dreams for the Libertarian party) nightmare social class standing for the average american has cemented itself. So when moving from one social class to another once took an average of 6 generations and was falling now is 8. How? We have accomplished this through the destruction of unionized labor which has in turn forced families to have at least 2 full-time workers, seen the real wages of everyone but the top 2 percent fall or remain the same as inflation continues to rise, and Tea Partiers sit and frigging cheer for these morons who are trying to destroy our country begging for more. Like I said next time you get out of your country club why don't you take a ride down Park Heights Ave. in Baltimore and tell me this is a good idea.
The thing is most libertarians are either small-business owners or 2 full-time working families who idiotically blame their plight on the poor lazy people on welfare (75% of whom have at least one full-time job but let's not let facts get in the way of a good commercial) instead of the rich motherfuckers who have been creating this mythology and have the wealth to shove it down our throats. Ask who benefits most if Libertarians win? The people who already have the cash plain and simple.
Sorry, I was going to write more in my last post, but I temporarily lost satellite internet connection from my private leer jet ... damn Bermuda Triangle. Anyway, you have me pegged.
On a more serious note, are the residents of Park Heights Ave thriving under the current system? Do the rich need a Libertarian win to benefit anymore then under the current system? Why does the old leadership of the GOP fear the Tea Party and Libertarian movements and try to discredit them? These are the questions you should consider.
If you want more history, as taxes on the wealthy have been reduced over the last 30+ years of this Reagonomic (the historical impetus mixed with Ayn Randian wet dreams for the Libertarian party) nightmare social class standing for the average american has cemented itself. So when moving from one social class to another once took an average of 6 generations and was falling now is 8. How? We have accomplished this through the destruction of unionized labor which has in turn forced families to have at least 2 full-time workers, seen the real wages of everyone but the top 2 percent fall or remain the same as inflation continues to rise, and Tea Partiers sit and frigging cheer for these morons who are trying to destroy our country begging for more. Like I said next time you get out of your country club why don't you take a ride down Park Heights Ave. in Baltimore and tell me this is a good idea.
The thing is most libertarians are either small-business owners or 2 full-time working families who idiotically blame their plight on the poor lazy people on welfare (75% of whom have at least one full-time job but let's not let facts get in the way of a good commercial) instead of the rich motherfuckers who have been creating this mythology and have the wealth to shove it down our throats. Ask who benefits most if Libertarians win? The people who already have the cash plain and simple.
Sorry, I was going to write more in my last post, but I temporarily lost satellite internet connection from my private leer jet ... damn Bermuda Triangle. Anyway, you have me pegged.
On a more serious note, are the residents of Park Heights Ave thriving under the current system? Do the rich need a Libertarian win to benefit anymore then under the current system? Why does the old leadership of the GOP fear the Tea Party and Libertarian movements and try to discredit them? These are the questions you should consider.
the only republican trying to discredit the tea party is john mccain. the rest of them are embracing the tea party because they need the "lipton vote" to stay in office.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the only republican trying to discredit the tea party is john mccain. the rest of them are embracing the tea party because they need the "lipton vote" to stay in office.
They are scared and kissing ass while secretly trying to break them apart, in my opinion.
Anyway, my main message is that the federal government needs to spend within their means. If taxes are raised, then I demand a balanced budget. That's all. But to raise taxes without a serious plan to cut spending is insanity to me.
Oh, and the 12 lawmaker budget committes that was put together ... guess who funded their campaigns ... Special Interest Groups (shocking!)
the only republican trying to discredit the tea party is john mccain. the rest of them are embracing the tea party because they need the "lipton vote" to stay in office.
They are scared and kissing ass while secretly trying to break them apart, in my opinion.
Anyway, my main message is that the federal government needs to spend within their means. If taxes are raised, then I demand a balanced budget. That's all. But to raise taxes without a serious plan to cut spending is insanity to me.
Oh, and the 12 lawmaker budget committes that was put together ... guess who funded their campaigns ... Special Interest Groups (shocking!)
they are working on a plan to cut spending.
they just cut a trillion dollars of spending, and the "super congress" is supposed to cut another 2 trillion.
if they can agree on anything with an even number that is..
you can not get out of debt simply by stopping to spend money. you have to have INCOME to pay on the debt, do you not?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
they are working on a plan to cut spending.
they just cut a trillion dollars of spending, and the "super congress" is supposed to cut another 2 trillion.
if they can agree on anything with an even number that is..
you can not get out of debt simply by stopping to spend money. you have to have INCOME to pay on the debt, do you not?
Their budget cutting plan requires a time machine to determine if it worked or not. They even set low expectations for the next several years so they can get through the 2012 election cycle. By then, it will all be forgotten and replaced with the next frying-pan issue of the day.
So until a plan exists where a trillions dollars has actually been cut within 365 day cycle, I won't accept the trade-off.
they are working on a plan to cut spending.
they just cut a trillion dollars of spending, and the "super congress" is supposed to cut another 2 trillion.
if they can agree on anything with an even number that is..
you can not get out of debt simply by stopping to spend money. you have to have INCOME to pay on the debt, do you not?
Their budget cutting plan requires a time machine to determine if it worked or not. They even set low expectations for the next several years so they can get through the 2012 election cycle. By then, it will all be forgotten and replaced with the next frying-pan issue of the day.
So until a plan exists where a trillions dollars has actually been cut within 365 day cycle, I won't accept the trade-off.
keep defending those billionaires...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
as an economist how can you support the tea party? do you choose to just disregard the history of legal economic disparity that minorities and women had to deal with in this country? the tea party makes no logical sense to me...we'll oppress you, make you live in the worst housing areas, go to the worst schools, not allow you to have credit cards, then give a few things back for like 10 years, and then throw our hands up and say "everyone's on an even playing field - go"! that is the most asinine, ahistorical, bullshit economic policy I've ever heard of. so yes I would say you do not have a basic understanding of history. people can get PhDs without having a basic understanding of history (see: Ron Paul).
I had no idea the Tea Party was able to accomplish so much in less then two years! Wow! :shock:
That's your response really? How about a discussion of a history which is what this debate was about? That history is something Tea Party people choose to ignore, because it essentially rips apart any argument they present. The whole point of the Tea Party and Libertarian economic policy is to put everything on the free market and let the market decide what everything is worth. What these idiots don't get is that the social and economic value placed on particular things have been generated through a history of over and under valuing particular things (i.e. how is what Phil Knight does worth billions, while a housewife makes nothing? B/c the market bears is ridiculous, it's because we've socially conditioned one thing to be worth more than another). Additionally it provides the false sense of self-accomplishment to people with the stupid argument that "I got what I got because I worked hard" with no sense of social issues whatsoever. The only way that is true is if parents are not allowed to spend money on their children because that's a form of welfare, or send their kids to better schools because that's a form of welfare, or feed them healthier food because that's a form of welfare, and so on. Then we test these kids for various forms of aptitude (academic, athletic, musical, etc.) and place them according to their abilities not who mommy and daddy were. Then they go and earn their way to what they got. Sounds ludicrous right? Because it is ludicrous, but it's really the only way anyone can actually argue they got to where they did with no help. Now of course a bunch of you will claim that isn't true and offer pithy defenses for an idiotic economic policy, but the Tea Party is really about trying to create a economic caste system in America so that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Think about it why would you be trying to not help the poor because your being taxed is so patently unfair. What a joke.
I cannot tell you how disappointing it is that someone who is clearly as well read as you throws out words like idiots to describe people who disagree with you. Libertarian =/= tea party first off.
Quit with the class warfare. If you don't think it is hard work to go to a good school you are fooling yourself(and judging from past posts I don't think it is possible for you to think that). If you don't think it is hard work for parents to raise a child with values and send them to a good school you are fooling yourself. people on an individual level are responsible for the choices they make, that isn't to say they are responsible for the choices they are given. Is it possible to go from the ghetto to the top paid CEO in the land, answer is yes...is it probable...no...but it also isn't probable for kids who grow up in good, strong families either. The fundamental difference between a libertarian like myself (not an idiot by the way) and a democrat or liberal is what we believe is best for EVERY member of society. That doesn't make me an idiot. Do you honestly believe that that if we simply adopted everything that the left of center folks want the whole thing would magically be fixed? No problems anywhere? reality is the answer lies somewhere in the middle. And that is why it is so frustrating for everyone...
There are multitudes of forces put on every individual in every society. Ultimately i believe if you want your grand-kids to have a better life you need to make smart choices for yourself now...Self sacrifice is a lost value. Not everyone's life gets to be perfect...and even if you are rich, more often than not you will still have problems. If you allow people to get off the hook by blaming societal forces for everything that is wrong you are missing the point of being human. we can all choose to have better lives...Whether we get them or not is up to us...that doesn't mean we can all simply choose to make a million dollars a year...I chose to better my life, and through my hard work I got there. It wasn't easy and I didn't start with a silver spoon in my mouth...my real advantage was having parents who, although they couldn't help me financially were able to help me in other ways. The state, no matter how hard it tries, will NEVER be able to represent or replace a support system for the people. Formulas that make decisions about whether or not someone gets help can never replace a parent coming into a child's house, picking them up off the floor and screaming at them to get their shit straight. God dammit I miss my Dad.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
First I'm sorry about your dad that sucks. Second, sorry about flipping out I just got very frustrated with other things and took it out on a post. Socially I am full on with Libertarianism (govt stay the hell out of my personal life, but I feel that economically it takes out any sort of care for others. I understand Libertarian doesn't equal tea party, but economically they are very similar. Why quit with the class warfare isn't that what this is all about? This is the crux of why I think Libertarian economic policy is bad. If you tell me to quit with it then you are telling me that I can't use my main argument, when that is THE argument. What would you prefer me to call it?
I didn't say it wasn't hard work to do that, I have a PhD myself - it's not easy. Further I grew up very working class (the oldest of 6 then 8 in a 2 bedroom rental) where my mom did daycare and my dad made less than 40k per year. I went to community college, did well, got a scholarship to a private school, got an assistantship for grad school and lived in my Uncle's basement for 3 years. So much could have gone wrong on my way to a PhD that didn't, so it was a mix of luck and hard work that got me here.
The second fundamental disagreement I have with you is that there is evidence that the state did help bring the working class better education, etc. through the 60s and 70s which is when the economic retrenchment began because rich people saw their power waning and wanted it back. Shockingly rich people are richer than ever at the expense of everyone else. Despite the fact that we should all be pissed off they also have the access to all forms of communication to keep spinning the American Dream mythology while they pocket more and more loot.
Third I don't believe that any choice is a "free" choice it's loaded with history, personal background, etc. Does that mean someone is fully free of blame for where they are - no. But I can understand why a kid who grew up in Baltimore, where tax reductions on the wealthy have resulted in less money for their education, and other necessities plus what money is left gets spent on stupid shit like Camden Yards, M&T Bank Stadium, and the freaking Grand Prix end up on the streets. Did he/she have a choice? Yes, but that choice was far more limited than say Paris Hilton or even mine. Getting back to Jason P's argument, if we went to a radically free market society this would be exacerbated if we reduced taxes and social welfare programs even more.
Fourth, we have the issue of welfare. Did you, I, or anyone earn our parents or did we get welfare? How is that just dismissed in a Libertarian argument?
P.S. I don't think Libertarians are wrong because I am unwilling to consider other ways of doing things. I've done my research, like most of its social policy, but think that it's economically stunted.
i don't think there would be a liberal tea party. most liberals have more than a high school education and have a little better knowledge about the issues. no liberal would have said "get your government hands off of my medicare" because they know that medicare IS government insurance...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
gimmesome...i don't think all tea partiers are stupid, and many times they are the one's being taxed more than everyone else. they are usually small business owners, or the like that have been convinced it's the poor taking their loot, when in reality it's not true - it's the really fucking rich that's doing it.
i don't think there would be a liberal tea party. most liberals have more than a high school education and have a little better knowledge about the issues. no liberal would have said "get your government hands off of my medicare" because they know that medicare IS government insurance...
no but a liberal would say "now i don't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage...if i help him he is gonna help me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
stupid people everywhere of all political persuasions...so get off your high horse...or better yet, ride on up to the iron range in mn you will find a tremendous amount of retarded liberals...should i base my assumptions about liberals all off of my dealings with them?
They disagree with your assumption about what the government should be. Get over it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i don't think there would be a liberal tea party. most liberals have more than a high school education and have a little better knowledge about the issues. no liberal would have said "get your government hands off of my medicare" because they know that medicare IS government insurance...
no but a liberal would say "now i don't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage...if i help him he is gonna help me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
stupid people everywhere of all political persuasions...so get off your high horse...or better yet, ride on up to the iron range in mn you will find a tremendous amount of retarded liberals...should i base my assumptions about liberals all off of my dealings with them?
They disagree with your assumption about what the government should be. Get over it.
there are stupid people on all sides, but the tea party has shown me absolutely nothing except how to be a hardliner with positions on the issues that are ill advised, and in some cases plain stupid...ie: trickle down economics which has been a 30 year FAILURE, and then how to blame the other guy for the tea party's unwillingness to bend or compromise.
don't make me post more pictures from tea party rallies...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
First I'm sorry about your dad that sucks. Second, sorry about flipping out I just got very frustrated with other things and took it out on a post. Socially I am full on with Libertarianism (govt stay the hell out of my personal life, but I feel that economically it takes out any sort of care for others. I understand Libertarian doesn't equal tea party, but economically they are very similar. Why quit with the class warfare isn't that what this is all about? This is the crux of why I think Libertarian economic policy is bad. If you tell me to quit with it then you are telling me that I can't use my main argument, when that is THE argument. What would you prefer me to call it?
I didn't say it wasn't hard work to do that, I have a PhD myself - it's not easy. Further I grew up very working class (the oldest of 6 then 8 in a 2 bedroom rental) where my mom did daycare and my dad made less than 40k per year. I went to community college, did well, got a scholarship to a private school, got an assistantship for grad school and lived in my Uncle's basement for 3 years. So much could have gone wrong on my way to a PhD that didn't, so it was a mix of luck and hard work that got me here.
The second fundamental disagreement I have with you is that there is evidence that the state did help bring the working class better education, etc. through the 60s and 70s which is when the economic retrenchment began because rich people saw their power waning and wanted it back. Shockingly rich people are richer than ever at the expense of everyone else. Despite the fact that we should all be pissed off they also have the access to all forms of communication to keep spinning the American Dream mythology while they pocket more and more loot.
Third I don't believe that any choice is a "free" choice it's loaded with history, personal background, etc. Does that mean someone is fully free of blame for where they are - no. But I can understand why a kid who grew up in Baltimore, where tax reductions on the wealthy have resulted in less money for their education, and other necessities plus what money is left gets spent on stupid shit like Camden Yards, M&T Bank Stadium, and the freaking Grand Prix end up on the streets. Did he/she have a choice? Yes, but that choice was far more limited than say Paris Hilton or even mine. Getting back to Jason P's argument, if we went to a radically free market society this would be exacerbated if we reduced taxes and social welfare programs even more.
Fourth, we have the issue of welfare. Did you, I, or anyone earn our parents or did we get welfare? How is that just dismissed in a Libertarian argument?
P.S. I don't think Libertarians are wrong because I am unwilling to consider other ways of doing things. I've done my research, like most of its social policy, but think that it's economically stunted.
I guess that is where you and I will have to differ. I don't think a government that controls the economy of a country can or will get out of your social life. That is the rub. If you wan them involved in one aspect they are going to need to be involved in it all. I believe to my core that if all governments, state local and federal would cease to doll out welfare in the current system EVERYONE would be better off. That isn't to say stop all public aid, but there needs to be a change in the entitlement culture that is being created in the name of help. The working poor are in the toughest situation of all. They aren't rewarded for working harder because the aid they need goes away as they do. You see as the formulas for need based aid are continued to be used to justify giving more to the less fortunate it also takes away the will of the people to work hard enough to not qualify for aid any longer. So what that has done now, as it was started with the best intentions, is create a 2nd and someitmes 3rd generation that grew up watching their parents and grandparents living on welfare programs and thinking that is how life is. THat is the best it can get...well that isn't the case.
There may be a correlation between taxing the rich less and the poor getting poorer but it cannot be solely attributed to tax rates. The rich already pay for about 90% of the tax bill. Now you probably aren't advocating for the rich to pay more of that percent are you? I suppose if they have 90% of the wealth it is fair that they pay 90% of the tax burden...
Their is a golden rule in parenting that I have come to raise my daughter by and which is "never do for a child what they can do for themselves." I realize that the history of the country and the systemic policy decisions made for 200 years have had damaging affects, but what I would say is that is what happens when you want the government highly involved with over reaching power...So as you eliminate the power the system and its rules and regulations place on people, the freer those people will be to succeed on their own. The less power the government has to me = the more power the people have to control their own existence. Libertarianism doesn't mean no government, just limited government.
as to your comments about welfare and the family...that is a ludicrous statement. Of course I didn't earn my parents(although maybe I did in a past life)...What I can say is that in inner cities we have seen a destruction of a traditional family setting. We could argue until we are blue in the face about why that has happened, but more importantly what we as a society have chosen to do is support that lifestyle by taking care of the kids out of necessity. While I agree it is very necessary to help take care of those kids, what those kids learn is that no matter what my father has done, or my mother has done, the government will give me something I didn't have to earn. There is a reason people who are given lots of money rarely respect a dollar. It is much more fulfilling in life to earn what you have gotten. NO one is proud of a grade they received if they cheated...but everyone to a person is excited to no end when they get an A they feel like they earned. Life is no different. If you feel in even a small way you have earned what you have the likelihood that you will be able to pass on a feeling of accomplishment to the children you have is higher.
but i think you and I want the same thing...the poor to have better lives and chances...I think we just disagree on how to get there.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i don't think there would be a liberal tea party. most liberals have more than a high school education and have a little better knowledge about the issues. no liberal would have said "get your government hands off of my medicare" because they know that medicare IS government insurance...
no but a liberal would say "now i don't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage...if i help him he is gonna help me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
stupid people everywhere of all political persuasions...so get off your high horse...or better yet, ride on up to the iron range in mn you will find a tremendous amount of retarded liberals...should i base my assumptions about liberals all off of my dealings with them?
They disagree with your assumption about what the government should be. Get over it.
there are stupid people on all sides, but the tea party has shown me absolutely nothing except how to be a hardliner with positions on the issues that are ill advised, and in some cases plain stupid...ie: trickle down economics which has been a 30 year FAILURE, and then how to blame the other guy for the tea party's unwillingness to bend or compromise.
don't make me post more pictures from tea party rallies...
but you are focusing on the people, not the ideology. There are times in history where people have stood fast and not compromised and good things have come out of it. This may be one of those times. Things HAVE to change. We cannot continue down the path of monetizing and selling our debt. It only allows us to get in more and more trouble.
And yes, please don't post anymore signs...I cannot even tell which ones are real anymore and which ones are shopped. I am not saying there aren't idiots who align with the tea party, or libertarians, or conservatives or republicans, or democrats....there are plenty of idiots...I just want people who are smart like yourself to understand that the ideology isn't nearly as bad as the idiots who only half understand it.
let me throw in one of these, , I read my post and it came off kind of debbie downer like...on second thought create a thread with signs in it, they are good for a laugh. I remember watching wrestling as a kid and thinking to myself...why does every sign say "Your the man" ...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Until the Tea Party is willing to have real conversations, sit down at the table and reach actual compromises for the betterment of the country, I, for one, think "idiots", is an entirely appropriate description. I'm apologize to those of you who may be thrown into a general descriptor as a result of the childish behavior of some of your elected leaders.
Secondly, anyone who has used Federal Financail Aid to attend college, anyone who attended public school growing-up, anyone collecting social security, using medicaire, riding mass transit, and so on and so on supports socialism. Whether you like it or not. So all this nonsense about government this and government that really needs to stop.
Comments
If you think the best way towards recovery is as simple as cutting spending without raising taxes and infusing capitol into the economy, then, yes, I would question your understanding of the principles you supposedly teach. Timothy Gaithner has pretty strong credentials himself, but I assume you think him unequipped to fix this crises?
What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.
And "fair share" should not be used anymore then a term like "death panel". Call a spade a spade. It's insulting to say someone who made $500K and payed $175K in taxes to pony up and pay their "fair share". The term should be, "hey-man-we-really-fucked-up-with-our-budgeting-and-we-really-need-some-of-your-money share".
I think we ought to look really hard at closing these tax loopholes and shady accounting practices that are about as wide as the Grand Canyon. If we could get the rich to pay what they honestly owe, without hiding behind their accountants, that would be a nice start.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
I think you meant Timothy Geithner, wise one.
So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals.
Seriously, man. Grow up.
Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite.
More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
- I was unaware of the editorial standards of the Pearl Jam message board. My apologies to Mr. Geithner and his family.
"So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals."
"Seriously, man. Grow up."
- As it relates to the current U.S. economic crises, yes. The "grow up" part was a nice touch, though. Really shows off your humility.
"Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite."
- And I would argue that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 - what followed was an economic boom; conversely, Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and, well, here we are.
"More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%."
- How well has that worked over the last 10 years?
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Last time you asked for something I tried posting a link but then you didn't say anything so perhaps you missed it? Anyway, here is the thread I posted a link to:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=161390&start=30#p3733050
The thing is most libertarians are either small-business owners or 2 full-time working families who idiotically blame their plight on the poor lazy people on welfare (75% of whom have at least one full-time job but let's not let facts get in the way of a good commercial) instead of the rich motherfuckers who have been creating this mythology and have the wealth to shove it down our throats. Ask who benefits most if Libertarians win? The people who already have the cash plain and simple.
On a more serious note, are the residents of Park Heights Ave thriving under the current system? Do the rich need a Libertarian win to benefit anymore then under the current system? Why does the old leadership of the GOP fear the Tea Party and Libertarian movements and try to discredit them? These are the questions you should consider.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Anyway, my main message is that the federal government needs to spend within their means. If taxes are raised, then I demand a balanced budget. That's all. But to raise taxes without a serious plan to cut spending is insanity to me.
Oh, and the 12 lawmaker budget committes that was put together ... guess who funded their campaigns ... Special Interest Groups (shocking!)
http://www.timesonline.com/news/politics/special-interests-gave-millions-to-budget-panel/article_b93689ed-8a42-57da-ab2a-a179542e1e3b.html
they just cut a trillion dollars of spending, and the "super congress" is supposed to cut another 2 trillion.
if they can agree on anything with an even number that is..
you can not get out of debt simply by stopping to spend money. you have to have INCOME to pay on the debt, do you not?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So until a plan exists where a trillions dollars has actually been cut within 365 day cycle, I won't accept the trade-off.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I cannot tell you how disappointing it is that someone who is clearly as well read as you throws out words like idiots to describe people who disagree with you. Libertarian =/= tea party first off.
Quit with the class warfare. If you don't think it is hard work to go to a good school you are fooling yourself(and judging from past posts I don't think it is possible for you to think that). If you don't think it is hard work for parents to raise a child with values and send them to a good school you are fooling yourself. people on an individual level are responsible for the choices they make, that isn't to say they are responsible for the choices they are given. Is it possible to go from the ghetto to the top paid CEO in the land, answer is yes...is it probable...no...but it also isn't probable for kids who grow up in good, strong families either. The fundamental difference between a libertarian like myself (not an idiot by the way) and a democrat or liberal is what we believe is best for EVERY member of society. That doesn't make me an idiot. Do you honestly believe that that if we simply adopted everything that the left of center folks want the whole thing would magically be fixed? No problems anywhere? reality is the answer lies somewhere in the middle. And that is why it is so frustrating for everyone...
There are multitudes of forces put on every individual in every society. Ultimately i believe if you want your grand-kids to have a better life you need to make smart choices for yourself now...Self sacrifice is a lost value. Not everyone's life gets to be perfect...and even if you are rich, more often than not you will still have problems. If you allow people to get off the hook by blaming societal forces for everything that is wrong you are missing the point of being human. we can all choose to have better lives...Whether we get them or not is up to us...that doesn't mean we can all simply choose to make a million dollars a year...I chose to better my life, and through my hard work I got there. It wasn't easy and I didn't start with a silver spoon in my mouth...my real advantage was having parents who, although they couldn't help me financially were able to help me in other ways. The state, no matter how hard it tries, will NEVER be able to represent or replace a support system for the people. Formulas that make decisions about whether or not someone gets help can never replace a parent coming into a child's house, picking them up off the floor and screaming at them to get their shit straight. God dammit I miss my Dad.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I didn't say it wasn't hard work to do that, I have a PhD myself - it's not easy. Further I grew up very working class (the oldest of 6 then 8 in a 2 bedroom rental) where my mom did daycare and my dad made less than 40k per year. I went to community college, did well, got a scholarship to a private school, got an assistantship for grad school and lived in my Uncle's basement for 3 years. So much could have gone wrong on my way to a PhD that didn't, so it was a mix of luck and hard work that got me here.
The second fundamental disagreement I have with you is that there is evidence that the state did help bring the working class better education, etc. through the 60s and 70s which is when the economic retrenchment began because rich people saw their power waning and wanted it back. Shockingly rich people are richer than ever at the expense of everyone else. Despite the fact that we should all be pissed off they also have the access to all forms of communication to keep spinning the American Dream mythology while they pocket more and more loot.
Third I don't believe that any choice is a "free" choice it's loaded with history, personal background, etc. Does that mean someone is fully free of blame for where they are - no. But I can understand why a kid who grew up in Baltimore, where tax reductions on the wealthy have resulted in less money for their education, and other necessities plus what money is left gets spent on stupid shit like Camden Yards, M&T Bank Stadium, and the freaking Grand Prix end up on the streets. Did he/she have a choice? Yes, but that choice was far more limited than say Paris Hilton or even mine. Getting back to Jason P's argument, if we went to a radically free market society this would be exacerbated if we reduced taxes and social welfare programs even more.
Fourth, we have the issue of welfare. Did you, I, or anyone earn our parents or did we get welfare? How is that just dismissed in a Libertarian argument?
P.S. I don't think Libertarians are wrong because I am unwilling to consider other ways of doing things. I've done my research, like most of its social policy, but think that it's economically stunted.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
no but a liberal would say "now i don't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying my mortgage...if i help him he is gonna help me"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
stupid people everywhere of all political persuasions...so get off your high horse...or better yet, ride on up to the iron range in mn you will find a tremendous amount of retarded liberals...should i base my assumptions about liberals all off of my dealings with them?
They disagree with your assumption about what the government should be. Get over it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
don't make me post more pictures from tea party rallies...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I guess that is where you and I will have to differ. I don't think a government that controls the economy of a country can or will get out of your social life. That is the rub. If you wan them involved in one aspect they are going to need to be involved in it all. I believe to my core that if all governments, state local and federal would cease to doll out welfare in the current system EVERYONE would be better off. That isn't to say stop all public aid, but there needs to be a change in the entitlement culture that is being created in the name of help. The working poor are in the toughest situation of all. They aren't rewarded for working harder because the aid they need goes away as they do. You see as the formulas for need based aid are continued to be used to justify giving more to the less fortunate it also takes away the will of the people to work hard enough to not qualify for aid any longer. So what that has done now, as it was started with the best intentions, is create a 2nd and someitmes 3rd generation that grew up watching their parents and grandparents living on welfare programs and thinking that is how life is. THat is the best it can get...well that isn't the case.
There may be a correlation between taxing the rich less and the poor getting poorer but it cannot be solely attributed to tax rates. The rich already pay for about 90% of the tax bill. Now you probably aren't advocating for the rich to pay more of that percent are you? I suppose if they have 90% of the wealth it is fair that they pay 90% of the tax burden...
Their is a golden rule in parenting that I have come to raise my daughter by and which is "never do for a child what they can do for themselves." I realize that the history of the country and the systemic policy decisions made for 200 years have had damaging affects, but what I would say is that is what happens when you want the government highly involved with over reaching power...So as you eliminate the power the system and its rules and regulations place on people, the freer those people will be to succeed on their own. The less power the government has to me = the more power the people have to control their own existence. Libertarianism doesn't mean no government, just limited government.
as to your comments about welfare and the family...that is a ludicrous statement. Of course I didn't earn my parents(although maybe I did in a past life)...What I can say is that in inner cities we have seen a destruction of a traditional family setting. We could argue until we are blue in the face about why that has happened, but more importantly what we as a society have chosen to do is support that lifestyle by taking care of the kids out of necessity. While I agree it is very necessary to help take care of those kids, what those kids learn is that no matter what my father has done, or my mother has done, the government will give me something I didn't have to earn. There is a reason people who are given lots of money rarely respect a dollar. It is much more fulfilling in life to earn what you have gotten. NO one is proud of a grade they received if they cheated...but everyone to a person is excited to no end when they get an A they feel like they earned. Life is no different. If you feel in even a small way you have earned what you have the likelihood that you will be able to pass on a feeling of accomplishment to the children you have is higher.
but i think you and I want the same thing...the poor to have better lives and chances...I think we just disagree on how to get there.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but you are focusing on the people, not the ideology. There are times in history where people have stood fast and not compromised and good things have come out of it. This may be one of those times. Things HAVE to change. We cannot continue down the path of monetizing and selling our debt. It only allows us to get in more and more trouble.
And yes, please don't post anymore signs...I cannot even tell which ones are real anymore and which ones are shopped. I am not saying there aren't idiots who align with the tea party, or libertarians, or conservatives or republicans, or democrats....there are plenty of idiots...I just want people who are smart like yourself to understand that the ideology isn't nearly as bad as the idiots who only half understand it.
let me throw in one of these,
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Secondly, anyone who has used Federal Financail Aid to attend college, anyone who attended public school growing-up, anyone collecting social security, using medicaire, riding mass transit, and so on and so on supports socialism. Whether you like it or not. So all this nonsense about government this and government that really needs to stop.