• In total there are 29 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 28 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:Isn't the tea bag party an effort to address over taxation? Don't you think we have a real problem in the US with over taxation? When less than 50% of the people in this country pay any income tax at all it is amazing that this same group of people is allowed the power to influence how much the paying half pays.
The voice of reason speaks.

BTW, it used to be when you did your 1040, if you overpaid, you got the overpayment back. Last year my daughter did her taxes. She overpaid and not only got back the amount she overpaid, but several thousand dollars more. How did that happen? She got some of Chris O's money
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:
etudiant wrote:I don’t think there is a problem with over-taxation in the US.
Something tells me you don't know much about the tax system in the United States. When a person receives a bonus check for $20,000 (for doing an outstanding job at work) and the government takes $8,000 off the top there is a problem. This is what happens in the United States. The government takes 40% of that person's "reward" for hard work. Doesn't this serve as a disincentive to work hard?

Where does the $8,000 that has been taken away get spent? In the United States we currently have a "first-time home buyer tax credit" implemented. This program was implemented by the Democratic Party, the party that believes in redistributing wealth. It expires soon. But literally millions of first-time home buyers have received and will be receiving for FREE an $8,000 tax credit.

A person that busts their ass and earns a $20,000 bonus at work is now taking that $20,000 pile of cash, removing $8,000 of it, and handing it to someone else who has not earned a penny of it. If this seems fair to you then I'm not even sure where to go with the conversation.

Like Robert Tulip said in his quote this "democracy" is slowly turning into a tyranny by the majority. The majority vote into office those politicians that will essentially steal from the earners and redistribute to the non-earners. This is the epitome of evil and the recipe for failure and disaster.

. . . <snip>

I haven't been hanging around here much lately, but this is one excellent post. I'm glad I didn't miss it.

Regarding the Tea Partiers, there surely is a dumb-as-dirt element to it, but I think it's true that generally that's what we are being led to see. Here, David Harsanyi from the The Denver Post shows us a more moderate, reasonable side. It may be reassuring to hear that according to a recent poll, Tea Party activists are "more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory and more closely aligned philosophically with the wider electorate than any big city newsroom in America."

And, this one's for johnson: "A plurality of Tea Party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency."

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/

Harsanyi: 24-hour party people
Why the Tea Party isn't as "radical" as you think

By David Harsanyi
Posted: 04/16/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT


Yesterday, I waded into a mass of Tea Party protesters gathered at the front of Colorado's Capitol and completely forgot to brace myself for a "small-scale mimicry of Kristall- nacht" (as New York Times columnist Frank Rich once characterized these events).

As it turns out, earlier I happened to peruse a new CBS/New York Times poll detailing the attitudes of Tea Party activists, who, it turns out, are more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory and more closely aligned philosophically with the wider electorate than any big city newsroom in America.

What seemed to be the biggest news derived from the poll nationally? A plurality of Tea Party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency — proving, I suppose, that some people have the ability to be exceptionally fond of a political celebrity without elevating her to sainthood.

More significantly, the polling showed that most Tea Party activists believe the taxes they pay are "fair." The largest number of them wanted their movement to work to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or lowering taxes. Whether you concur or not with this viewpoint, it exhibits more economic sophistication than we often hear from pandering senatorial candidates.

It was news that Tea Party activists — unlike our president or most senators — send their children to public schools. (With a public monopoly in place, where else are they expected to send their children?) A majority of them also deem Social Security and Medicare worthy taxpayer burdens, putting a crimp in the left-wing mythology that the anarchist mob is about to explode.

And while Tea Party supporters are more conservative than the average voter on social issues, as well — particularly abortion, according to a separate Gallup poll — The New York Times reports that 8 in 10 Tea Party activists believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

How long have we been hearing from moderate, sensible, worldly Republican types that if only — if only — the right found God on economic issues and lost God on the social ones there would be an expansion of appeal and support? Apparently they were right.

Now, I won't allege to have observed any sweeping displays of multiculturism at the Tea Party shindig I attended (though, without question, it featured more diversity than my own cloistered, rock-ribbed, lefty neighborhood). According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, "Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large."

More specifically, the economic strata in which the Tea Party movement resides will bear the brunt of Washington's economic reorganization, namely the middle class. The majority of Americans are middle class and their concerns (the economy, job creation, etc.) more closely mirror the Tea Party than Washington's progressive agenda (the environment, entitlements, etc.).

Naturally, the hyperventilating and demonization of these crackpots who carry around copies of the Constitution and babble about the 10th Amendment will continue unabated. It is, perhaps, as much a matter of a cultural divergence as it is an ideological disagreement. Yet, once again, the evidence demonstrates that by the very definition of the word, the Tea Party is less "radical" than are the elected officials busy transforming the nation.

Or, as one sign succinctly put it: "There are no crazies here. They are all in Washington, D.C."

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to say there were "no crazies here," but I can tell you every word on the sign was spelled correctly.

E-mail David Harsanyi at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/davidharsanyi.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

This discussion illustrates the rather extreme partisan confusion that besets American politics. The whole system is under some pressure from the combination of the US trying to be the world policeman while China is moving into joint economic leadership with extremely low labour costs that make US manufacturing uncompetitive. If you look at what US taxes are used for, there is about 50% on welfare programs, 20% on the military, 5% on interest and 25% on the rest - see pie chart of US budget spending by category. America's comparative advantage is its human capital and sound institutions, but it is not clear that sustaining these is a political focus.

The protest song B Movie by Gil Scott Heron complained at the time of Ronald Reagan's election that America had changed from being a producer to a consumer. The tea party movement illustrates how the extremely rich are using the fury of the producers in the American economy to mobilise the Republican base. The danger is that genuine concern can be utilised for sectional greed. (By the way, isn't it slightly rude to compare these people to scrotum suckers by calling them Tea Baggers?)

The underlying question here is the strategic vision of security and growth. Cutting welfare may divert resources from consumption to productive investment, but at the cost of social cohesion. America remains extremely rich by world standards, with income average of $46,000 per person. The old problem of private wealth and public squalor presents a risk of the rich retreating behind walls and allowing growth of crime and slums.

My opinion is that there needs to be much more honest and analytical debate about security. The USA could redirect government resources that are now unproductive, which I suspect includes a fair bit of the budgets for welfare and defence, to invest instead in global climate security and global economic security, including a focus on private sector development in poor countries. This would actually be a way to grow the US economy, build its relations with other nations, and plan for response to peak oil and global warming through innovative technology.

The US security incompetence around Hurricane Katrina was stunning. It looks idiotic to make innocent people take off their shoes at airports, but allow nature to destroy one of the nation's greatest cities through negligence and indifference.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

And, this one's for johnson: "A plurality of Tea Party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency."
:lol:
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
bleachededen

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Finds books under furniture
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:50 pm
14
Has thanked: 171 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

I have to admit that I feel pretty worthless after reading all of this.

As I sit here, posting every day on BookTalk, which accounts for about 50% of what I do during any given day, I'm collecting state and federal money in order to help pay for my expenses, because I have a mental disability that generally cripples my ability to work, especially if customers or the general public is a large part of the job.

I have a college degree, I am very well read and well spoken, I write well, and as long as I have a calculator, I'm not so bad at math, but as soon as I come into contact with other people, I crack under the mental anguish and am unable to perform even the simplest task. This only feeds into my mental disorder and makes overcoming it to work even more difficult, and I have often left work in tears because I just couldn't handle it, even if it sounds like it would be the easiest job in the world to other people. I am very intelligent but very sensitive, prone to extreme anxiety and mood swings, and can have panic attacks at the drop of a hat. If you've ever worked in retail sales or even been in a WalMart for more than five minutes, you can understand how these environments combined with my mental problems could lead to a huge disaster. I had to leave my last job because even though I liked straightening the store and counting down the registers, I couldn't handle working with customers (who can be far meaner than anyone who hasn't worked in sales could imagine), and my boss and another coworker weren't treating me with much respect, so that even though I'd had the job for about 18 months (which was a record for me), by the time I decided to leave I was in tears every night and prayed for sickness every day so I wouldn't have to go to work. I didn't even work that many hours, being part time, but it just became insufferable for me and I had to leave, and because I left because of my condition I was granted unemployment, which is one of the only reasons I get by.

I know you don't want to hear sob stories, Chris, and I don't mean to be whining here, but I just feel pretty useless, after reading your post, because I'm one of the people who is getting the tax money that so many people think should go elsewhere. It's not that I don't want to work, it's actually quite the contrary. I very much want to work, because I want to do something with myself and my life, if not to be part of the working class than just to have something to do with all of the skills and intelligence I have, but because of the poor economy and the location I currently live in, finding a job that would utilize my skills without exposing me to the public is ridiculously hard. I am open to relocating if I could find a decent job, but again, so far no such offers have presented themselves. If I also didn't have the help of my parents, I wouldn't be able to make rent or have groceries every month, even with my boyfriend here to help with the expenses. This city has always been a pretty poor place for young people to make a living, and now it's even worse. I feel like a horrible leech on society everyday, but as of right now, I have no other options.

I'm pretty sure you weren't directing the claim that those who don't provide are getting things handed to them and that that is disgusting at me or anyone in my kind of situation, but, being sensitive as well as in this category, like it or not, I couldn't help but feel bad because I know that only the best and the smartest should be rewarded for their hard work, but I feel as though I could be the best, smartest, and most creative if I could just find a job that would be able to let me be a hard worker but take my disabilities into consideration, so that I work my best and produce well without melting down, and having resources available to me to help keep a meltdown from even happening.

I agree with you that many people do milk welfare (especially when you get more money per child, so that an unwed mother on welfare will get more money if she has another child, even though she's not taking care of the ones she already has), but I'm not one of them, and because I felt so bad after reading what you said, I felt obligated to explain myself. I am not intentionally mooching off the government, but I have no other choice right now, and I would definitely be against any law that would restrict people in my situation from getting the help they need. I certainly never thought I'd need this kind of help, but here I am, and I wouldn't even be doing this well without the government services that are lending me their hands now.

That being said, does anyone know of anybody who might need a copy editor, technical writer, or proofreader? I'm an awesome proofreader. :mrgreen:
User avatar
etudiant
Masters
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:33 pm
14
Location: canada
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

I agree with you that some of the extreme political ideas expressed in recent years can be tiring. I am really amazed that many of these arguments such as taxation and the rights of governments vs. the individual, and similar persist in the US.

You gave the example of a cheetah, Chris. It is of course a predator that makes its way by killing those weaker than itself, often the very young or injured, until it encounters an animal that happens to be stronger than itself, when it is then itself killed. Not a bad comparison to capitalism I guess, but certainly not the way I would choose to organize a society.

I must admit that I read you incorrectly at first when you made the point of the 50% of people who do not pay taxes. I thought you were about to discuss all the businessmen that have moved their head office overseas, to places like Dubai or the Bahamas, in order to avoid paying tax, while at the same time demanding all the rights of US citizenship. Or perhaps the affluent who hire teams of tax lawyers to find any and every loophole to get them out of paying. Or those who park their money in Swiss bank accounts. That half.

As to the other 50%, well I am not going to make any claims about tax laws, that’s certainly not something I know a whole lot about. But whether you pay a little more than those in Canada or in Europe, or a little less, (and from my limited knowledge you are about in the middle) I think there are some broader points to be made.

What I see when I read about anger generated from taxation are people making some underlying assumptions. This is quite reasonable; all our opinions must come from some set of beliefs.

First of all, lets look at income. It’s reasonable to expect that those that contribute to society should be paid, and more so for those that do more. But what constitutes value or fair remuneration is highly subjective. Many factors go in to the makeup of prices and wages, some of which the individual has some control over, and some that he definitely does not. Many Chinese factory workers make somewhere’s around $100/ per month for toiling 12 hour days. My guess is that they do not think this particularly fair, as there have been some protests and even riots over this. But they are small cogs in a very large machine, who I am sure are just trying to survive.

In this part of the world, a plumber will probably charge around $100/hr for fixing your pipes. So how much does he deserve? In Canada, he has probably got his ticket through a college program, supported in part by the taxpayer. Maybe he took out a student loan, again supported in part by the taxpayer. They are not really busting their ass for the money they get; it’s just that this is what has become accepted as normal. And yes, you can make the argument that one should just let the market decide, and those rates will come down. But the market is a blunt and inefficient instrument, and does not work without monitoring, adjustment, and regulation from someone who is at least somewhat accountable to the public. The recent financial meltdown provides ample evidence for us here. Plumbers charge what they charge because they know what other plumbers charge. In this sense there is no market, as there is not in other circumstances.

The public sector can be just as extreme. A local magazine here recently released the salaries of those working in city government. There were 75 making over $100k a year. These are middle managers in a city of 81,000. I would be willing to bet my much smaller salary that none of them bust their ass by any conceivable definition.

I have no sympathy for the “entrepreneur”that makes a killing selling electric letter openers, and then bleats because he is expected to pay tax on his winnings. Or for the real estate agent that makes a tidy profit through sharp practice, perhaps cutting into some families retirement plan, even if he is working within the framework of the law, and then whines and complains that he is required to pay taxes on it. These are examples of people who contribute nothing to society, yet feel a sense of entitlement and even resentment at having to contribute anything at all to their community. In short, people get what they get. Sometimes they deserve it, in other cases they do not.

So how much should people have to pay in tax on all the money they have “earned”? This brings up another underlying belief I think. It goes something like this: most of what goes in taxes is pretty much wasted. Bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, and also a lot of money is just handed out in welfare plans. Yes there can certainly be an organizational culture of waste, no doubt, although from my experience it is probably less than most think, overall. But the point is that inefficiency and incompetence are human traits, and carry over quite nicely into private business. If a civil servant is incompetent, he is not going to achieve instant enlightenment by taking a post in the private sector. Those that run private corporations can be wildly greedy, bungling, ineffectual, and act at variance with the public interest. Just look at outfits like Enron.

For most, except the very rich, the services obtained through taxes would have to be paid for one way or another, through a private or public scheme. There is no guarantee that you will have a better manager for said service either way. If it is public, at least there is some accountability; in that there will at least be an election. If it is private, there is less accountability, plus someone is going to want to make a profit, on top of any other costs of doing business.

I am a little surprised by your energy around the tax monies going into social programs. The US probably spends less on these types of things than any other advanced industrial country in the world. Certainly there is always a small minority that will take advantage of any situation, and manipulate it for their own gain. But it has been my experience, and I have worked in this field, that most who end up taking benefits from programs like welfare or disability pensions, or what have you, don’t really like to, but have ended up where they are for a number of reasons. It is easy to say, just go out and get a job, but we live in an economy that is not designed to necessarily give everyone a job, much less one that is meaningful or that pays a living wage. I also think there is a perception that much more money goes to these types of programs than actually does. In BC, direct payments such as welfare comprise a tiny, tiny portion of the budget.

When considering these types of support payments, I am amused when those who become apoplectic over payments to individuals seem to be ok with much more massive bailouts of big business when corporate CEOs mess up. Someone messes up their own life, and is given a few hundred bucks; and a corporate manager screws up their company and is supported by millions from tax revenue (and of course they still get their bonus). Nope, that’s not the way I would do things.
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." - Karl Marx

I've always liked this quote, and pondered it.

The rich would not be rich without the lower echelons and also the societal structure that allows them profit. Though they earn more, they also owe more, for the systems that allow them to be elevated to live like kings. Those poor lazy people on welfare who have an entitlement philosophy need to contribute to society. The government needs to cut it's spending tremendously, but I'm not sure how. I do know that the answer is not to tax less and spend more, meanwhile building debt.

The truth is all gumbled up and hard to find, that's why I don't get overly involved in politics.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

bleachededen, I'll reply when I have the time to address your post. :) I promise.
bleachededen

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Finds books under furniture
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:50 pm
14
Has thanked: 171 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

No worries, Chris. I'll be here to read whatever you have to say whenever you have time to say it. :)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Let’s all place our well-appointed ridicule of Tea Baggers here.

Unread post

Interbane wrote:"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." - Karl Marx

I've always liked this quote, and pondered it.

The rich would not be rich without the lower echelons and also the societal structure that allows them profit. Though they earn more, they also owe more, for the systems that allow them to be elevated to live like kings. Those poor lazy people on welfare who have an entitlement philosophy need to contribute to society. The government needs to cut it's spending tremendously, but I'm not sure how. I do know that the answer is not to tax less and spend more, meanwhile building debt.

The truth is all gumbled up and hard to find, that's why I don't get overly involved in politics.
I will try to say more later but for now I did want to add to Interbane's comment.

The reason America is such a wealthy country is due to the success of capitalism. Without capitalism there wouldn't be so much wealth to distribute. Obviously there needs to be some kind of balance between helping the poor and not penalizing those who earn a lot of money by the sweat of their brow. For if you take away the incentive for hard labor by overtaxing those who are successful you start to sabotage the entire system. Big companies will relocate and the smartest, best entrepreneurs may be inclined to do business elsewhere. I'm just starting to learn about some of this stuff myself. And I tend to agree with the libertarian mindset that the less government involvement in economic matters the better. Government involvement almost always leads to the Law of Unintended Consequences which is kind of the same thing as Murphy's Law.

I really appreciated bleachededen's post and I'm glad she's able to find help currently. But I also suspect a laissez-faire economy would create conditions that would actually improve the potential for her to find meaningful employment. She is obviously very intelligent and talented and I don't doubt that she will eventually find a job that doesn't require interaction with customers.

As for government providing a helping hand to those who need it, I think we have to be very careful how large we make that umbrella of support. Make it too big and the this welfare system will foster a growing dependence on itself and cripple both the system and those who are being helped. Also, if the government wasn't there to help, private charities would spring into existence to fill the void.

I'm not saying the government should not provide any support, only that we should minimize it as much as possible.

Likewise, I think we can easily go too far the other way, which I suspect is what happened under the Bush Administration. Bush seemed to want to appease the economy at all costs, but the economy has its ups and downs and when the government interferes with those natural cycles it probably only makes matters worse.

Again, it's a question of balance.
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”