Whence the Tea Party...

[Saint_Cad]

@Robot_Arm

@Saint_Cad

Double Bullocks!!
The Democrats are not paying for health-care, the American tax-payers are unless Pelosi, Ried and Obama are opening up their personal checkbooks.

Uh, yeah. The federal government is funded by taxpayers.

I didn’t realize that was a new concept for you. Sorry.

Then the supporters of UHC should be honest and say the tax-payers are paying for it NOT the Democrats. Saying “the Democrats” are paying for it implies they are paying for it personally instead of committing all of us. It’s easy to be magnanimous with other people’s money.

=Digital Stimulus]I think you have an incorrect understanding of what “trickle-down economics” means. Here’s a hint: it is certainly NOT the same as “redistribution”.

Two things:
one, the points I was originally making was from the Tea Party perspective so strict accuracy is open to interpretation. But irregardless of accuracy, the Tea Partiers believe them to be true.

two, while government redistribution is not strictly trickle-down, it does have a similar theory
Republican trickle down: Rich have money -> rich spend money -> something magic -> poor are better off
Democratic social welfare: Rich have money -> rich pay taxes -> something magic -> poor are better off.

My argument was that to imply that the paradigm rich -> poor is not a variation of trickle-down is hypocritical. Call it forced trickle-down while bypassing the middle class if you want. And again, one could argue that trickle down is ineffective and social welfare is effective but the are both way to redistribute the money from the rich to the poor

[Frank]

@Saint_Cad

@Frank

This caught my eye. Would you educate me on Hoover giving money to the banks, please?

When the Great Depression hit, Hoover gave a ton of money to the banks to loan out. The banks held on to the money saying thank you very much. Sound familiar?

Can you cite that, please? I googled your assertion the other day, and found nothing.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Frank

@Saint_Cad

When the Great Depression hit, Hoover gave a ton of money to the banks to loan out. The banks held on to the money saying thank you very much. Sound familiar?

Can you cite that, please? I googled your assertion the other day, and found nothing.

I’m looking to, and what I’ve found says pretty much the opposite. From Wiki:

…[Milton] Friedman argued that the downward turn in the economy, starting with the stock market crash, would have been just another recession.[24] However, the Federal Reserve allowed some large public bank failures – particularly that of the New York Bank of the United States – which produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed. He claimed that, if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did, and the money supply would not have fallen as far and as fast as it did.[25] With significantly less money to go around, businessmen could not get new loans and could not even get their old loans renewed, forcing many to stop investing. This interpretation blames the Federal Reserve for inaction, especially the New York branch…

[Chronos]

My argument was that to imply that the paradigm rich -> poor is not a variation of trickle-down is hypocritical. Call it forced trickle-down while bypassing the middle class if you want. And again, one could argue that trickle down is ineffective and social welfare is effective but the are both way to redistribute the money from the rich to the poor

Except that the whole problem with the trickle-down idea is that it doesn’t trickle down: It consists of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich, and then the rich keep it. Is it really difficult to see that this is different from, and in fact pretty much opposite of, transferring money from the rich to the poor?

Then the supporters of UHC should be honest and say the tax-payers are paying for it NOT the Democrats. Saying “the Democrats” are paying for it implies they are paying for it personally instead of committing all of us. It’s easy to be magnanimous with other people’s money.

OK, then, the Democrats passed a plan and admitted that it had to be paid for. It’s still a lot more honest than the “This is what’s going to happen, but we’re not paying for it” the Republicans delivered.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Saint_Cad

two, while government redistribution is not strictly trickle-down, it does have a similar theory

No, really, it doesn’t. Unless you’re using Humpty Dumpty language.

[Robot_Arm]

@Saint_Cad

Then the supporters of UHC should be honest and say the tax-payers are paying for it NOT the Democrats. Saying “the Democrats” are paying for it implies they are paying for it personally instead of committing all of us.

Oh please, it’s a standard turn of phrase in political discussions. Think of it like “Wall Street reacted to the news…” A street is just asphalt with lines painted on it. It can’t react to anything, but we all know what the phrase means.

[emacknight]

@Robot_Arm

@Saint_Cad

Then the supporters of UHC should be honest and say the tax-payers are paying for it NOT the Democrats. Saying “the Democrats” are paying for it implies they are paying for it personally instead of committing all of us.

Oh please, it’s a standard turn of phrase in political discussions. Think of it like “Wall Street reacted to the news…” A street is just asphalt with lines painted on it. It can’t react to anything, but we all know what the phrase means.

They’ll certainly pay for it in November.

[Clothahump]

@Merijeek

@BlankSlate

One simple question for Starving Artist: Would the Tea Party movement exist had John McCain won the presidency in 2008?

That’s just silly. John McCain is a republican, and therefore would have worked toward smaller government, tax cuts, increased defense spending, he would have gotten the government out of everyone’s Medicare, and he would have cut taxes.

-Joe

Doubtful. McCain is a progressive. He’s just not as rabid about it as Obama and Clinton. Had he gotten elected, he probably would have wound up doing as much damage as Obama has, but it would have taken him longer and not been quite so noticeable.

[Saint_Cad]

@Boyo_Jim

@Frank

Can you cite that, please? I googled your assertion the other day, and found nothing.

I’m looking to, and what I’ve found says pretty much the opposite. From Wiki:

…[Milton] Friedman argued that the downward turn in the economy, starting with the stock market crash, would have been just another recession.[24] However, the Federal Reserve allowed some large public bank failures – particularly that of the New York Bank of the United States – which produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed. He claimed that, if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did, and the money supply would not have fallen as far and as fast as it did.[25] With significantly less money to go around, businessmen could not get new loans and could not even get their old loans renewed, forcing many to stop investing. This interpretation blames the Federal Reserve for inaction, especially the New York branch…

That’s because it wasn’t the Federal Reserve that did it, it was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932.

[Boyo_Jim]

Fine, please find a cite for it.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Clothahump

@Merijeek

That’s just silly. John McCain is a republican, and therefore would have worked toward smaller government, tax cuts, increased defense spending, he would have gotten the government out of everyone’s Medicare, and he would have cut taxes.

-Joe

Doubtful. McCain is a progressive. He’s just not as rabid about it as Obama and Clinton. Had he gotten elected, he probably would have wound up doing as much damage as Obama has, but it would have taken him longer and not been quite so noticeable.

Methinks you need to update your definition of “progressive”, as it applies to politics.

From Wikipedia: “Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party US. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Wellstone.”

Progressivism

Yeah, putting John McCain in that group seems off.

[emacknight]

@Boyo_Jim

Fine, please find a cite for it.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

[emacknight]

Here is a much more damaging admission by Obama:

“Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year–for everybody.”

[Boyo_Jim]

@emacknight

@Boyo_Jim

Fine, please find a cite for it.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation - Wikipedia

I found that. I meant a cite that the government (through this or some other institution) poured money into banks which kept it.

This site says nearly the opposite.

The agency gave $2 billion in aid to state and local governments and made loans to banks, railroads, farm mortgage associations, and other businesses. The loans were nearly all repaid.

Further down:

The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disburse much of its funds. It failed to reverse the growth of mass unemployment before 1933. Butkiewicz (1995) shows that the RFC initially succeeded in reducing bank failures, but the publication of the names of the recipients of loans beginning in August 1932 (at the demand of Congress) significantly reduced the effectiveness of its loans to banks because it appeared that political considerations had motivated certain loans. Partisan politics thwarted the RFC’s efforts, though in 1932 monetary conditions improved because the RFC slowed the decline in the money supply.

[garygnu]

@emacknight

Here is a much more damaging admission by Obama:

“Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year–for everybody.”

Did you watch the whole clip before posting, or am I being whooshed?

[emacknight]

@garygnu

@emacknight

Here is a much more damaging admission by Obama:

“Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year–for everybody.”

Did you watch the whole clip before posting, or am I being whooshed?

It still proves what Obama *really *thinks.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Starving_Artist

Time and time again here I see posts or threads wanting to know what’s behind the Tea Party, why it came into being and what is driving it.

Of course, adherents do like to ignore the obvious…

[elucidator]

Well, one of the forces driving the tea party, we are given to understand, is a firm commitment to oppose the creeping socialism hidden in the phrase “net neutrality”, and an unyielding agreement with such patriotic institutions as Verizon and Comcast.

Tea Party Groups Take Strong Stance On Net Neutrality

(If the HuffPost is too partisan for your tastes, a couple dozen similar cites can be had by the simple expedient of googling “tea party net neutrality”. If you like, a passionate if somewhat muddled screed for the TP position is available here: Say NO to Net Neutrality | NH Tea Party Coalition)

Who’d a thunk it? Hidden somewhere beneath the surface lay a seething issue, net neutrality. From whence, one wonders, this unshakable commitment to the well being of Verizon and Comcast. One searches in vain for any previous statement to that effect. Looking at pictures of the milling throngs, one cannot escape the impression that if any of these people have an e-mail addy, it most likely ends with @aol.com.

But no! These are very sophisticated people, tech-wise, and widely knowledgeable about the issues confronting the spread of the intertubes.

Well, either that, or the groups like Dick Armey’s Tea Party Express are making it up. Trying to exploit the vast ignorance of the tea party lemmings to their corporate sponsors advantage. I had the impression that the cable company is not widely beloved of the people, but Mr Armey is here to assure otherwise, that the common people, the real Americans, totally adore Comcast and Verizon, and stand ready to defend them with vigor.

Grass roots, my Aunt Fanny!

[asterion]

@emacknight

@garygnu

Did you watch the whole clip before posting, or am I being whooshed?

It still proves what Obama *really *thinks.

Huh? The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed with an expiration date at the end of 2010. Unless Congress acts to extend part or all of those cuts, taxes will go up between 3 and 5 percent depending on your exact combination of brackets. The only bracket that doesn’t go up is in-between $8,375 and $34,000 if single or $16,750 to $68,000 if married. If you’re single and happen to fall into that marginal tax bracket, your taxes will go up $419 due to the elimination of the 10% bottom bracket. Exact numbers, of course, would be modified by the other changes.

So of course Obama thinks that taxes are scheduled to go up substantially for everyone. They are, and the schedule was set 6 years before Obama was in office. So how about you explain what you mean?

[emacknight]

@asterion

@emacknight

It still proves what Obama *really *thinks.

Huh? The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed with an expiration date at the end of 2010. Unless Congress acts to extend part or all of those cuts, taxes will go up between 3 and 5 percent depending on your exact combination of brackets. The only bracket that doesn’t go up is in-between $8,375 and $34,000 if single or $16,750 to $68,000 if married. If you’re single and happen to fall into that marginal tax bracket, your taxes will go up $419 due to the elimination of the 10% bottom bracket. Exact numbers, of course, would be modified by the other changes.

So of course Obama thinks that taxes are scheduled to go up substantially for everyone. They are, and the schedule was set 6 years before Obama was in office. So how about you explain what you mean?

What I mean is that when I hear Obama speak it’s like Charlie Brown and his teacher. Doesn’t what he says or does, it’s all just {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare} {class warfare}

I have formed a very deep seated and long standing preconception of what he (and other liberals) think and believe. Most of it was lies I read on the interweb or heard on talk radio, none of it relied on my own independent thought or research.

So if Obama says, “I love puppies and kittens.” What he’s really saying is that the rich need to be taxed more so welfare queens can smoke crack and have abortions. I know this to be true because Obama is a liberal, and those are the things I was told liberals believe.

Oh, and those numbers you quoted are just opinions, and they’re wrong. You can use numbers to show anything you want, have you noticed how frequently liberals try to use numbers? Moral superiority. And the Arabs came up with the number system. And obama palls around with terrorists.