Politics Why don't the Tea Partiers get arrested?

Taxed too much? What is taxed adequately, in your opinion, Ace. What would you like to pay in taxes? The message that comes from the Tea Party is NOTHING. Not under Obama, anyway.

 

you run away from actual problems by systematically misstating them. we've tried your way. we've tried it for 30 years. it produced **none** of the outcomes people on the right pointed to as justifications for the experiment. the right advanced their ethical/utilitarian arguments. reality does not bear them out. period. the only way you can defend your position is by shifting continually into some counter-factual space. your whole politics are counter-factual. i would have expected, given that the arguments were ethical and given the blah blah blah from the right about resposibility that once it was obvious your viewpoint didn't work, you'd man up to it, say like a rational person, a principled person, ok that didn't work, let's try something else. but you don't. instead you're like some free markety trotskyite. there's always an excuse, always something that gets in the way. next time, for sure. what's clear is that this right politics isn't about benefits to everyone. it's not about trickle-down theology. it's about identity. and given that it's an officially sanctioned identity politics, it's about maintaining consistency in the conservative voting base *regardless* of what the implementation of these policies has meant or done. so what's clear is that the ethical arguments are meaningless--they're just window dressing draped around what the right is really about---getting into power. the right carries shit for transnational capital flows. it wants less accountability, less transparency, less regulation. those flows will **never** benefit you, but you'll always wait for it and always blame something or someone else for the outcome. so the petit bourgeois right is an endlessly renewable resource. the tea party is an astroturf movement the primary function of which is a remobilization of the right base, and an opening to the far right that was useful for the republican apparatus so long as they could distance themselves from it. when tea party candidates were elected, their market trotskyism became clear---if thing can be made bad enough, people will vote for us. and this in the middle of a complex economic crisis. because the right doesn't give a fuck. the right is about the right getting into power and nothing else. if people are hurting who are not designated allies of the right, they deserve it. it they are designated allies of the right, they're victims of the evil state or the evil administration. the tea party doesnt get arrested in part because they're brought to you by the very well-funded conservative political apparatus. they're entirely within the normal system of not really doing anything for regular people. they're a cynical fake-populist movement designed to allow the far right to pretend they're something other than the record of fiasco the right in power has produced.

pleased to hear about the beard though.

 

Fear? Certainly not.

Frustration? Yes, based on personal experience and given how difficult it is to discuss the issues with a Tea Party person, both face to face and in forums. Far more often then not, I encounter an unwillingness to accept any facts that are counter to their rigid ideology and their belief that compromise and consensus building is a bad way to create public policy.

Not manufactured, but co-opted by astroturf organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers organization that has funded many Tea Part events for its own benefit.

And the two biggest groups — Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — tell POLITICO they’re planning to raise and spend a whopping $156 million combined this year and next, laying the groundwork for what could be a massive tea party organizing push against Democrats and the occasional moderate Republican in 2012.​

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64957.html​

Are they really interested in furthering the Tea Party agenda or using the Tea Party cover to protect their own self-interests?
--- merged: Oct 5, 2011 3:34 AM ---

Current taxes are the lowest in more than 50 years:

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010....​

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm​

Just another example of the Tea Party folks not understanding or accept the facts.

 

My grandmother owned farmland when my father was a child and young adult (my grandfather died when my father was a child). He worked the land until he went into the army. In good times, "wealth" did in fact rain down from the heavens - and when they did not get rain for extended periods of time the consequences were lasting. Being, young and open to new ideas my father was always among the first in the area to try new techniques being promoted by the county ag. rep. - adjusting planting schedules and adopting different crop rotations the land produced steadier yields regardless of rain fall. They benefited greatly - same land, same labor input, same capital input, same climate. This is clear and indisputable to anyone who has any understanding of the history of farming. Real wealth is created through innovation.

Again, I detect a bit of mockery in your tone. If you folks think I make all this up, I suggest you get out and talk to people.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2011 5:26 PM ---

I am repeating myself. I support a fair, simple tax system. Taxes should reflect the actual costs of government services. Government should only be providing services in areas where it is inefficient for it to be done by the private sector - hence i would support projects like the Interstate Highway system. Taxes should not be used for social engineering, re-distribution, or the government subsidizing some at the expense of others. I do believe, as a society we have a moral obligation to care for the elderly, children and the truly disabled.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2011 5:28 PM ---

This is bleeding into some other open threads. Specifically there is one on the rich getting richer. I have some very specific thoughts and observations on that topic, which would take us off point here.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2011 5:36 PM ---

I agree that Tea Party people have no interest in compromise on the question of increasing taxes. I am not sure how we can make that clearer.

Many people and groups want to capitalize on the Tea party movement. That does not mean they own or are the movement. I bet if you did a survey of Tea party people, most would not even know who the Koch brothers are. The movement has virtually nothing to do with political funding.

We can play Battle of the Factoid if you really want, but i am tired of it. You can have your "fact" and pretend it is what you want it to be - just realize that I can match any "fact" you have with a different "fact" that supports my point of view. The bottom line is that government is bigger than it has ever been, and getting bigger - no matter how you slice and dice the concept.

 

You think it's more efficient when the government hires it's own workers to improve and maintain the interstate system than when they contract the work out to the for profit sector? I would regard this as one area where the for profit sector might be considered more efficient.

Yet you and other tea partiers believe that, in areas of social management, the for profit sector is more efficient. Am I right?

Has the for profit sector shown more efficiency in managing health care? If so, how have costs risen so out of control since the formation of for profit HMO's?

Has the for profit sector shown more efficiency in managing the prison systems in the many states for which it's contracted to do so? I'm referring to the rising recidivism rates, the lack of in prison rehabilitation opportunities, and the obvious fact that it would behoove them to keep prisons at least full, if not bursting at the seams with overcrowding.

Has the for profit sector shown more efficiency in managing our pension funds?

Has the for profit sector shown more efficiency in managing their own banking industry?

Based on the above, is it reasonable to expect that the for profit sector be more efficient in managing our current, so called, entitlement programs? (for which most of are damned well entitled to after paying into it all our lives)

The for profit sector is efficient at making a profit.

Government funded projects that require an experienced private company to do the work like building roads, bridges, government building, weaponry - great - everyone benefits. In areas where the social need should trump the profit expectations, they have proven that they can't overcome (and shouldn't be expected to overcome) their instinct.

 

If you have facts that income taxes are not the lowest in 50 years, please share it.

Oh and btw, the government was bigger at the end of the Reagan administration than anytime during the last 40 years.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

Of course the cost of government is higher than at the end of the Reagan administration -- the population has grown by 60+ million. But then you dont accept the fact that Reagan and GW Bush were the biggest deficit spenders in our lifetime.

 

I repeat we need to allow the people capable to innovate do what they do best. When innovation is restricted or stifled (for various reasons), the human condition gets stifled. History reflects that.

In the US over the past few years small and medium business (growth sectors most responsible for job creation) has been telling Washington, you and everyone what the problems are - yet in the infinite wisdom of those who think they know better the message is ignored - or met with mockery.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 3:25 PM ---

This would take us of topic, I think taxation for building the interstate highway system was more efficiently than if we depended on the private sector. I think maintenance is best done through fuel taxes.

I simply want to make my own social choices. If I rent, I don't want to subsidize you buying a house!

The key problem with health care insurance is the lack of competition. This is a problem with regulation. If government was to take any small step, it should have been to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

I see the judicial system, including prisons, as a role for government.

Yes.

Yes and yes. However, I do support the government's role in making sure the elderly, children and the truly disabled are taken care of.

I think the profit motive is good and has been a benefit to the human race.

 

If you don't see the problems with that claim, I am not going to be able to help you.

True, but Reagan had a long-term plan to reduce the size of government.

The Tea Party movement started while Bush was in office. Some looked at his prescription drug plan as a problem and to others it was his bank bailout proposal. If you read my posts on Bush's bailout of the banks proposal you would know I was 100% against it. In fact, I thought having the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, writing it was a joke - but it wasn't a joke. I think Bush just gave in at the end, and during most of his term his singular focus was the "war on terror - not the economy or controlling spending.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 3:42 PM ---

Look at the jobs numbers. Look at GDP. Our economy is not growing fast enough to accommodate what some call organic growth. We need people like Steve Jobs who have the ability to start with an idea in their garage and turn it into on of the largest companies on the planet based on market cap. that is the connection between innovation and small business. Do I need some kind of citation for what I just described? Do you think I made it up? Is it too anecdotal? I don't know how to communicate these basic (at least they appear basic to me) concepts to you, yet alone going into broader connections. Your perspective does not allow you to see what I see in my opinion.

 

Well, if it's off topic, you were the one who introduced it with this statement:

I get it now. You don't really mean the government is more efficient at it, you mean you approve of taxpayer money being used in this sort of private contracting arrangement for this sort of project.

Also, not that I'm against the idea of raising fuel taxes (though for entirely reasons), but if maintenance of interstate highways is best covered by fuel taxes, as you say, does the Tea Party support raising fuel taxes if necessary or is this where you veer from your party much in the same way you do by rightly believing it's a moral obligation to care for the E, C and truly D ?

I don't much think they should either. In fact, I'd like to see the deduction for mortgage interest disappear. Would the Tea Party consider that a tax hike? But we both know I'm not talking about that sort of social management.

Lack of competition is not the key problem with the HCI industry (that would require a thread all on it's own) and though opening the industry beyond state borders might reveal lower insurance premiums for some individual clients, I doubt it would come close to solving the problem of providing everyone with adequate health insurance. I also don't see how it would significantly impact the overall cost of health care which has risen steadily since the dawn of HMO's. Other factors have driven the costs up as well but I don't believe it's mere coincidence that it started with HMO's.

We agree.

You've completed evaded the issue of profit over social responsibility with another sweeping generalization.

 

I would have to explain how the "innovators" in the private sector under a profit motive make decisions, I have tried and failed. The value of "profits" is not directly connected to what some may consider greed. Profit is the fuel that feeds greater and greater innovation. Steve Jobs, seems to be the example of the day (may he rest in peace), needed profit from his first ventures to enable his later ventures. Business decision simply boil down to math. If the numbers are right, it is a go. government and tax policy have an impact on the numbers.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 7:58 PM ---

Social responsibility is a morality question. Morality is a private matter. I expect people to comply with the law, it is their personal choice how they engage in"social responsibility". I do not want to live under your definition of "social responsibility" being forced on me - and I doubt you would want to live under my definition of "social responsibility" being forced on you.

 

more tautological bullshit. once again, people humoring you has resulted in a thread getting hoovered into ace's imaginary universe. what a bore.

 

Be a bit more specific.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 8:16 PM ---

Never said that.

In a allocation of capital question - there is a future expected return on investment - calculated and based on certain assumptions often including at least - a best case, an expected and worse case scenario. That return is often discounted to present value. This calculation is often based on some fixed interest rate or range of rates - one being an assumed adjusted risk free rate. There is a breakeven point for these calculations, that will determine how capital is going to be allocated.

Government is one of many factors, but it is a factor. In some scenarios the government factor is the factor that swings a yes, to a no. I simply suggest government minimize the impact of turning yes' to no's. On the margins this has the biggest impact. It is on the margins where we see the biggest potential for economic growth.

 

Thanks for the 'truthful' smile.