The best summary of the tea party I've read

[ImprobableJoe]

You know, I've had ArthurWilborn on ignore for most of the time he's been on this site, since I enjoy my time here much more when I don't deal with people who I think very little of.

However, occasionally people quote him, and when they do I often see that he personally identifies with my negative description of right-wingers as idiots and sociopaths. Considering that I don't read his posts and I am never directly addressing him, the fact that he feels that general descriptions of right-wing extremist moron psychotics are always directed towards him is an interesting and telling phenomenon. :lol:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

... What? I've been accused of a lot of stuff over the internet, but this one just confuses me. I'm... sorry that I'm not an idiot who took out a loan I couldn't possibly afford?

And Joe begins his wonderful strawman routine again. Joe, subsidizing idiocy is something I sure as heck begrudge spending tax dollars on.

I wasn't just talking about the bailouts, I was mostly referring to TEA rhetoric about taxes supporting low income families and "Obamacare."

Since I already said I don't agree with that, strawman. Talk about the subject that's presented; why should I pay tax dollars to subsidize idiots who got in over their heads?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Since I already said I don't agree with that, strawman. Talk about the subject that's presented; why should I pay tax dollars to subsidize idiots who got in over their heads?

You said you agree with most of their noncrazy financial positions and only mentioned the bailout explicitly in the next paragraph. Is that the only thing you agree with? I don't know which policies you do and do not consider crazy.

As for the bailout itself, I am not an economist and don't get all of what happens on Wall Street. Congress was led to believe that the bailout was necessary to prevent a much greater depression and it passed with bipartisan support. Certainly some aspects of it are unsavory, but if that's the case, I'll stick with pragmatism over principles.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You said you agree with most of their noncrazy financial positions and only mentioned the bailout explicitly in the next paragraph. Is that the only thing you agree with? I don't know which policies you do and do not consider crazy.

As for the bailout itself, I am not an economist and don't get all of what happens on Wall Street. Congress was led to believe that the bailout was necessary to prevent a much greater depression and it passed with bipartisan support. Certainly some aspects of it are unsavory, but if that's the case, I'll stick with pragmatism over principles.

Wait... the REPUBLICAN bailout is the only one I know of. Is the claim that the bankers and other Republican donors were a bunch of lazy deadbeats? Sounds right to me... Republicans in America have traditionally been parasites on the economy.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Since I already said I don't agree with that, strawman. Talk about the subject that's presented; why should I pay tax dollars to subsidize idiots who got in over their heads?

You said you agree with most of their noncrazy financial positions and only mentioned the bailout explicitly in the next paragraph. Is that the only thing you agree with? I don't know which policies you do and do not consider crazy.

As for the bailout itself, I am not an economist and don't get all of what happens on Wall Street. Congress was led to believe that the bailout was necessary to prevent a much greater depression and it passed with bipartisan support. Certainly some aspects of it are unsavory, but if that's the case, I'll stick with pragmatism over principles.

You don't want to expend any effort to actually understand it, you'll just uncritically accept whatever Congress says?

 

[RichardMNixon]

You don't want to expend any effort to actually understand it, you'll just uncritically accept whatever Congress says?

"Any effort" is hardly a fair representation. I understand that Bernanke and Paulson know a good bit more about economics than I do with my one semester gen ed course. It's not laziness, it's intellectual honesty. I'm currently in a Ph.D. program in engineering, I don't have time to get a graduate degree in economics too. Me rebuking Bernanke's plan would be a bit like VFX explaining evolution's flaws to Dawkins, no?

I also want to emphasize that I haven't said I emphatically support the bailout, just that I understand the motivation. I'm pretty neutral on the whole deal because I am aware of my ignorance. Aside from the bailout, which the TEA party won't actually do anything about, what are the other TEA party financial planks you don't think are crazy?

My bigger issue recently is why higher income tax brackets have disappeared. There were many, many more brackets in the 50s and 60s which when extended to today correspond to people earning in the millions, yet our brackets only go up to a few hundred thousand. Why does progressive taxation not distinguish between the wealthy and the obscenely wealthy?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You don't want to expend any effort to actually understand it, you'll just uncritically accept whatever Congress says?

"Any effort" is hardly a fair representation. I understand that Bernanke and Paulson know a good bit more about economics than I do with my one semester gen ed course. It's not laziness, it's intellectual honesty. I'm currently in a Ph.D. program in engineering, I don't have time to get a graduate degree in economics too. Me rebuking Bernanke's plan would be a bit like VFX explaining evolution's flaws to Dawkins, no?

I also want to emphasize that I haven't said I emphatically support the bailout, just that I understand the motivation. I'm pretty neutral on the whole deal because I am aware of my ignorance. Aside from the bailout, which the TEA party won't actually do anything about, what are the other TEA party financial planks you don't think are crazy?

Fair enough, since this is my stance on AGW.

As for the tea party, I don't keep track of that mutating ball of crazy so I'll say that I tend to support limited government and I tend to be against social entitlements.

My bigger issue recently is why higher income tax brackets have disappeared. There were many, many more brackets in the 50s and 60s which when extended to today correspond to people earning in the millions, yet our brackets only go up to a few hundred thousand. Why does progressive taxation not distinguish between the wealthy and the obscenely wealthy?

I've said it before; the obscenely wealthy are better at dodging taxes then you are at imposing them. It's a fool's errand to try to cage them up with laws.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I've noticed that a lot of Right leaning/libertarian folk who try to distance themselves from the Tea Party will say things like "They're crazy, but...." and turn around and say other crazy things that are in line with the general Tea Party movement. Just because you believe in a different variety of crazy doesn't mean you're not crazy as well.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I've noticed that a lot of Right leaning/libertarian folk who try to distance themselves from the Tea Party will say things like "They're crazy, but...." and turn around and say other crazy things that are in line with the general Tea Party movement. Just because you believe in a different variety of crazy doesn't mean you're not crazy as well.

Do you want to back that up with something or are you just being intellectually lazy and dismissing me out of hand?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Do you want to back that up with something or are you just being intellectually lazy and dismissing me out of hand?

Well you did sort of off-handedly mention that laws don't apply to the rich... that's not something I can comfortably let slide. That isn't a policy, that's a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Do you want to back that up with something or are you just being intellectually lazy and dismissing me out of hand?

Well you did sort of off-handedly mention that laws don't apply to the rich... that's not something I can comfortably let slide. That isn't a policy, that's a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

It's a fine distinction, so I'll clarify.

You want to pass laws in order to tax the "obscenely wealthy".

The obscenely wealthy want to pass laws in order to avoid taxes.

The obscenely wealthy are better at getting laws passed then you are.

Your efforts to pass laws are, perforce, doomed to failure.

You need to come up with a new plan in order to achieve your goals.

This isn't a comment on your values or goals; just on hard reality.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The obscenely wealthy are better at getting laws passed then you are.

Your efforts to pass laws are, perforce, doomed to failure.

You need to come up with a new plan in order to achieve your goals.

This isn't a comment on your values or goals; just on hard reality.

And herein lies my problem. Why is there no support for this? Why are tea partiers outraged at having to cough up a few extra hundred bucks to keep people healthy but have no problem with their benefactor Charles Koch taking a dump on the system? The grassroots anger is entirely misplaced. The low-income family that can finally afford health insurance are NOT the ones benefiting the most from our government, Charles Koch is.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The obscenely wealthy are better at getting laws passed then you are.

Your efforts to pass laws are, perforce, doomed to failure.

You need to come up with a new plan in order to achieve your goals.

This isn't a comment on your values or goals; just on hard reality.

And herein lies my problem. Why is there no support for this? Why are tea partiers outraged at having to cough up a few extra hundred bucks to keep people healthy but have no problem with their benefactor Charles Koch taking a dump on the system? The grassroots anger is entirely misplaced. The low-income family that can finally afford health insurance are NOT the ones benefiting the most from our government, Charles Koch is.

I'm not concerned with what's fair; only what's possible. You're heading down a blind alley here.

 

[RichardMNixon]

After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others?
Why should I bail out idiots who chose to get in over their heads?

Clearly you are concerned with "fairness."

I don't understand your defeatist attitude. You haven't disagreed with my on principle, so as far as I can tell you threw in the towel against big business and now you just want your money back from old people who can't pay their mortgage.

Why stop at taxes? Why bother holding the rich to any laws while we're at it? Once your net worth crests a billion you can sit in the park and shoot pets for sport, right?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others?
Why should I bail out idiots who chose to get in over their heads?

Clearly you are concerned with "fairness."

I don't understand your defeatist attitude. You haven't disagreed with my on principle, so as far as I can tell you threw in the towel against big business and now you just want your money back from old people who can't pay their mortgage.

Why stop at taxes? Why bother holding the rich to any laws while we're at it? Once your net worth crests a billion you can sit in the park and shoot pets for sport, right?

I detect a large amount of bitterness and jealousy.

My statements were not about fairness, but about pragmatics. Reinforcing stupidity is a bad thing for everyone involved. Killing bills to bail out idiots is much easier then to punitively tax the rich.

 

[Andiferous]

I wasn't just talking about the bailouts, I was mostly referring to TEA rhetoric about taxes supporting low income families and "Obamacare."

Since I already said I don't agree with that, strawman. Talk about the subject that's presented; why should I pay tax dollars to subsidize idiots who got in over their heads?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're also discussing the subprime mortgage issue, I think you might want to point the blame at a deregulated banking industry and fraudsters for the issue. After all, the banks were happy to have their clients. And believe me, the whole world pays taxes for that one...

I won't go into the healthcare this time. heh

 

[Aught3]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're also discussing the subprime mortgage issue, I think you might want to point the blame at a deregulated banking industry and fraudsters for the issue. After all, the banks were happy to have their clients. And believe me, the whole world pays taxes for that one...

Both sides are responsible, but I would have expected the banks to know better. On the other hand they knew they could unload all these crappy debts into the dervatives put out by Goldman Sachs. Why the American government let milliions of dollars of the bail-out money go to them I'll never understand.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Talk about the subject that's presented; why should I pay tax dollars to subsidize idiots who got in over their heads?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're also discussing the subprime mortgage issue, I think you might want to point the blame at a deregulated banking industry and fraudsters for the issue. After all, the banks were happy to have their clients. And believe me, the whole world pays taxes for that one...

I won't go into the healthcare this time. heh

I don't support bailouts for them, either. Let 'em swing, I say.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I detect a large amount of bitterness and jealousy.

My statements were not about fairness, but about pragmatics. Reinforcing stupidity is a bad thing for everyone involved. Killing bills to bail out idiots is much easier then to punitively tax the rich.

I would again argue that using the word "punitive" means you are assessing the "fairness" of this.

What will cause a bigger change in quality of life, taxing Koch 5% more or taxing a single-mother schoolteacher 1% more? Would Koch even notice? How do we maximize utility in this case?

Who do you think benefits more from the government, Koch or the schoolteacher?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I detect a large amount of bitterness and jealousy.

My statements were not about fairness, but about pragmatics. Reinforcing stupidity is a bad thing for everyone involved. Killing bills to bail out idiots is much easier then to punitively tax the rich.

I would again argue that using the word "punitive" means you are assessing the "fairness" of this.

What will cause a bigger change in quality of life, taxing Koch 5% more or taxing a single-mother schoolteacher 1% more? Would Koch even notice? How do we maximize utility in this case?

Who do you think benefits more from the government, Koch or the schoolteacher?

I think your view is ridiculously oversimplified and blind to consequences.