Will Beck run off the Teabaggers now?

[leftysergeant]

We pay for what government spends. The longer we wait to pay for it, the more we pay. Cutting taxes while increasing spending doesn't help the fiscal picture. You're not stupid enough to believe otherwise. Why do you demand anyone else should be?

Republicans were cool with the idea of cutting taxers and conducting a war while the Shrub was doing the cutting.

Nothing else in the world throws a nation's budget out of whack like a war.

Now they shriek like raped apes over Obama's spending on social programs aimed at improving the ecconomy and relieving the suffering of those hurt by the ecconomic situation. Strange.

Obama's tax cuts help the middle class more than they do the fat class who got us into this jackpot. Not to worry. Taxes on the fat class are about to reset to pre-Shrub levels to pay for it.

 

[daredelvis]

We pay for what government spends. The longer we wait to pay for it, the more we pay. Cutting taxes while increasing spending doesn't help the fiscal picture. You're not stupid enough to believe otherwise. Why do you demand anyone else should be?

Nice, you and I agree that Reagan was a moron.

Daredelvis

Dang! I got it. You don't actually believe that, you will just adjust your rhetoric to support any anti-Obama argument. You had me for a minute.

Daredelvis

 

[Ziggurat]

Nice, you and I agree that Reagan was a moron.

You and I agree Reagan didn't help our federal budget. It's a different argument, for both Reagan and Obama, whether or not those deficits are worth it to serve some other purpose. But you apparently don't even want to have that debate, and neither does everyone who keeps saying the tea party is without merit.

Dang! I got it. You don't actually believe that, you will just adjust your rhetoric to support any anti-Obama argument. You had me for a minute.

Daredelvis

Nice ad hominem. I especially like that it's based on your psychic abilities. Care to try for Randi's million?

 

[Lurker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_spec/20100701/pl_ynews_spec/ynews_spec_pl3005

Some info on Tea Party demographics and so on, FYI.

 

[johnny karate]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_spec/20100701/pl_ynews_spec/ynews_spec_pl3005

Some info on Tea Party demographics and so on, FYI.

Can anyone tell me what this means?

The Tea Party is trying to change this country to what it used to be.

 

[Lurker]

Can anyone tell me what this means?

The Tea Party is trying to change this country to what it used to be.

My guess is you would get answers of varying degrees from Tea Party members. I would guess the majority want smaller government so they want go back to simpler times. Not sure exactly what they mean by smaller government.

 

[johnny karate]

It's probably not a total coincidence. Part of it is that Bush was a lame duck. What good would protests have done at that point?

About as much good as it does to protest something that had already been passed into law months earlier, so I don't think your "lame duck" theory passes the sniff test.

If you're going to protest, you might as well protest against someone who might be susceptible to pressure. Like, say, a newly elected politician....

Again, if you're going to protest legislation you are opposed to on principle, it makes a lot more sense to protest before it gets made into a law. I'm not sure what "pressure" the Tea Party thought they could exert on Obama, but if they really wanted to stop TARP, maybe they should have protested in October 2008 when they could have, you know, actually stopped it. But for some reason they chose to wait until Obama was in office to be upset about TARP.

But I wouldn't be surprised if party affiliation also played a role in affecting people's tolerance thresholds. Is that unfair? Perhaps. Does that negate the validity of the complaint? Of course not.

But it does incline one to not take the complainer seriously. That's the rub of being a hypocrite.

Is it peculiar to tea partiers? Hell no. Just look at the democrat's complaints about deficits under Bush. In that case, of course, the threshold for their own guy has proven to be far higher.

Start a thread about it. Source your claims. If your argument holds water, watch me not disagree with you.

Although it should be noted there is an important issue of context. Liberals perhaps tolerate Obama's spending because they recognize it as a drastic emergency measure to salvage a downward spiraling economy.

So regardless of what you think about the motives of the tea partiers (which, really, is just an ad hominem attack), the complaint that government spending is out of control and unsustainable must be addressed on its merits. And it has obvious merits, even if you don't agree with the conclusion or the prescription of the tea party.

There is an argument to be made about the dangers of government spending (there is, of course, also an argument to be made that prioritizing present-day problems over future problems is the lesser of two evils). But if the people making that argument weren't all that concerned when their guys were doing the spending, and conveniently ignore the fact that their guys created the problem that the increased spending was meant to address, it's hard to believe they have anything rational or constructive to bring to the table.

 

[Ziggurat]

About as much good as it does to protest something that had already been passed into law months earlier, so I don't think your "lame duck" theory passes the sniff test.

You're comparing legislation to politicians. They aren't equivalent.

Again, if you're going to protest legislation you are opposed to on principle, it makes a lot more sense to protest before it gets made into a law.

That was exactly my point when you tried to claim that tea party protesters started protesting before Obama signed any legislation. So... thanks for siding with me on that point.

I'm not sure what "pressure" the Tea Party thought they could exert on Obama

Obama may have been the nominal target, but the pressure was applied mostly to congressmen and senators. Or perhaps you forgot all those summer town-hall meetings in 2009.

Although it should be noted there is an important issue of context. Liberals perhaps tolerate Obama's spending because they recognize it as a drastic emergency measure to salvage a downward spiraling economy.

No ****, Sherlock. That's what I've been saying all along: the basis for your position in support of Obama's policies should be about their desirability or justification. But you've been intent on not having that debate. And you've done so by basically claiming that the tea party, by virtue of their identity and perceived hypocrisy, should simply be ignored.

There is an argument to be made about the dangers of government spending (there is, of course, also an argument to be made that prioritizing present-day problems over future problems is the lesser of two evils). But if the people making that argument weren't all that concerned when their guys were doing the spending, and conveniently ignore the fact that their guys created the problem that the increased spending was meant to address, it's hard to believe they have anything rational or constructive to bring to the table.

This is simply a tu quoque argument. Which is what kind of argument, class?

That's right, everyone, it's a fallacy.

 

[leftysergeant]

The teabagger were cool with the Shrub's wars and tax cuts while they were running us into the red and destroying our industrial base and defunding social programs on the basis that we "couldn't afford it."

Now they are whining about Obama's restoring the social programs to ease the pain of the victims of the idiotic tax cuts.

If they are so concerned about the deficit, maybe they should be insisting on higher taxes on the fat class.

 

[johnny karate]

You're comparing legislation to politicians. They aren't equivalent.

No, I'm not. I rebutting your dubious claim that there was some kind of "Gee, I really hate this law, but there's no point in protesting a lame duck president" reasoning behind why the Tea Party waited until Obama took office to voice their displeasure about a law that Bush enacted.

Clearly, these protests are about anger, not rationale. To claim that a conscious, reasoned decision was made to wait until the new guy took over because he might be more "susceptible to pressure" flies in the face of how stupid it is to wait until months after it's already been passed into law to protest undesirable legislation.

That was exactly my point when you tried to claim that tea party protesters started protesting before Obama signed any legislation. So... thanks for siding with me on that point.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Obama may have been the nominal target, but the pressure was applied mostly to congressmen and senators. Or perhaps you forgot all those summer town-hall meetings in 2009.

You seem to be moving the goalposts here. First you claim that Tea Partiers waited until February 2009 to "protest against someone who might be susceptible to pressure. Like, say, a newly elected politician", referring to Obama. When I pointed out how that didn't really make sense, you now claim it was actually Congress that the Tea Partiers wanted to pressure.

So which is it?

If it was Obama, what did the Tea Party think he would do?

If it was Congress, why weren't there Tea Party protests prior to the elections, specifically targeted at incumbents?

No ****, Sherlock. That's what I've been saying all along: the basis for your position in support of Obama's policies should be about their desirability or justification. But you've been intent on not having that debate. And you've done so by basically claiming that the tea party, by virtue of their identity and perceived hypocrisy, should simply be ignored.

And who in the Tea Party is having that debate in a constructive, intellectually honest way? Who in the Tea Party is offering anything other than sloganeering and Conservative echo chamber talking points? The angry guy standing on a street corner shouting random things might occasionally make a good point, but does that mean I have to take him seriously?

This is simply a tu quoque argument. Which is what kind of argument, class?

That's right, everyone, it's a fallacy.

Again, this implies the Tea Party has an argument. I haven't seen where they've actually made one. Perhaps you can point me to website that details the Tea Party's position, and makes a reasoned, detailed argument in support of that position.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If they are so concerned about the deficit, maybe they should be insisting on higher taxes on the fat class.

Hey Lefty, shoot any Romanovs lately? Still no understanding of how a free market economy or progressive tax system works, I see.

The rich are taxed too much already. In fact, the economy would probably recover faster if a series of tax breaks targeted directly at the rich were introduced.

 

[GreNME]

The rich are taxed too much already. In fact, the economy would probably recover faster if a series of tax breaks targeted directly at the rich were introduced.

I'm not arguing the opposite, but the certainty you seem to be implying is hilarious.

 

[Lurker]

URL="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php"]The rich are taxed too much already[/URL]. In fact, the economy would probably recover faster if a series of tax breaks targeted directly at the rich were introduced.

Let's just suspend all taxes on the rich so they don't have to pay anything at all! Then our economy will take off like a rocket, right?

How have those Scandinavian countries survived and thrived with their oppressive taxes on the rich? They have even higher taxes than we do yet they survive. Or does your economic model only work within the confines of the US?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course you don't. You've got thread amnesia. If it wasn't in your previous post, you've forgotten about it. Not the first time in this thread, either.

You seem to be moving the goalposts here. First you claim that Tea Partiers waited until February 2009 to "protest against someone who might be susceptible to pressure. Like, say, a newly elected politician", referring to Obama. When I pointed out how that didn't really make sense, you now claim it was actually Congress that the Tea Partiers wanted to pressure.

So which is it?

Are you really this shallow in your thinking?

Did any single Bush protester actually think they were going to change Bush's mind about invading Iraq in 2003? Of course not. The attacks were against Bush, but the point was to get Congress to back away from supporting him. That's how it usually works: it's a hell of a lot easier to change congressional opinion than presidential opinion. But it's the president's agenda they're trying to change congress's opinion about.

And who in the Tea Party is having that debate in a constructive, intellectually honest way?

Plenty of people.

Who in the Tea Party is offering anything other than sloganeering and Conservative echo chamber talking points? The angry guy standing on a street corner shouting random things might occasionally make a good point, but does that mean I have to take him seriously?

Would you dismiss opposition to the Iraq war so casually? I wouldn't, even though the anti-war protests could be characterized in exactly this fashion.

 

[GreNME]

Let's just suspend all taxes on the rich so they don't have to pay anything at all! Then our economy will take off like a rocket, right?

How have those Scandinavian countries survived and thrived with their oppressive taxes on the rich? They have even higher taxes than we do yet they survive. Or does your economic model only work within the confines of the US?

I laughed because the quote you're responding to reminds me of the "Consistent" type on this 24 Types of Libertarians comic. Economy up? Cut taxes. Economy down? Cut taxes. Rain last Tuesday? Cut taxes. Traffic a little heavy going to work? Cut taxes. Venus viewable in the night sky? Cut taxes (and get a telescope).

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would rather have rich buying, building, manufacturing and investing than hiding their money in tax shelters, wouldn't you?

 

[leftysergeant]

Hey Lefty, shoot any Romanovs lately? Still no understanding of how a free market economy or progressive tax system works, I see.

The rich are taxed too much already. In fact, the economy would probably recover faster if a series of tax breaks targeted directly at the rich were introduced.

What do you think got us here in the first place?

You give the fat and whiney a tax break so that they can create jobs and they will go create them in China or in the financial services sector or in war profiteering. Happens every damned time. Wake up.

 

[johnny karate]

Of course you don't. You've got thread amnesia. If it wasn't in your previous post, you've forgotten about it. Not the first time in this thread, either.

I'll guess we'll just have to take you on your word since you don't seem too fond of actually supporting your claims with evidence.

Are you really this shallow in your thinking?

Did any single Bush protester actually think they were going to change Bush's mind about invading Iraq in 2003? Of course not. The attacks were against Bush, but the point was to get Congress to back away from supporting him. That's how it usually works: it's a hell of a lot easier to change congressional opinion than presidential opinion. But it's the president's agenda they're trying to change congress's opinion about.

The orginal issue was why the Tea Party didn't protest Bush's TARP law until Obama took office. First, you told me it was because Bush was a lame duck. Then, you told me it was actually Congress the Tea Party was trying to pressure, not Obama. Now instead of answering the question, you're giving me word salad. It almost seems as if you're purposely trying obfuscate the discussion.

So let's start again.

Why didn't the Tea Party protest TARP until after Obama took office?

Plenty of people.

Once again, the evidence you use to support your argument is astounding in both its depth and scope.

Seriously though, as substantiative as that argument is, you might as well just hastily scrawl it on a sign. Then you'd fit right in with the people you're championing.

Would you dismiss opposition to the Iraq war so casually? I wouldn't, even though the anti-war protests could be characterized in exactly this fashion.

I don't recall defending the anti-war movement. Please try and stay focused on the topic at hand.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't recall defending the anti-war movement.

Against the equivalent charge you're leveling at the tea party, you should. Just as I would. And just as Lurker did against the dishonest ad hominem attacks against the tea party.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ziggy, you seem to forget that the Tea Party protested about new taxes that they thought would happen to them. Most people recieved a tax break instead, but they still protested higher taxes. Sorry, Zig, but the TP are only throwing around the same, generic, conservative "fiscal" argument, but nothing of substance.

The Tea Party is populated with idiots and fools. Why do you defend them?