Was there some lull in which he temporarily wasn't making an idiot of himself?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I see two, maybe three problems with that video.
1. Olbermann isn't in charge of hiring and firing at MSNBC. Attacking him because his bosses aren't hiring a more diverse crowd is silly. Attacking MSNBC because they aren't more diverse is valid.
2. Every picture I saw in that little collage of pictures was the same four people that also had a speaking role in the rebuttal. It looked a little staged.
3. I think Olbermann is making a valid criticism. He's being overbearingly snide about it, but the Tea Party has a lot of issues, not the least of which is that it appears to be run, nationally, by some sort of amorphous corporate entity out to make money off of ticket sales and events. Locally that might be a different story, and locally I also expect there to be more variety of race and gender (for instance, in considerably more Hispanic Dallas). But most of the video or picture snapshots I see of Tea Party events is a sea of white people. It's possible I'm just missing it though. I fully recognize that.
Edited to fix a typo.
[ February 23, 2010, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... But most of the video or picture snapshots I see of Tea Party events is a see of white people. It's possible I'm just missing it though. I fully recognize that.
This shouldn't be too surprising, according to this poll, the tea party only has 2% black people compared to 11% in the general population in the poll.
Additionally (in California):
quote:Among ethnic voters who had heard of the Tea Party, identification with it was even lower. Five percent of Latinos and Vietnamese voters, 3 percent of African Americans and 2 percent of Chinese Americans said they identified a lot with the movement. No Korean Americans surveyed did.
This of course doesn't prevent them from finding a few token minorities to show up for a youtube video. But in the broader scheme of things, it should be fairly obvious why a tea party protest might be a pretty hostile place for say, Chinese Americans.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Lyrhawn "But most of the video or picture snapshots I see of Tea Party events is a sea of white people"
Whereas I tend to see pictures of a buncha old people feeding on government welfare provided by American taxpayers mixed with a smaller group of only slightly younger white men.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You say that like you expect a political group to be free of philosophical contradictions. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If we're going to eliminate the politics of cutting your own throat, soon we'll have no politics at all...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Olbermann isn't in charge of hiring and firing at MSNBC. Attacking him because his bosses aren't hiring a more diverse crowd is silly. Attacking MSNBC because they aren't more diverse is valid.
...But attacking participants at a Tea Party based on who chose to show up is valid? Neither Tea Party protest organizers nor Tea Party protesters have any direct control over the demographic that shows up.
I suppose they could choose not to attend, as an objection to the demographic Tea Parties attract. But likewise, I suppose, Olbermann could choose not to work for MSNBC.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2. Every picture I saw in that little collage of pictures was the same four people that also had a speaking role in the rebuttal. It looked a little staged.
Well, it was staged. In the sense that several individuals who obviously feel strongly enough about the Tea Party movement to take on speaking roles at a rally chose to go on "stage" in front of a camera and rebut Olbermann's claim. I'm confused. Because they have speaking roles, that means they don't count as minorities?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 3. I think Olbermann is making a valid criticism. He's being overbearingly snide about it, but the Tea Party has a lot of issues, not the least of which is that it appears to be run, nationally, by some sort of amorphous corporate entity out to make money off of ticket sales and events. Locally that might be a different story, and locally I also expect there to be more variety of race and gender (for instance, in considerably more Hispanic Dallas). But most of the video or picture snapshots I see of Tea Party events is a sea of white people. It's possible I'm just missing it though. I fully recognize that.
Edited to fix a typo.
"Amorphous corporate entity out to make money off of ticket sales"?
Wow. I... wow. I thought I'd gotten used to seeing the leftist posters on this board casually, and baselessly, denigrate any group or individual that espoused anything resembling a conservative viewpoint, but this is just mind boggling. You honestly think the Tea Party movement was actually drummed up by a nebulous, nefarious corporation to bilk all those ignorant don't-know-any-better rubes out of their money? I'm at a loss.
Also...
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... But most of the video or picture snapshots I see of Tea Party events is a see of white people. It's possible I'm just missing it though. I fully recognize that.
This shouldn't be too surprising, according to this poll, the tea party only has 2% black people compared to 11% in the general population in the poll.
Additionally (in California):
quote:Among ethnic voters who had heard of the Tea Party, identification with it was even lower. Five percent of Latinos and Vietnamese voters, 3 percent of African Americans and 2 percent of Chinese Americans said they identified a lot with the movement. No Korean Americans surveyed did.
This of course doesn't prevent them from finding a few token minorities to show up for a youtube video. But in the broader scheme of things, it should be fairly obvious why a tea party protest might be a pretty hostile place for say, Chinese Americans.
Hostile? Chinese Americans will feel Tea Parties are hostile? Have you ever actually been to one of these things, Mucus?
I'm not going to argue with your statistics. I have no idea how accurate they are, but let's assume they're accurate. So my question is... so what? As I said above, nobody in the Tea Party is directly responsible for the demographic of people who identify with the movement. They're only responsible for themselves. Last time I saw statistics on the issue, a higher percentage of black people identified with the Democratic party than with the Republican party. Again, so what?
The idea that the demographic of a group is, ipso facto, evidence of racism or racial hostility in that group is laughable. It's impossible to prove causality here. If a large percentage of X race or culture do not identify with a group, that doesn't mean the group is actively seeking to exclude them. At most, it means the group is not actively seeking to recruit them.
More likely, the group is not taking any special attempts to recruit any demographic. Tea Parties don't have quotients to fill. They attract other people interested in fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives come in many shapes and sizes. It is certainly possible that, for cultural reasons, a majority of fiscal conservatives are white. Or, a majority of politically active fiscal conservatives are white. This does not prove racism.
Minorities with speaking roles at Tea Party rallies (as discussed above) might disprove racism charges. I'm sure you can write them off as token minorities, but quite frankly, you'd be wrong. They didn't get speaking roles in an attempt to disprove racism. They got them because they have things to say, and the vast majority of Tea Partiers don't give a crap what skin color a speaker is. All they care about is whether or not the speech itself properly exemplifies their goal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank ...But attacking participants at a Tea Party based on who chose to show up is valid? Neither Tea Party protest organizers nor Tea Party protesters have any direct control over the demographic that shows up.
I suppose they could choose not to attend, as an objection to the demographic Tea Parties attract. But likewise, I suppose, Olbermann could choose not to work for MSNBC.
Well, maybe a fine line, but I saw it as an interrogatory criticism rather than an out and out attack. It's worth asking though. If it really is the case that the movement is almost entirely white, then maybe we have to ask what that means, if anything. It's not a cross section of the country that's upset, it's just white people. If that's true, it's very much worth asking why.
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank: Well, it was staged. In the sense that several individuals who obviously feel strongly enough about the Tea Party movement to take on speaking roles at a rally chose to go on "stage" in front of a camera and rebut Olbermann's claim. I'm confused. Because they have speaking roles, that means they don't count as minorities?
Because four or five people don't rebut the claim. Asking why massive crowds of white people are sorely lacking in diversity isn't refuted because one person from each race jumped in. Who are they representing, if anyone?
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank: Wow. I... wow. I thought I'd gotten used to seeing the leftist posters on this board casually, and baselessly, denigrate any group or individual that espoused anything resembling a conservative viewpoint, but this is just mind boggling. You honestly think the Tea Party movement was actually drummed up by a nebulous, nefarious corporation to bilk all those ignorant don't-know-any-better rubes out of their money? I'm at a loss.
Drummed up by? No. Capitalized on? There's a lot of evidence that points to that, yes. These large conventions they're having with speakers being paid tens of thousands of dollars, and tickets that cost hundreds of dollars. Who is organizing them? And who is profiting from them? It appears to me that the philosophically, the movement has spontaneously come together. But stuff like that? Someone is out to make money off of these people. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the people, or their goals, but I'm not alleging that the movement itself was created by a shadowy corporate figure.
I have some serious reservations about these people, and I'm not attacking them without basis, because I'm not entirely sure what they want yet, or how they're prepared to go about getting it. And I'm not sure if they know yet either. For the moment it appears as a small but significant anti-incumbent populist uprising with no clear national party platform. But the people they get to speak at their events, most notably Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and a Newt Gingrich who says that the values of the left are anti-thetical to American values, and that if the left is in charge, America will cease to exist as it was created, lead me to believe that they carry a destructive, unhelpful message.
When you start to say the things that their figureheads are saying, I think it becomes clear that they aren't interested in compromise, or understanding, or a a philosophical melting pot of ideas. Their language is the language of war. It's what you say when you want to rouse the troops, and convince them to hate the other side. And that's why I'm highly wary of them. I might disagree with their ideas on a policy driven level, but their rhetoric is dangerous.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And if you're a member of a minority, you probably would be extremely wary about being around a bunch of angry, conservative, disproportionately rural, white people when they're being prodded into hate and cultural war. Hell, a generation ago the same demographic would be protesting desegregation or interracial marriages with pretty much exactly the same signs.
Especially if you're Chinese American and these people are going on about Communism/socialism as some boogeyman, America as a Christian Nation, caricaturing Obama on the basis of race, and associated issues of immigration, speaking English (ex: Tancredo's intro), and what not. The mystery is not why only 2% of the Chinese Americans surveyed that are aware of the tea party movement identify much with it; it would be hard to come up with a more toxic mix of ideas to turn off the whole demographic. No, the mystery is that the Korean Americans polled even lower despite a much larger conservative evangelical sub-demographic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it really is the case that the movement is almost entirely white, then maybe we have to ask what that means, if anything. It's not a cross section of the country that's upset, it's just white people. If that's true, it's very much worth asking why.
Oh, pooh. People are lazy, and they like protectionism. They don't usually think it through. That's why so many Jews are Democrats. It's crazy, but they think that a party that claims to be all about protecting the underdog will help us. Nutballs.
So you're obviously going to have a lower proportion of people who get entitlements on the basis of race in a party that wants to eliminate such things.
What's MSNBC's excuse?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The idea that the demographic of a group is, ipso facto, evidence of racism or racial hostility in that group is laughable. It's impossible to prove causality here.
When given in-depth study and polling to determine their views, people who self-assign themselves to the Tea Party trend heavily towards what I will unscientifically call 'rabidly nationalistic' and do have interesting attitudes and suspicions based on race. To the extent where we could easily show causal relationships to things that would, for example, make most 'arabic persons'/muslims uncomfortable, for good reasons.
While the ipso facto point stands, it's not impossible to study and determine the extent (causal or otherwise) of racist undercurrents in a popular movement. Not an unreasonable element of study to be directed towards a party that would host Tom Tancredo as a keynote speaker.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or ally itself with the Oath Keepers.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I supported the non-partison (supposedly) Tea Parties that happened last year, I think an actual Tea Party Party is a horrible idea. While most of the Tea Party supporters are conservative, there are also many independants and middle of the road democrats mixed in there.
Here in Nevada there is a group that is trying start an actual political party. The problem is that this is all starting to seem like a huge ploy to get Harry Reid re-elected. In fact, the leadership of this new "Tea Party" are all VERY liberal people that have all worked with liberal groups and politicians in the past. It almost seems as though they are trying to cause confusion among conservative, in an attempt to split the vote and get Senator Reid re-elected.
This is the reason I believe a three party system could never work. Either Republicans or Democrats would attempt to gain control and split a vote to get their own people elected.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The idea that the demographic of a group is, ipso facto, evidence of racism or racial hostility in that group is laughable. It's impossible to prove causality here.
When given in-depth study and polling to determine their views, people who self-assign themselves to the Tea Party trend heavily towards what I will unscientifically call 'rabidly nationalistic' and do have interesting attitudes and suspicions based on race. To the extent where we could easily show causal relationships to things that would, for example, make most 'arabic persons'/muslims uncomfortable, for good reasons.
While the ipso facto point stands, it's not impossible to study and determine the extent (causal or otherwise) of racist undercurrents in a popular movement. Not an unreasonable element of study to be directed towards a party that would host Tom Tancredo as a keynote speaker.
Could you direct me to some of these in-depth studies? I have to admit, I'm a little bit skeptical.
Of course, I do oppose Islamist extremism pretty vociferously, and I know that in some circles on the Left that means I'm a racist too, so it's possible we're laboring under different definitions of "racist". If not, though, I'm definitely interested in seeing these nebulous studies you're referring to.
Certainly, some kooky elements have attached themselves to the Tea Parties. As I said (elsewhere I think) Tea Parties are, first and foremost, protests, and protests attract crackpots. Leftist protests are certainly no exception. I've been to many here in the Bay Area, and they're pretty much wall-to-wall communists, truthers, and other shades of screwball.
Personally, I'm more disgusted by Birthers than I am by the Oath Keepers, but until you mentioned them, Tom, I wasn't overly familiar with them. A cursory browse through their wikipedia page doesn't terrify me. Maybe I'm missing something.
But as far as the big, famous individuals attaching themselves to or promoting the Tea Party (Palin would be the latter, Beck the former), I'm sorry, the charges of racism really don't hold water. These people are not frothing racists who hate the idea of a black man in the white house. They're frothing conservatives who hate the idea of an extremely liberal president backed by a House and Senate controlled by the Democratic Party.
The Tea Party isn't about race. It really isn't. It's about profligate spending. It's about running up the national debt. It's about fiscal responsibility. Everything else there is just window dressing, and if you poll a dozen Tea Partiers on a dozen different topics unrelated to their core tenet, you'll get 144 different opinions.
Also, Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it really is the case that the movement is almost entirely white, then maybe we have to ask what that means, if anything. It's not a cross section of the country that's upset, it's just white people. If that's true, it's very much worth asking why.
Oh, pooh. People are lazy, and they like protectionism. They don't usually think it through. That's why so many Jews are Democrats. It's crazy, but they think that a party that claims to be all about protecting the underdog will help us. Nutballs.
So you're obviously going to have a lower proportion of people who get entitlements on the basis of race in a party that wants to eliminate such things.
What's MSNBC's excuse?
What she said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So you're both going with the black people are lazy and like welfare, excuse?
Wow. Talk about mind boggling.
Would you like to try again? Perhaps something with fewer baseless stereotypes?
I'll save my speech about government's role in race relations for later.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So you're both going with the black people are lazy and like welfare, excuse?
Wow. Talk about mind boggling.
Would you like to try again? Perhaps something with fewer baseless stereotypes?
I'll save my speech about government's role in race relations for later.
I'm guessing Samprimary's "evidence" of racism in most Tea Partiers will be about as in-depth and comprehensive as your position here. Not sure if I should sigh or yawn.
Lyrhawn, I try not to presume to know the reason the statistics are the way they are. To be perfectly honest, I really don't care how many minorities identify with the Tea Party. It's not something I think about. In point of fact, I don't think much of "race relations" at all. Neither my race nor the race of people around me is something I spend much time on.
That being said... you're the one who wants to make an issue out of a smaller percentage of black people identifying with the Tea Party. So I guess I need to get down here in the mud with you, and offer my own guesses as to causative factors. Lisa pointed out a really obvious one, and one that doesn't require the Tea Party to be filled with racist agendas that they just hide pretty well.
The last time I checked statistics on the matter, the percentages of black people and white people on welfare were something like 5% to 27%... let's round and call that a 5:1 ratio.
According to the stats Mucus posted, the Tea Party has 2% support from black people and 11% support in the general population. That's... why that's about a 5:1 ratio too! Egads! Must be a coincidence.
Lisa said "people are lazy", in general, not "black people". Nobody but you said black people are lazy. Why did you say that, Lyrhawn? Could it be because "black people are lazy" is a classic racist stereotype, and it's easier for you to ignore Lisa or myself if you can dismiss us as bigots?
But there are higher percentages of black people than white people on welfare. I don't presume to know the reasons why. I think there are many, and we could talk about it for days. I don't want to. That's got no bearing on this topic. What does have a bearing is that most people are motivated in part by self-interest. I would be surprised to see anyone, black or white, who reaps the benefits of welfare to show up a Tea Party rally. It's that simple.
Should I break it down again for you? 1) People have self-interest. 2) Tea Party opposes welfare. 3) Higher percentage of black people on welfare. 4) Similarly lower percentage of black people in Tea Party.
Explain how this is racist? The most racist thing about this is the supposition that somehow everyone's race is so important that all this crap should be a big deal. It's not. It's tedious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm trying to decide if responding to you is really constructive or not, given the tone of your response. I'm in between "wow, there's a lot of willful ignorance there" and "I should do my best to clear up the misconceptions!" So I guess I'll take a halfhearted approach to responding.
Let's start off with this: I made no claims, I only asked questions. If we're to the point where someone can't even ask a question without a multitude of positions being laid onto that person, which are they attacked, then I think we've reached the end of useful conversation.
The fact that you don't think about "race relations" at all is probably important. It doesn't really matter if you're black, white, rich, or poor, I know nothing about you or where you come from, but that you don't think much of it at all strikes me as significant given this conversation we're having. It suggests ignorance about the topic, which would seem to be backed up by your admitted lack of interest in it, but we'll see.
Thank you for joining me in the mud though. It's nice to know that you consider discussing race relations a dirty, loathsome task. (I'm sorry, did I make an assumption about you there? Well, I do apologize, how uncouth of me.)
Lisa said people are lazy, yes, but we're talking very specifically here about a subset of the population. We're talking about race, and she said that "people" who were threatened by losing entitlements obviously wouldn't support such a platform. Is it really that much of a stretch to think she was referring to poor minorities who make up the majority of those who benefit from those entitlements? You really think I'm just pulling this out of thin air, and there's no possible way she could have meant that? The second "people" in her post seems pretty clearly to denote minorities on welfare. Link that with the first "people" and there you go. If she'd like to post a disclaimer, that's fine. I gave you both the opportunity to do so.
And I'm not ignoring either of you. Does it appear that I am? Am I not engaging you in lengthy debate? And not only did I not dismiss you as bigots, I stepped back before criticizing your position in order to give you a chance to clarify yourself. Is that dismissing? Is that ignoring?
You should read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed. You know that if given the choice, people on welfare, regardless of race, will choose states that have absolutely awful welfare provisions and unemployment benefits so long as they have a lot of job opportunities, rather than choose to live in states with amazing welfare benefits that don't have job opportunities? People would much rather work than be given a hand-out. You are both defining the best "self-interest" as "people" choosing to live off the government rather than work. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it would seem to me, that you're either suggesting one of two things: Tea Party people want to get rid of welfare, okay, so what happens to the people on welfare? Does the Tea Party platform somehow get them jobs? If it gets them jobs, then I'd submit that they'd much, much rather prefer to work than live off the government, so you're just plain wrong. Or two, the Tea Party types don't have a provision for jobs, and those on welfare would simply die off, having no other source of sustenance. Which is it? (I leave open the opportunity for there to be a third option, which you may provide).
So, I don't really have to explain how it's racist, though I do think that your underlying supposition that people on welfare will fight to protect the status quo is interesting. I can see, as I said before, only two reasons why they would do so. Either they don't want to work, or they can't get jobs. So, you're either suggesting that they are lazy, or that if the Tea Party plan won't provide jobs, you'd let them die. I'd call that half racist, half callous, cold-hearted, and inhuman.
I don't have to respond to the question of whether the movement as a whole is racist, because I never made the claim.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm trying to decide if responding to you is really constructive or not, given the tone of your response. I'm in between "wow, there's a lot of willful ignorance there" and "I should do my best to clear up the misconceptions!" So I guess I'll take a halfhearted approach to responding.
Let's start off with this: I made no claims, I only asked questions. If we're to the point where someone can't even ask a question without a multitude of positions being laid onto that person, which are they attacked, then I think we've reached the end of useful conversation.
I think you did make some claims in there, but regardless, I think I also did some lumping together of you and the other posters here (Mucus, Samp, aspectre, etc.). Once I started typing I didn't spend a huge amount of time scrolling back to double-check exactly who had made each claim. That was perhaps laziness on my part, and I'll bite the bullet and apologize for it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The fact that you don't think about "race relations" at all is probably important. It doesn't really matter if you're black, white, rich, or poor, I know nothing about you or where you come from, but that you don't think much of it at all strikes me as significant given this conversation we're having. It suggests ignorance about the topic, which would seem to be backed up by your admitted lack of interest in it, but we'll see.
It's more indicative of a desire to move on. I'm not going to say there's no racism today. But the civil rights movement is over. They succeeded (gay marriage notwithstanding, perhaps, but we're discussing race here, so let's stick with that). I fully support equal rights. What I don't support is government interference, whether in a social or economic capacity, to try to make everything "fair".
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Thank you for joining me in the mud though. It's nice to know that you consider discussing race relations a dirty, loathsome task. (I'm sorry, did I make an assumption about you there? Well, I do apologize, how uncouth of me.)
Heh. Cute. I'm reading this as intentionally phrasing this to make me seem like a racist yokel for laughs, and not because you sincerely think I am one. If the former, well, I laughed. If the latter... darn.
I actually like you, Lyrhawn. I know I have you at a disadvantage, since I've been lurking these boards for six or seven years now, and you've been actively posting most of that time. So there you go. I disagree with most of your politics, but you actually do tend to present them a little more coherently, and with a little more civility, than a lot of people.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lisa said people are lazy, yes, but we're talking very specifically here about a subset of the population. We're talking about race, and she said that "people" who were threatened by losing entitlements obviously wouldn't support such a platform. Is it really that much of a stretch to think she was referring to poor minorities who make up the majority of those who benefit from those entitlements? You really think I'm just pulling this out of thin air, and there's no possible way she could have meant that? The second "people" in her post seems pretty clearly to denote minorities on welfare. Link that with the first "people" and there you go. If she'd like to post a disclaimer, that's fine. I gave you both the opportunity to do so.
This is a great example of why these conversations about race are ridiculous. When statistics show differences between races, and you talk about those differences, it's really easy for anyone to take that as a racist statement.
Here's an example.
Premise: Most honor killings are committed by Arabic Muslims.
Most reasonable people will agree this is factual, right? Certainly not all Arabic Muslims commit honor killings, though. And not all Muslims who do so are Arabic. But it's still a fact.
Discussion Topic: Why do Arabs commit honor killings?
Now someone's being racist. They're saying Arabs are a bunch of psychotic murderous thugs!
Or... not. They're probably, at worst, speaking a little bit imprecisely in a way that can be twisted into something racist.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I'm not ignoring either of you. Does it appear that I am? Am I not engaging you in lengthy debate? And not only did I not dismiss you as bigots, I stepped back before criticizing your position in order to give you a chance to clarify yourself. Is that dismissing? Is that ignoring?
Yeah okay, I was engaging in hyperbole. My bad.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You should read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed. You know that if given the choice, people on welfare, regardless of race, will choose states that have absolutely awful welfare provisions and unemployment benefits so long as they have a lot of job opportunities, rather than choose to live in states with amazing welfare benefits that don't have job opportunities? People would much rather work than be given a hand-out. You are both defining the best "self-interest" as "people" choosing to live off the government rather than work. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it would seem to me, that you're either suggesting one of two things: Tea Party people want to get rid of welfare, okay, so what happens to the people on welfare? Does the Tea Party platform somehow get them jobs? If it gets them jobs, then I'd submit that they'd much, much rather prefer to work than live off the government, so you're just plain wrong. Or two, the Tea Party types don't have a provision for jobs, and those on welfare would simply die off, having no other source of sustenance. Which is it? (I leave open the opportunity for there to be a third option, which you may provide).
So, I don't really have to explain how it's racist, though I do think that your underlying supposition that people on welfare will fight to protect the status quo is interesting. I can see, as I said before, only two reasons why they would do so. Either they don't want to work, or they can't get jobs. So, you're either suggesting that they are lazy, or that if the Tea Party plan won't provide jobs, you'd let them die. I'd call that half racist, half callous, cold-hearted, and inhuman.
I don't have to respond to the question of whether the movement as a whole is racist, because I never made the claim.
We've gotten to maybe the guts of the argument here, which sucks because I have to go. I'll be back later and hopefully the discussion won't have moved totally past this by then.
Also, just for the record, I've read Nickel and Dimed.
Edited because I can't write UBB Code. And I was in a hurry.
[ February 25, 2010, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So you're both going with the black people are lazy and like welfare, excuse?
Disgusting. Are you that uncertain of your own views that you have to lie about those of others?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... They're frothing conservatives who hate the idea of an extremely liberal president ...
Ah, southerners. If you think Obama is extremely liberal, then you've haven't seen Liberal (or NDP or Bloc, or Green)
quote: It's about profligate spending. It's about running up the national debt. It's about fiscal responsibility.
I think this is where the argument breaks down. If the tea party had any legitimacy then it would have made sense for it to show up practically any year of the Bush presidency since 2002. Since it only showed up after Bush was safely out of power, it becomes pretty obvious that fiscal responsibility is fairly low on actual reasons to explain the movement. I would also add that as that CNN poll measures, roughly 90% of the people in the tea party would vote Republican anyways without a tea party candidate.
quote:
quote:... What's MSNBC's excuse?
What she said.
I would note on this specific point, that it may very well be the case that those at MSNBC are hypocrites. In fact, I'll right out and say I think they're hypocrites.
This does not necessarily mean that they're wrong and that the opposing side is automatically right. At most, it is a fun thing to chuckle at (which I will admit, I did) but it doesn't prove anything about the point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa -
Should I take that as some sort of rebuttal? As I said, If I've misunderstood your meaning, say so. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm quite certain of my views, and have no idea why you think that's relevant given the quote in question. And I'm not lying about yours. I'm asking if that's what you meant, because that's what it looks like. I'm not sure why you've chosen to respond the way you did.
Dan_Frank:
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank: It's more indicative of a desire to move on. I'm not going to say there's no racism today. But the civil rights movement is over. They succeeded (gay marriage notwithstanding, perhaps, but we're discussing race here, so let's stick with that). I fully support equal rights. What I don't support is government interference, whether in a social or economic capacity, to try to make everything "fair".
And here I think is where the two of us seriously diverge, for two main reasons. One, you think it's over. Minorities may have gotten the big ticket stuff on paper, but that's hardly the same thing as the civil rights movement being over. The problem is that while overt racism in every day life may be considerably lessened in most regions than where it was 50 or a 100 years ago, the structural legacy remains in place. The legacy of racism is what leaves such a higher proportion of blacks stuck in poor inner cities than whites who got to abandon the inner city when it suited them. Crime, and an inability to build capital and escape poor conditions, are a legacy of our past policies, attitudes and behaviors. The irony is that, when the government refused to help, whites were perfectly capable of building institutionalized racism into every day life. It's only when the government stepped in and forced people to stop, often at the point of a gun, that things finally started to turn around in this country. Sometimes I seriously wonder whose side today's libertarians would have been on if we had to do it all over. The answer I seem to get, in answers like yours just now, is that government should not be in the business of social reordering. The problem of course being that, left to our own devices, when the government has refused to intervene in the past, we're shockingly good at oppressing our fellow citizens whenever we deem it profits us or simply makes us more comfortable. I find that highly objectionable. But I'm going to assume that today's anti-government people recognize that it's perfectly ensconced in the duties of government to protect minorities from the majority, even if it means a major intrusion into the beliefs and desires of the majority to do it.
My second big problem is that, left as we are with the legacy of the past, you really don't think the government has a role in trying to fix that legacy? It could be another 200 years before any sort of true equality is reached, socially and economically. It's as if you're saying "there, you aren't slaves any more, and we gave you the Civil Rights Act, now figure the rest out yourself." That may not be how you feel, but it's what it sounds like. The war for equality isn't over, we've just moved on to a new battle field. It's just not high-profile anymore. It's very easy to ignore a problem when you hide it away from obvious view, and then pretend it simply doesn't exist, or it does exist, but it's not your problem any more. I think, as a community, we have a duty to at the very least attempt to correct the ills caused by our previous crimes. Even if you don't believe we have a duty to help people who are on hard times, certainly you should believe we have a duty to at least try and do our best to correct for the wrongs we've committed as a nation.
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank: Heh. Cute. I'm reading this as intentionally phrasing this to make me seem like a racist yokel for laughs, and not because you sincerely think I am one. If the former, well, I laughed. If the latter... darn.
I actually like you, Lyrhawn. I know I have you at a disadvantage, since I've been lurking these boards for six or seven years now, and you've been actively posting most of that time. So there you go. I disagree with most of your politics, but you actually do tend to present them a little more coherently, and with a little more civility, than a lot of people.
I was kidding. I like, whenever possibly, to inject a little levity into a debate so people realize we're debating, and not foaming at the mouth. And thanks.
quote:Dan_Frank: This is a great example of why these conversations about race are ridiculous. When statistics show differences between races, and you talk about those differences, it's really easy for anyone to take that as a racist statement.
I think I fixed your font issues there, let me know if that's not what you meant. I don't really think this is necessarily about statistics. It's just what I thought you both meant. If that's not it, clarify and we really can move on. There ARE serious discussions to have about race and the enduring problems that we have to deal with because of past problems dealing with race. If this is about a misunderstanding, then we can stop, though I think there are interesting bits and pieces in here regardless. But if not, then I think it's perfectly fine.
quote:Posted by Dan_Frank: We've gotten to maybe the guts of the argument here, which sucks because I have to go. I'll be back later and hopefully the discussion won't have moved totally past this by then.
Also, just for the record, I've read Nickel and Dimed.
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. And good, we'll have a little bit of common material to work with for part of this.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... They're frothing conservatives who hate the idea of an extremely liberal president ...
Ah, southerners. If you think Obama is extremely liberal, then you've haven't seen Liberal (or NDP or Bloc, or Green)
Ah, not sure if you're just calling Tea Partiers southerners or if you're referring to me here as well, but I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. Went to school in Berkeley. So, um, there is that. Not... quite a southerner. I guess my dad's from Tennessee though, so you're half right.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: It's about profligate spending. It's about running up the national debt. It's about fiscal responsibility.
I think this is where the argument breaks down. If the tea party had any legitimacy then it would have made sense for it to show up practically any year of the Bush presidency since 2002. Since it only showed up after Bush was safely out of power, it becomes pretty obvious that fiscal responsibility is fairly low on actual reasons to explain the movement. I would also add that as that CNN poll measures, roughly 90% of the people in the tea party would vote Republican anyways without a tea party candidate.
Alright, so, a few points. Bush was a spender, that's certainly true. But the numbers show us that Obama is even more of a spender. I'm trusting you do know this already? If you want to contend that this is false, I guess we can go down that road, but... well I'll let you decide.
So, people are angry that Obama has massively outspent Bush already and still looks like he plans on ramping up the spending and the debt even further. Seems reasonable to me.
It's also worth mentioning that, though the Tea Party is largely made up of people who vote Republican, they aren't all that happy with the Republican party as it has existed recently. That's why they're not just agitating for traditional Republican leaders. That's why they're getting behind outliers in the Republican Party, like Scott Brown, and getting them elected. They want fiscal conservatism. The Democratic Party has never been about this, and never will. The Republican party mouths some fiscally conservative tenets and then goes on spending.
So they have two choices. Try to make a new third party for real, one that's fiscally conservative, or try to reform the Republican Party into honoring the principles it's supposed to stand for. Most reasonable people are aiming for the latter.
But don't think that because Tea Partiers are largely more in favor of Republicans than Democrats that they somehow fall in lockstep with the Republican party leadership. Glenn Beck himself, who I'm sure you just love, said one of his concerns is that he hasn't seen any good indicators, within the Republican party leadership, that they have really learned their lesson and really understand the direction they need to go.
Fiscal conservatism is the formative issue of the movement. The fact that anyone believes otherwise just shows how good a smear job most media outlets have done, I guess.
Edit: God I suck at UBB.
[ February 25, 2010, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama has not outspent Bush already. Where are you getting that from? Furthermore, I'm not really sure if that's a fair comparison. Bush's spending came from starting the 21st century with a surplus, and a budget that was paid down under Clinton. Obama's spending came in the midst of an economic crisis. Hardly the same circumstance. It may be that Obama is even more of a spender, but they also aren't being judged on the same scale.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You should read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickle and Dimed. You know that if given the choice, people on welfare, regardless of race, will choose states that have absolutely awful welfare provisions and unemployment benefits so long as they have a lot of job opportunities, rather than choose to live in states with amazing welfare benefits that don't have job opportunities? People would much rather work than be given a hand-out. You are both defining the best "self-interest" as "people" choosing to live off the government rather than work.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it would seem to me, that you're either suggesting one of two things: Tea Party people want to get rid of welfare, okay, so what happens to the people on welfare? Does the Tea Party platform somehow get them jobs? If it gets them jobs, then I'd submit that they'd much, much rather prefer to work than live off the government, so you're just plain wrong. Or two, the Tea Party types don't have a provision for jobs, and those on welfare would simply die off, having no other source of sustenance. Which is it? (I leave open the opportunity for there to be a third option, which you may provide).
So, I don't really have to explain how it's racist, though I do think that your underlying supposition that people on welfare will fight to protect the status quo is interesting. I can see, as I said before, only two reasons why they would do so. Either they don't want to work, or they can't get jobs. So, you're either suggesting that they are lazy, or that if the Tea Party plan won't provide jobs, you'd let them die. I'd call that half racist, half callous, cold-hearted, and inhuman.
I don't have to respond to the question of whether the movement as a whole is racist, because I never made the claim.
Additional full disclosure: I read Nickel And Dimed in college. I believe it had just come out. So, this was probably... eight years ago? Something like that. So, uh, I wouldn't count on our shared knowledge if you start citing page numbers or something.
You bring up a good point. Self-interest is perhaps not accurate. There are myriad other factors here. What about interest for a relative? My mother has been on disability for ages, for example. Maybe I'm afraid of what would happen to her if she lost her benefits, so I vote to help her. This isn't self-interest, but I do know people similarly motivated. Don't have numbers on that one though.
Honestly, I think the racial demographic of the Tea Party can be summed up easier than that though. The Tea Party is pretty antithetical to the Democratic party. They've much more in common with Republicans, but they essentially think Republicans have become too much like Democrats.
And the demographics show that more minorities identify with the Democratic party than the Republican. Couldn't the explanation for the Tea Party's demographics really be just that simple?
Maybe you're next step will be to discuss racism in the Republican party. I hope not. That will be... depressing, honestly. Assigning evil motivations to your opposition makes opposing them easier, but it's not very helpful. The Republican party isn't racist. One could argue that the Democratic party is the one striving to actively help minorities, and Republicans aren't. We touched on this earlier. But there's a huge difference between these three attitudes, isn't there?
Actively helping, not helping, and actively working against? To say that Republicans, or Tea Partiers, are racist implies they fall into the last category. That they actively strive to hamper minorities, that they want to cause them suffering. I don't think this is true for any more than a vanishingly small group of Republicans or Tea Partiers. They just don't think minorities should be provided myriad forms of active assistance.
Does this merit a racism charge? I grew up thinking "racist" was a pretty terrible thing to be. People in the Klan are racist. People who don't like affirmative action are not, inherently, racist.
Also it's worth mentioning that I think that, like any protester, most Tea Partiers will do a better job telling you what they think is wrong than they would of telling you how to fix it. I'm not saying none of them have proposed solutions, just that the driving force of protests is generally "STOP X!", in this case profligate spending. How best to solve all the nation's ills after you stop X is another one of those issues where many Tea Partiers disagree.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama has not outspent Bush already. Where are you getting that from? Furthermore, I'm not really sure if that's a fair comparison. Bush's spending came from starting the 21st century with a surplus, and a budget that was paid down under Clinton. Obama's spending came in the midst of an economic crisis. Hardly the same circumstance. It may be that Obama is even more of a spender, but they also aren't being judged on the same scale.
This isn't "where I got it from", but my google-fu turned up this. Bring your stakes and crosses, that's a link to Fox News. Still, fairly straightforward information, unless we think Fox News makes up numbers in addition to shilling for the Republican party.
To be clear, not saying Obama has outspent Bush's entire term (Holy Cow! That would be pretty insane). Just that he spent more in 09 that Bush spent in his first year. Or, I believe, any specific Bush year. Is that mentioned in the article I linked? Hm, no, not as such. Well, I didn't really verify my source for that tidbit, so I suppose it could be wrong.
Anyway, my point is that Obama has, thus far, been shaping up to be an even bigger spender than Bush. Are you disputing that part? I do see your point about circumstances, but do you think that Obama is going to drastically scale back his spending some time soon? Has he made statements to that effect?
PS: Should I double post like this? It's different conversation threads, but I always thought double posting was bad form.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Double posting like that is fine. That's how I usually do it when switching between do different conversations within a thread.
I'll leave out the page numbers for Ehrenreich. I actually just read it this past summer for a labor history class, so it's still fresh in my mind. It's full of good info, though I'd love to read an update, since I'm betting a lot of it is out of date now.
Personally I do think that Democrats are more helpful to minorities than Republicans...but that's not to say that Democrats are necessarily "good" on race issues. Let's just say that, I don't think Republicans are racist automatically, as a party, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant racist population within the party (that's an important distinction), but I don't think they're helpful. On the other hand, while I find Democrats more helpful, I still find them lacking. The difference is that Democrats pay a little lip service and give some minor bones to minority activists to renew the lease on their loyalty. I don't really respect either of them, currently, when it comes to this issue. I don't know if that puts your mind at ease at all as far as you perhaps thinking I'm playing favorites. I'm not. At least not on this issue.
It's my personal theory that affirmative action is an excuse to not address the systemic problems that keep blacks and hispanics behind whites and asians in academic and professional performance. It is considerably cheaper and easier to simply give them a leg-up and advance them, rather than actually spend the money to make sure their formative years were spent in an education system equal to what their suburban peers have.
I suspect you would be in favor of neither affirmative action, OR spending that money however. But then I'm not entirely sure where your ideas lie. You're defending Tea Partiers, but you aren't really claiming anything as your own personal beliefs. Thus, I'm loath to assign beliefs to you, so I find myself at a disadvantage, since, as you said earlier, my politics are generally pretty well known to anyone who has seen me post in threads like this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As for Obama's budget, I hate that sort of simplistic analysis.
First off, I think it's sort of intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that Bush's spending dramatically increased from Year One to Year Eight, and he handed this thing off to Obama having spend hundreds of billions, if not more than a trillion, more than he spent in his (Bush) first term.
Next, let's break this thing down a bit.
quote:In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that include some rather expensive items like the TARP program, which was instituted and passed under Bush, and not Obama? Wasn't that some $700 billion?
Next, did Bush not start two extremely expensive wars whose cost was not fully accounted into his first year in office? In fact, wouldn't his first fiscal year in office not include those wars at all?
Did Bush not in fact more than DOUBLE the budget for the Pentagon during his eight years in office?
And was Obama not in fact dealing with a massive economic crisis, unheard of in more than a generation? If you look at both the Republican and Democratic solutions, they both entailed spending hundreds of billions of dollars, either through tax cuts or direct government spending.
Think about all that, then come back and tell me you find a lot of value in the extremely threadbare comparison that FoxNews made by simply saying Obama outspent Bush's first term. A simplistic analysis isn't just useless, it's dangerous. And for that matter, you learn a lot more from digging into the details.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... Ah, not sure if you're just calling Tea Partiers southerners or if you're referring to me here as well ...
Americans. As in only people without actual Liberals (NDP, Bloc, or Greens) would refer to Obama as being extremely liberal.
I echo what Lyrhawn has said about the budget.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Plus we had the lovely Bush tax cuts - not spending but certainly impacting how much money we take in. "Budget" needs to look at income as well as spending. By the way, those tax cuts were passed using the dreaded reconciliation process that seems to cause such potential outrage and terror when Democrats even mumble about using it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Actively helping, not helping, and actively working against? To say that Republicans, or Tea Partiers, are racist implies they fall into the last category. That they actively strive to hamper minorities, that they want to cause them suffering.
If you think this, you don't understand the connotations of most racism.
There are such things -- in fact, they represent the majority of racism -- as fairweather racism, 'defensive' racism, things like having a mental process that does not actively wish suffering on a racial demographic, but would have a mental process that would say things like "I just don't want them in my workplace" or "I wouldn't want to be on a plane with one" and "I just don't trust those types" and would otherwise defend policies and procedures such as 'necessary' internment and procedurally racial investigation of persons at an airport. There are sizable factions of the American right who are just profoundly terrified of 'islamism' and it turns into this. There are examples on this very board.
Remember: most racism isn't like 'i hate black people and want them to suffer.' That's not the typical format. Racism usually comes in forms like 'i just don't trust those types' and 'oh, you know those <X>, don't get me wrong, I still have <X> friends, but ...'
And this is not something we can divorce the tea party from, especially considering their nigh-unto-xenophobic interpretations of the solutions for 'islamicism' and other racially charged issues. Look at the tea party blogosphere. It's spearheaded by personalities like Michelle Malkin. The issue of racism in the movement cannot be waved away, or excused as a fringe element.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:hat's why they're getting behind outliers in the Republican Party, like Scott Brown, and getting them elected. They want fiscal conservatism.
Didn't Scott Brown just vote for the jobs bill?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Plus we had the lovely Bush tax cuts - not spending but certainly impacting how much money we take in. "Budget" needs to look at income as well as spending. By the way, those tax cuts were passed using the dreaded reconciliation process that seems to cause such potential outrage and terror when Democrats even mumble about using it.
It is true that it was passed under the reconciliation process. What you are leaving out is that the reconciliation process is for budget bills, something the tax cuts fell under. Health care doesn't.
To be fair, there was a huge uproar in Congress from the Democratic side of the aisle when this passed, just as there is now.
The difference is the Tax cuts were designed to expire after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. The current health care bill does not satisfy the Byrd Rule. President Clinton tried to pass his health care plan through in 1993 using the reconciliation process, and Byrd opposed it.
Interestingly enough, if you look up reconciliation on wikipedia, I found this absolutely hilarious line. (I have to remind myself that wikipedia is free for a reason)
The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (the biggest ass in the Universe), said: “Using reconciliation would be an acknowledgment that there is bipartisan opposition to their bill, another in a series of backroom deals, and the clearest signal yet that they’ve decided to completely ignore the American people.”
I didn't add what is in between those parentheses.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It is true that it was passed under the reconciliation process. What you are leaving out is that the reconciliation process is for budget bills, something the tax cuts fell under. Health care doesn't.
quote: 1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:hat's why they're getting behind outliers in the Republican Party, like Scott Brown, and getting them elected. They want fiscal conservatism.
Didn't Scott Brown just vote for the jobs bill?
He did. After it had been carved down from 85 billion to 15.
Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts. He specifically ran as a moderate republican interested in trying to bring some fiscal conservatism to the Senate and fight things like the monstrously large health care bill. He couldn't have won in that state if he'd been a hardline lockstep member of the Republican party.
Shrug. I don't like the bill, but I understand why he voted for it, and I'm still glad he was elected.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Actively helping, not helping, and actively working against? To say that Republicans, or Tea Partiers, are racist implies they fall into the last category. That they actively strive to hamper minorities, that they want to cause them suffering.
If you think this, you don't understand the connotations of most racism.
There are such things -- in fact, they represent the majority of racism -- as fairweather racism, 'defensive' racism, things like having a mental process that does not actively wish suffering on a racial demographic, but would have a mental process that would say things like "I just don't want them in my workplace" or "I wouldn't want to be on a plane with one" and "I just don't trust those types" and would otherwise defend policies and procedures such as 'necessary' internment and procedurally racial investigation of persons at an airport. There are sizable factions of the American right who are just profoundly terrified of 'islamism' and it turns into this. There are examples on this very board.
Remember: most racism isn't like 'i hate black people and want them to suffer.' That's not the typical format. Racism usually comes in forms like 'i just don't trust those types' and 'oh, you know those <X>, don't get me wrong, I still have <X> friends, but ...'
That's a pretty good point, certainly. There's weak forms of racism that don't involve actively harming minorities.
So, Samprimary, do you think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who opposes using legislature to actively help minorities is that type of racist?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And this is not something we can divorce the tea party from, especially considering their nigh-unto-xenophobic interpretations of the solutions for 'islamicism' and other racially charged issues. Look at the tea party blogosphere. It's spearheaded by personalities like Michelle Malkin. The issue of racism in the movement cannot be waved away, or excused as a fringe element.
I don't really want to get into Islam here. I'd rather stick to discussion of domestic policies. The reason being that I am very strongly opposed to Islamic extremism, and I think the reality of the global situation is that a depressing majority of Muslims, even if they don't actively participate in Islamic extremism, identify with it on some level or another. Hell, I think far too many Americans identify with Islamic extremism on one level. I'm pretty solidly a hawk on the Islamist issue. That probably means I'm a racist in your book. I think that means your book is pretty flawed.
Either way, I highly doubt pursuing the discussion on this front will get us anywhere productive. I don't entertain high hopes on the domestic front, but I think it's a little bit less of a hot button issue these days, so that's the discussion I'm more interested in having. Is that alright with you, or do you feel this piece is essential to any discussion of racism in the US?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As for Obama's budget, I hate that sort of simplistic analysis.
First off, I think it's sort of intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that Bush's spending dramatically increased from Year One to Year Eight, and he handed this thing off to Obama having spend hundreds of billions, if not more than a trillion, more than he spent in his (Bush) first term.
Next, let's break this thing down a bit.
quote:In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that include some rather expensive items like the TARP program, which was instituted and passed under Bush, and not Obama? Wasn't that some $700 billion?
Alright. Although its worth mentioning it's not exactly as if Obama was opposing TARP. In fact, according to an interview with John Kerry in September of 08, TARP was really all Obama's idea and the Republicans took it and made it political. Or something. I find it a little difficult to parse Kerry most times.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Next, did Bush not start two extremely expensive wars whose cost was not fully accounted into his first year in office? In fact, wouldn't his first fiscal year in office not include those wars at all?
Did Bush not in fact more than DOUBLE the budget for the Pentagon during his eight years in office?
And was Obama not in fact dealing with a massive economic crisis, unheard of in more than a generation? If you look at both the Republican and Democratic solutions, they both entailed spending hundreds of billions of dollars, either through tax cuts or direct government spending.
Basically true on all counts. What can I say? It won't satisfy you, but there is a difference between defense spending and "stimulus" spending. Yes, I put stimulus in scare quotes.
In the case of the war, and the costliness thereof, it comes down a lot more to whether or not you think the war is justified. If it is, then certainly you should still try to spend intelligently (and, to be clear, I'm not convinced Bush did this), but you essentially will agree with the spending, at least in the abstract, on the macro level. Because if it's a war worth fighting, it's a war worth winning, and if it's worth winning, then you spend the money you need to win it.
The much bigger objection to the war had to do with its justification in the first place. And we certainly did see protesters on that front. Remember, I live in the Bay Area. I've had a firsthand look at many of those "peaceful" anti-war protests. Yikes.
In the case of the economy, once again there's a lot of divergences. Much like approving of the wars and general increase in defense spending, but disagreeing with Bush's specific instances of spending, one could agree that the correct way to stimulate the economy is through something like Obama's attempts, though perhaps modified in some way.
And then there are people who think that, instead, the government should reduce taxes, To be clear, this is not spending, man. I get that if we just reduce taxes and do nothing else, that still runs us a deficit, but it is quite literally not "spending". It's a reduction in income. But the people approve cutting taxes (maybe not the Republican leadership, but, say, people in the Tea Party) don't want a deficit. So they also approve of slashing spending. Slashing government programs and letting the private sector pick up the slack.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Think about all that, then come back and tell me you find a lot of value in the extremely threadbare comparison that FoxNews made by simply saying Obama outspent Bush's first term. A simplistic analysis isn't just useless, it's dangerous. And for that matter, you learn a lot more from digging into the details.
Okay, so am I to glean from this that you sincerely believe Obama intends to spend less than Bush? Overall? Trillion dollar health care bill notwithstanding, or what? I get that you agree with some of his choices, but hell, you don't even necessarily oppose government spending! So I'm confused as to why you're fighting this so hard. If, in fact, you are. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Edit: Man, triple posting. Fantastic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
By most accounts, the stimulus is working. Remember a year ago when people were using phrases like "free fall" and "bread lines"? It takes time to recover, but signs indicate that they are getting better. Most economists agree that in the middle of a recession is not the time to cut government spending and that spending is more effective than tax cuts when it comes to stimulating the economy - especially tax cuts for the rich.
The time to worry about the deficit was when we had a surplus - 5 to ten years ago - and were on an economic bubble. That is when we should have been balancing budgets. Where were all the tea protests then?
Let me know if you need all this linked for you. I believe most of it has been already in one thread or another.
There is absolutely NOT a consensus that the stimulus bill is doing anything. The vast majority of it has not been spent. That it is doing anything is wishful thinking and political spin.
The "jobless recovery" means that unemployment is still disasterous. What HAS stopped is the immenent demise of the financial sector, and that is because of the 1.2 trillion dollars the Federal Reserve has handed out in loans and by buying securities, ON TOP of the $800 billion in TARP funds.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:The unemployment rate fell from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction and in transportation and warehousing, while temporary help services and retail trade added jobs.
In other words, the only reason employment fell is a substantial number of people stopped looking for work without finding jobs. The fall in warehousing probably means places are not replacing inventory nearly as fast as would be desired, too.
Even most economists who think stimulus is a good idea don't think it has done very much at the moment. Coincidentally, we're right on track for when a typical recovery would happen, absent stimulus, just like happens in other recessions. That this one is a bit worse than normal is consistent with the recession having been a bit worse than normal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank:
quote:So I'm confused as to why you're fighting this so hard.
Because it's a scare statistic. My god, look how money that crazy liberal is spending. It's unheard of! Its gazillions more than that nice, responsible, fiscal conservative Republican President Bush spent. And this Obama fellow has only been in office for a few months! What's he spending all this money on! Trillions more than Bush!
And it's not a question of whether or not the war was justified and the stimulus bill wasn't. It's just raw numbers. Bush's first budget didn't include war spending. Obama's is jacked up by hundreds of billions of dollars because of it. Perhaps it is justified, though frankly, that's a dubious claim, and I'd feel just as justified in putting scare quotes around your "defense spending" thing, as frankly I think a lot of it is a huge, massive waste of money.
The point is, if you're going to compare first term budgets, these sort of things really should be itemized so people know exactly what you're talking about. Otherwise, why are we even making the comparison? Is it just to scare people over Obama's spending? Or is it really to ask why the differences are so vast? And if it's the second one, then shouldn't we actually delve into the details? I think the problem, for Republicans, with getting into those details is that it actually makes the comparison much, much less scary. When you realize the costs that Obama was saddled with before he even took the oath, you realize he's not quite the radical people are trying to paint him as, using scary statistics like the one you're pushing.
You're fine with this, because even if the details muddy the thrust of the bare statistic, you still feel that Obama is a spend-crazy liberal, so perhaps it isn't quantitatively correct, but it's essentially qualitatively correct, which absolves you of wrongdoing.
Does Obama intend to spend more than Bush overall? Well, given the economic crisis, and how quickly we get over it, I'd say that's probably going to end up being the case. Obama has a lot of legacy costs to deal with from Bush's first term that are going to significantly run up his costs. But in general? No, I don't think he wants to spend a great deal more, he just wants to spend it on other things. Near as I can tell, the trillion dollar health care bill, or whatever it is, is paid for over ten years, and most of that money comes from programs that already exist, but are being retasked. Most of it, if not all of it, is spending on the health care system that will already take place. So really, you don't get to boost his total spending with that one.
And saying that I don't oppose government spending is a gross oversimplification of my beliefs. I have no problem with the idea that there is a place for active government intervention in the American community to fix large problems that private citizens are not best equipped to fix by themselves, and I think there is a place for government intervention to help minority groups being trampled by a majority. That is not to say that I am in favor of all spending, or government spending in general even. I am in favor of very specific government actions.
As an aside:
quote:And then there are people who think that, instead, the government should reduce taxes, To be clear, this is not spending, man. I get that if we just reduce taxes and do nothing else, that still runs us a deficit, but it is quite literally not "spending". It's a reduction in income. But the people approve cutting taxes (maybe not the Republican leadership, but, say, people in the Tea Party) don't want a deficit. So they also approve of slashing spending. Slashing government programs and letting the private sector pick up the slack.
This is where the two sides most often come to loggerheads. The emphasis is mine there, of course, and I think this is an interesting point of disagreement. What private sector? You think if we got rid of medicare, medicaid, social security, and what not, that all of a sudden the private sector is going to step in for these people's benefit and help them out? What evidence could you possibly present to make you think that would happen?
Really though, we often don't come to this point because everyone hates cutting spending. Cutting spending means cutting jobs, and that's a death knell. People who howl about government spending often mean in OTHER people's districts. When you vote to cut spending in YOUR district that costs your constituents jobs, you tend to lose your seat. People are funny that way.
There's no disagreement about cutting spending, cutting the deficit, and god forbid, actually reducing the national debt. These are all things I'm very much invested in myself. Everyone wants to do that. The problem comes when small government conservatives say things like "let the private sector take care of it." Where did this faith in the private sector come from? The private sector historically has been out to make a profit off the backs of the suffering of average citizens. If they're the "good guys" then wow, we're in some serious, serious trouble. Liberals generally believe that this "help" will never materialize. So while liberals target defense spending and farm subsidies, conservatives target social welfare programs, and while both sides claim to be in favor of debt reduction, nothing ever gets done. Thus, to suggest it's only the Tea Party people who want to slash spending and have no deficit is a little ridiculous, no?
Really though, here's my question: Why do you inherently trust private business more than government?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Fugu, we seem to read different sources. I am linking to an article whose primary purpose is debunking Cochrane's position that government spending can never stimulate. More pertinent to this discussion are some links with estimates on jobs created. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/stimulus_and_jobs_bills Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even FOXNews and John Lott in an article about how the drop in unemployment numbers isn't as good as it would seem admit that "With today's numbers showing that the unemployment rate is now at 9.7 percent and that 200,000 fewer Americans have stopped looking for work, the recent picture has finally improved slightly."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Really though, here's my question: Why do you inherently trust private business more than government?
Because government doesn't go out of business if it doesn't deliver the goods.
You seem to think that people believe "the private sector" will take over the functions of government in the same way, and just give people health insurance. Well, obviously that's not going to happen. But if people weren't paying taxes, they would have extra money, and they could exchange that money for health insurance - you know, trade. Commerce. Buying and selling. Capitalism, if you will! That's what's meant by the private sector; not some magical government-like free healthcare handed out by suddenly-not-for-profit corporations.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
natural_mystic: I'm not sure what your point is; I certainly never asserted that government spending can never stimulate. I only pointed out that what kmbboots cited in no way shows that the job situation has improved significantly in the latest unemployment report. Indeed, it shows at best stagnation.
As for those job numbers, they're far too politically loaded for me to take them seriously. The recent economic downturn has been extremely hard for modelers to deal with, so I don't anticipate their track record will have been much better with modeling impact on employment.
What's more, the "jobs created" estimates that recipients were required to fill in was far lower, yet almost across the board the examples that have come out regarding that have involved numerous made up or not-in-danger jobs. I could maybe see the lower estimate of one million, which is a horrible deal for the amounts that have been spent. We could have done a lot better than that by much simpler programs, if creating jobs was such a high priority. Note: while I like the idea of there being more jobs, I think the more sensible course would have been to strengthen social safety nets, especially unemployment, even more than already done, rather than overspend to "create" jobs -- that will only keep existing if the people doing the hiring find other sources of money.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Government (or the folks who run it) get voted out if thye don't deliver. They are accountable to all of us, not just stockholders.
How much of a tax cut do you think I would need to pay for health care?
How about someone who is unemployed and not paying taxes? How is the private sector going to help there?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Government (or the folks who run it) get voted out if they don't deliver.
Right. That's why you're perfectly happy with the service at the DMV, and, of course, with your government-provided healthcare, which these so-accountable governments have failed to deliver for the past 20 years.
quote:How much of a tax cut do you think I would need to pay for health care?
Since there hasn't been a free market in healthcare anywhere in the western world for at least fifty years, I have no idea. But it is not the amount listed as "health insurance deduction" on your paycheck.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: natural_mystic: I'm not sure what your point is; I certainly never asserted that government spending can never stimulate.
Sorry if I was unclear- the bulk of the article is (to me, anyway) an amusing response to Cochrane's position. The only part pertinent to the discussion was the jobs numbers.
quote: As for those job numbers, they're far too politically loaded for me to take them seriously. The recent economic downturn has been extremely hard for modelers to deal with, so I don't anticipate their track record will have been much better with modeling impact on employment.
What numbers are you working from in your assessment of the effectiveness of the stimulus?
quote: Note: while I like the idea of there being more jobs, I think the more sensible course would have been to strengthen social safety nets, especially unemployment, even more than already done, rather than overspend to "create" jobs -- that will only keep existing if the people doing the hiring find other sources of money.
I don't disagree, I just wonder if much more could have been done along these lines politically.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:What numbers are you working from in your assessment of the effectiveness of the stimulus?
A fairly simple model: First, the people who have the most to gain from overemphasizing the effect of the stimulus are only able to point to, at best, modest gains. Since they are almost certainly grossly exaggerating, this suggests little effect. Second, stimulus spending has been low. For it to have had a large effect, there would have to be a huge multiplier, one that there is little evidence for. Third, our recovery is largely tracking other recession recoveries in terms of timeline (with jobs lagging). This suggests against any strong stimulus effect.
Oh, and fourth, a lot of economists (who aren't subject to political pressure to show large stimulus gains) with much more complicated models haven't found much of any effect. But that isn't actually a very large factor for me.
edit: plus, some of the money we spent was actively a bad idea. For instance, all those housing subsidy credits (sorry all the people who used them) -- encouraging housing purchases at the moment directly undermines long term welfare!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It is true that it was passed under the reconciliation process. What you are leaving out is that the reconciliation process is for budget bills, something the tax cuts fell under. Health care doesn't.
quote: 1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
Nice try kmboots, but all of those relate to existing government programs and deal directly with the budget. The only one that may not is COBRA, which was passed before the BYRD rule was modified in 1990.
You might want to read up on the Byrd rule. It provides for a point of order to be brought forward, but it can still be overturned by a 60 vote majority. This is the reason many believe a reconciliation vote is a complete and utter waste of time, as all republicans would have to do is point out that the bill does not qualify for reconciliation.
This is what killed the Clinton bill in 1993 but still allowed him to pass his budget bill. There was no point of order brought forward for the budget bill, as it satisfied the rule. The health care bill did not, and they lacked the 60 votes to push it through anyways.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyrhawn I just wanted to jump in and say that KoM answered the question you asked me. I think he answered it pretty much in line with how I would've, but in fewer words.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A fairly simple model: First, the people who have the most to gain from overemphasizing the effect of the stimulus are only able to point to, at best, modest gains. Since they are almost certainly grossly exaggerating, this suggests little effect.
Is the CBO an entity you consider as having something to gain by playing up the stimulus? It's supposed to not be partisan.
quote: Second, stimulus spending has been low. For it to have had a large effect, there would have to be a huge multiplier, one that there is little evidence for.
This is a bit unclear to me. When you say stimulus spending has been low, do you mean that only, say, a third of the stimulus money has gone out? Also, I'm not sure how to reconcile
quote: I could maybe see the lower estimate of one million, which is a horrible deal for the amounts that have been spent.
with this point. I assume I am missing something.
quote: Third, our recovery is largely tracking other recession recoveries in terms of timeline (with jobs lagging). This suggests against any strong stimulus effect.
Can you point me to this data? Without having seen the data, I'll just say that not all recessions are equal. Given the fears of a Depression 2.0, any similarity with contemporary recessions can be viewed as something of a victory for the policies employed.
quote: Oh, and fourth, a lot of economists (who aren't subject to political pressure to show large stimulus gains) with much more complicated models haven't found much of any effect. But that isn't actually a very large factor for me.
I can't say much here without seeing the opinions. Cochrane is an example of a highly decorated economist without political pressure (that I know of, anyway) who I would not trust on this.
quote: edit: plus, some of the money we spent was actively a bad idea. For instance, all those housing subsidy credits (sorry all the people who used them) -- encouraging housing purchases at the moment directly undermines long term welfare!
No argument here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Government (or the folks who run it) get voted out if they don't deliver.
Right. That's why you're perfectly happy with the service at the DMV, and, of course, with your government-provided healthcare, which these so-accountable governments have failed to deliver for the past 20 years.
quote:How much of a tax cut do you think I would need to pay for health care?
Since there hasn't been a free market in healthcare anywhere in the western world for at least fifty years, I have no idea. But it is not the amount listed as "health insurance deduction" on your paycheck.
I have no problem with the DMV, people who have Medicare (for example) seem pretty happy with it, and no, the "health insurance deduction" is my contribution to an employer-chosen health insurance, not a tax so I am not sure what you are trying to get at there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
He's suggesting that in an unfettered market (i.e. insurance cost isn't buried in a tax-deductible employer benefit) actual costs will go down.
[ February 25, 2010, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Government (or the folks who run it) get voted out if they don't deliver.
Right. That's why you're perfectly happy with the service at the DMV, and, of course, with your government-provided healthcare, which these so-accountable governments have failed to deliver for the past 20 years.
quote:How much of a tax cut do you think I would need to pay for health care?
Since there hasn't been a free market in healthcare anywhere in the western world for at least fifty years, I have no idea. But it is not the amount listed as "health insurance deduction" on your paycheck.
I have no problem with the DMV, people who have Medicare (for example) seem pretty happy with it, and no, the "health insurance deduction" is my contribution to an employer-chosen health insurance, not a tax so I am not sure what you are trying to get at there.
(Emphasis mine)
Really? I mean... really? If this is sincere, and not just over-my-head sarcasm, it kind of hurts your credibility. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, Samprimary, do you think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who opposes using legislature to actively help minorities is that type of racist?
No.
quote:I don't really want to get into Islam here. I'd rather stick to discussion of domestic policies.
That's too bad. I'm going to get into Islam here anyway, because that's not just a relevant issue when talking about Tea Party member mentalities, it's a pressing issue. We can't divorce it from the subject matter if the subject matter is talking about various prejudices that are much more likely to be prevalent in a popular movement than in the general population.
quote:That probably means I'm a racist in your book. I think that means your book is pretty flawed.
So you're stuffing an opinion in my mouth — one that I haven't asserted — and then using it to determine that my book is flawed. Have fun with that, I guess?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, Samprimary, do you think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who opposes using legislature to actively help minorities is that type of racist?
No.
quote:I don't really want to get into Islam here. I'd rather stick to discussion of domestic policies.
That's too bad. I'm going to get into Islam here anyway, because that's not just a relevant issue when talking about Tea Party member mentalities, it's a pressing issue. We can't divorce it from the subject matter if the subject matter is talking about various prejudices that are much more likely to be prevalent in a popular movement than in the general population.
quote:That probably means I'm a racist in your book. I think that means your book is pretty flawed.
So you're stuffing an opinion in my mouth — one that I haven't asserted — and then using it to determine that my book is flawed. Have fun with that, I guess?
What prejudices? What exactly makes this a pressing issue? I don't want to stuff opinions in your mouth (that's evoking a pretty fantastic mental image, by the way). I want to know your opinion. I have guesses, and I may extrapolate on those guesses from time to time, but I'm perfectly willing to be corrected.
Your apparent concern over the "xenophobia" of the Tea Party is what made me think you'd call me a racist for my own views on Islam. Maybe I'm wrong. So talk to me. What is the Tea Party saying or doing with regards to Islam that indicates to you they're a bunch of racist xenophobic crackpots?
Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc. I'm familiar with a fair number of them, to varying degrees, and I still don't see what you apparently see.
So show me. Please? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Really though, here's my question: Why do you inherently trust private business more than government?
Because government doesn't go out of business if it doesn't deliver the goods.
Neither do insurance companies apparently. In fact, they have it made. All they have to do is insure the healthiest people in the country, and as soon as someone gets sick, refuse to pay out, or if they get really sick, just boot them entirely and blacklist them from getting coverage. It's really a fantastic business model from a profit stand point. Only insure people that don't cost you money, and exclude everyone who might be risky.
Of course, this ignores the fact that those at risk people need some sort of coverage as well. How does private insurance solve that problem? The flipside benefit of corporations not going out of business for not coughing up, which frankly, I dispute to begin with, is that the government doesn't have to turn a profit. That's billions of dollars that we as a nation have to pay out that we wouldn't have to if the government did it all.
quote:You seem to think that people believe "the private sector" will take over the functions of government in the same way, and just give people health insurance. Well, obviously that's not going to happen. But if people weren't paying taxes, they would have extra money, and they could exchange that money for health insurance - you know, trade. Commerce. Buying and selling. Capitalism, if you will! That's what's meant by the private sector; not some magical government-like free healthcare handed out by suddenly-not-for-profit corporations.
Do I think that the private sector will GIVE people insurance for free? Or that anyone else thinks they will...no, of course not. That isn't what I was suggesting. But how is the private sector going to solve the problem of millions who either can't afford health care, or who aren't able to get it at all because they're simply too costly?
Bowing to the altar of capitalism seems to create as many problems as it solves. Where is the price competition that is supposed to lower prices? Why is the price of health care only continuing to sky rocket? Isn't the magic of the marketplace supposed to drive prices down, and not up?
Either way, I wasn't just talking about health care, but corporations in general. Historically, these are the people who get pissed off whenever we tell them they can't pollute the water, poison the air, allow people to die in poor working conditions, pay a wage that people can barely live off of, etc. They have absolutely nothing invested in the well being in the nation as a whole.
That's my biggest problem with them, and my biggest potential reason for trusting government more. I think ultimately, government is more accountable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What prejudices? What exactly makes this a pressing issue?
I didn't say it was a 'pressing' issue that obliterates everything else about the Tea Party, or that it get to dominate analysis of the Tea Party on the whole, which is not something that is solely defined by negative race-related mentality. I am pointing out that it is relevant issue when you're talking about the Tea Party.
I don't accept that you get to say something like "I don't really want to get into Islam here" and have it be an appropriate dismissal. It's akin to if we were talking about the latent racism of the Minutemen and you said "I really don't want to get into Mexicans."
quote:What is the Tea Party saying or doing with regards to Islam that indicates to you they're a bunch of racist xenophobic crackpots?
The things that your average Tea Party member might say that would convince me that they are a "bunch of crackpots" — and for your entertainment I'll start using your words just for the purpose of demonstration — is much more likely to have to do with whether or not they've figured out where Obama was born. The racist angle is subtler but easier to pick out when you look at issues in the directing mentality and associations of the movement. We already mentioned Tom Tancredo, Oath Keepers, and Michelle Malkin.
quote:Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc. I'm familiar with a fair number of them, to varying degrees, and I still don't see what you apparently see.
Hmm. This one's a gimme for me. Let's start with Michelle Malkin. I can make my case just by mentioning "In Defense of Internment." I'll just quote the lead on Wikipedia on that one.
quote:In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (ISBN 0-89526-051-4) is a 2004 book written by conservative American political commentator Michelle Malkin. Malkin tries to justify the United States government's internment of Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II and extend that logic to justifying racial profiling of Arabs during the post-2001 War on Terror. The book's message has been condemned by Japanese American groups and civil rights proponents.[1][2] Its scholarship has been criticized by academics.[3][4]
I mean, I don't have to editorialize her views at all. The subtitle of her book does all I need to do. If you still don't see anything even subtly racist or xenophobic about a book that defended the WWII racial internments, well, there's not a lot I can say.
/edit -- added missing text that keeps me from BLATANTLY CONTRADICTING MYSELF lolz
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I hope you don't mind the cherry picking. This is the only piece of what you said that I really, desperately, wanted to reply to immediately:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE] Bowing to the altar of capitalism seems to create as many problems as it solves. Where is the price competition that is supposed to lower prices? Why is the price of health care only continuing to sky rocket? Isn't the magic of the marketplace supposed to drive prices down, and not up?
You do realize that the current system is not even remotely like a free market, right? The number of regulations to leap through in order to, say, open a new hospital, is insane (CON being the biggest that jumps to mind). Restrictions on insurance are also significant. Requirements of what coverage can and can't be offered. And where it can be offered. And who can offer it. Not to mention the impact that frivolous lawsuits and "defensive medicine" has.
Free markets don't work when they're not even remotely free. I'm reminded of Anthony Weiner's insane rant at Congress yesterday. One of my favorite bits was when he said "Republicans say they're in favor of competition, but when we propose requiring competition, they're against it!"
Is this honestly the average Democrat's understanding of the free market position? I can barely even discuss this with a straight face.
Required competition. What an oxymoron.
You can't require competition. That doesn't even begin to approach making sense. In a free market, competition happens. No government force necessary. Do people really not get this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You can't require competition. That doesn't even begin to approach making sense.
... you can, actually, require competition.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank -
You know an exchange today between Eric Cantor and Barack Obama comes to mind as possibly being relevant. Cantor was talking about burdensome regulation driving up the cost of health care. Obama's response "you know we could probably make food even cheaper than current prices if we simply eliminated meat inspectors tomorrow."
Sometimes regulation is bad, sometimes it's a vital instrument of protection against the greed and apathetic neglect of corporations.
I don't think you're ever going to be able to sell me on the magical curative powers of the free market when it comes to health care. If we start from the premise that every American should have access to affordable, quality healthcare, then I don't think the private sector will ever be able to provide it, not because of regulation, but because of how their business model operates.
There is a financial disincentive built in to the health insurance system that makes it unprofitable to insure millions of people. So what do you do with them? If the government covered every one, then the risk pool would be spread out enough to absorb the costs, plus, with every one covered, a lot of problems are headed off before they even become problems. How will the private sector overcome that obstacle?
I don't think corporations should have a free hand to do whatever they want. You seem to be on the side that suggests they should have such abilities. I'd love to know why. And if not, exactly what limitations are you in favor of?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:What prejudices? What exactly makes this a pressing issue?
I didn't say it was a 'pressing' issue that obliterates everything else about the Tea Party, or that it get to dominate analysis of the Tea Party on the whole, which is not something that is solely defined by negative race-related mentality. I am pointing out that it is relevant issue when you're talking about the Tea Party.
I don't accept that you get to say something like "I don't really want to get into Islam here" and have it be an appropriate dismissal. It's akin to if we were talking about the latent racism of the Minutemen and you said "I really don't want to get into Mexicans."
Hey, that's fair. I just didn't want to hijack the thread. Discussions of Islam and its related conflicts tend to do that, you know? Wasn't really trying to slap you down or anything, sorry if it came off that way.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:What is the Tea Party saying or doing with regards to Islam that indicates to you they're a bunch of racist xenophobic crackpots?
The things that your average Tea Party member might say that would convince me that they are a "bunch of crackpots" — and for your entertainment I'll start using your words just for the purpose of demonstration — is much more likely to have to do with whether or not they've figured out where Obama was born. The racist angle is subtler but easier to pick out when you look at issues in the directing mentality and associations of the movement. We already mentioned Tom Tancredo, Oath Keepers, and Michelle Malkin.
We did mention Tom Tancredo and the Oath Keepers. So are we going to ignore the fact that Tancredo is a pretty staunch small government conservative, and a critic of the Bush administration for his profligate, unconservative spending practices? Is the idea here that Tancredo is just a racist and the Tea Party likes him because he's such a good ole racist?
And again, I really don't know much about the Oath Keepers, but once again, their wiki entry indicates they're small government, constitutional types. They seem to use extreme language, and I think if they really believe all their language then they take their positions too far... but I'm not seeing the racism. Maybe that's not on their wiki.
As for Malkin, well, we'll get there.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc. I'm familiar with a fair number of them, to varying degrees, and I still don't see what you apparently see.
Hmm. This one's a gimme for me. Let's start with Michelle Malkin. I can make my case just by mentioning "In Defense of Internment." I'll just quote the lead on Wikipedia on that one.
quote:In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (ISBN 0-89526-051-4) is a 2004 book written by conservative American political commentator Michelle Malkin. Malkin tries to justify the United States government's internment of Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II and extend that logic to justifying racial profiling of Arabs during the post-2001 War on Terror. The book's message has been condemned by Japanese American groups and civil rights proponents.[1][2] Its scholarship has been criticized by academics.[3][4]
I mean, I don't have to editorialize her views at all. The subtitle of her book does all I need to do. If you still don't see anything even subtly racist or xenophobic about a book that defended the WWII racial internments, well, there's not a lot I can say.
/edit -- added missing text that keeps me from BLATANTLY CONTRADICTING MYSELF lolz
Ooooh man. So. I don't really oppose racial profiling. I understand Malkin's case. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it makes her a racist. I think the Japanese internment camps had a xenophobic and racist cause, certainly, but it was not the only reason for them.
If, statistically, people of a certain race are more likely to commit a certain crime, I don't think it's helping anyone to be politically correct and pretend that's not the case. I'm a man, more than that, I'm a relatively young, large man. I'm statistically more likely to rape a woman than, say, another young woman would be. I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman alone on a dark street corner to be more uncomfortable with me approaching her than she would be if, say, Lisa were approaching her.
So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You know an exchange today between Eric Cantor and Barack Obama comes to mind as possibly being relevant. Cantor was talking about burdensome regulation driving up the cost of health care. Obama's response "you know we could probably make food even cheaper than current prices if we simply eliminated meat inspectors tomorrow."
Ahahahah. Okay, I admit it, that was pretty good.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now?
Dan, you have to get off of your pre-emptive victimization card. I have not ventured any guess about whether or not you are a racist and your constant attempts to goad the subject into pagressively venturing whether or not I am categorizing you as a racist or a rapist for being a large man or whatever (wtf) yet is wearing thin fast.
If you want me to call you a racist, say something distinctly racist and I'll indulge you. Otherwise, give it a rest already.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:So. Does this mean you don't have anything else to say? Am I a racist now?
Dan, you have to get off of your pre-emptive victimization card. I have not ventured any guess about whether or not you are a racist and your constant attempts to goad the subject into pagressively venturing whether or not I am categorizing you as a racist or a rapist for being a large man or whatever (wtf) yet is wearing thin fast.
If you want me to call you a racist, say something distinctly racist and I'll indulge you. Otherwise, give it a rest already.
Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
But seriously, I don't get it. I could've sworn you said most of the Tea Party was racist/xenophobic (or was it a "statistically significant group"? Not necessarily "most" per se, but enough). I'm trying to get why you think that.
So, if you think that because of Malkin, well.. why? I don't think Malkin is a racist either. I don't agree with all she says but plenty of it makes sense to me. When I ask if you think I'm a racist I'm just continuing with what seems the logical conclusion. I'll stop asking though. Irrelevant.
Could you point out why Malkin is a racist, exactly? Because I don't think her defense of internment is racist.
We can do someone else if you've decided Malkin's not racist. Whatever your justifications are, I want to see them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Progress!
What's next?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Also can I just say that when you italicize "large man" like that it makes me very self conscious. I may be fat, but jeez, man, you don't need to... to emphasize it like that!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Progress!
What's next?
Look, if I point out that you're strawmanning, the worst way to move forward is by doing it even more blatantly in the immediate next post.
I mean, I know you're just having fun now but it's providing the ultimate bad-faith argument as to whether or not I should take you seriously. I'll laugh along, of course, but I'll sense that you have abandoned any pretense at actually debating.
So, ha ha?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Try again, dude. The rapist thing was just an elaborate analogy to justify racial profiling.
It's also dumb. Stop it! It's got nothing to do with anything I am or am not suggesting. I don't feel like sitting here and watching you arguing with strawmen off to the side
Okay. Cool. So we agree that racial profiling can make sense in certain situations, and is not inherently racist or xenophobic.
Progress!
What's next?
Look, if I point out that you're strawmanning, the worst way to move forward is by doing it even more blatantly in the immediate next post.
I mean, I know you're just having fun now but it's providing the ultimate bad-faith argument as to whether or not I should take you seriously. I'll laugh along, of course, but I'll sense that you have abandoned any pretense at actually debating.
So, ha ha?
Yeah, I kind of got tired of asking for you to give me an actual position to work with. But, y'know, if you ever feel like taking me up on it, I'll be happy to get serious again. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
This was getting fun until Dan_Frank just started clowning around.
Boo.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Sometimes regulation is bad, sometimes it's a vital instrument of protection against the greed and apathetic neglect of corporations.
Agreed. I never said otherwise. But in the specific case of healthcare, the US has insanely bad regulations.
quote:Neither do insurance companies apparently. In fact, they have it made. All they have to do is insure the healthiest people in the country, and as soon as someone gets sick, refuse to pay out, or if they get really sick, just boot them entirely and blacklist them from getting coverage.
You know, it's really strange, but somehow people do actually get healthcare in this country, even when they get cancer. You are focusing on outlying horror stories and acting as though they were the median. It's a textbook case of outrage bias; you don't look at the average, you insist on focusing on the small parts that don't work, and make the news.
quote:But how is the private sector going to solve the problem of millions who either can't afford health care, or who aren't able to get it at all because they're simply too costly?
Ok, in the first place, a freer market would have cheaper health insurance; even better, it wouldn't have 'insurance' that covered your every sniffle. Having 'insurance' that pays for going to the doctor for the flu is insane. But in the second place, if you want people to have stuff, give them money to buy stuff. Vouchers, if you insist on believing that you know better than them what they ought to buy. But messing around with mandating what can be sold and at what price, just gives you the worst of both worlds: You get all the fluid skill of the market applied to finding the loopholes in your regulations, and all the scleroticism of a bureaucracy in responding to new treatments.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: This was getting fun until Dan_Frank just started clowning around.
Boo.
Boo? Really? How constructive.
Samprimary:
The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Here's a short list of African American conservatives who are worth listening to and agree with the tea parties.
Alan Keyes Thomas Sowell Herman Cain Mychal Massie Walter Williams Larry Elder Erik Rush Ellis Washington Star Parker Allen West Jessee Lee Peterson JC Watts
My favorite: Thomas Sowell
Sowell is in my top three of intellectual conservatives, sandwiched in between Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan.
Of course, the left considers the people on my list to be illegitimate for not adhering to the stereotypical role of a minority in American society.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM and I suppose Dan_Frank too:
What problems presented by the Canadian/Euro model of government provided health insurance do you think a totally free health insurance market would solve?
And by the way, I'm on board with changing the perception/nature of health care to disinclude visits for every sneeze and sniffle. I think if we start treating health insurance a little more like car insurance, where you only use it when you really need it, as opposed to every time you get sick regardless of what you're sick with, or at least, some sort of halfway measure that allows for consultation with your doctor via email/phone so you know when you come in and when not to, it would both cheapen insurance somewhat, and takes some of the pressure off of the PCPs.
I think, so far as a public discussion of the problem goes, this is where we start to muddy the waters that separate health care from health insurance. I think we'd all be a lot better off if a clearer distinction was made between the two issues, and they were tackled separately, but with equal vigor.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Sowell, huh?
A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, which describes itself as "A think tank on the campus of Stanford University, dedicated to research in domestic policy and international affairs, committed to generating ideas that define a free society."
OK, but what does Sowell think about people who's roll is to generate ideas?
quote:Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas - the intellectuals - have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times. The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals - not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.
So... smart people sometimes agree with bad people, therefore smart people are bad. Also, he's one of those smart people.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Sowell, huh?
A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, which describes itself as "A think tank on the campus of Stanford University, dedicated to research in domestic policy and international affairs, committed to generating ideas that define a free society."
OK, but what does Sowell think about people who's roll is to generate ideas?
quote:Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas - the intellectuals - have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times. The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals - not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.
So... smart people sometimes agree with bad people, therefore smart people are bad. Also, he's one of those smart people.
A good quote of Sowell. A quote that makes me agree with him even more. The fact that I called him a "conservative intellectual" doesn't negate his statement against "intellectuals". He's talking about the intellectuals of the left who adored the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. The very same intellectuals are active today and give a free pass to William Ayers, Castro, respect Hugo Chavez, negotiate with Iran or North Korea and give constitutional rights to terrorists.
The realm of the "intellectual" is predominately left. The leftist intellectuals have always defended the likes of the National Socialist Party. Of course, they deny their love of the likes of Moussolini, Mao, Hitler and Stalin, once the genocide becomes public. Our "Intellectuals" think the ideal was corrupted by those bad men, yet can still be achieved. Communism is a wonderful concept, as long as you have a benevolent dictator. The problem is, we aren't a dictatorship. Of course the executive branch can always impose regulations at the will of the president,...EPA, DEA, HOA, etc. Our dictatorship will resemble money laundering. Congress better pass cap and trade, or the EPA will have to regulate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And by the way, I'm on board with changing the perception/nature of health care to disinclude visits for every sneeze and sniffle. I think if we start treating health insurance a little more like car insurance, where you only use it when you really need it, as opposed to every time you get sick regardless of what you're sick with, or at least, some sort of halfway measure that allows for consultation with your doctor via email/phone so you know when you come in and when not to, it would both cheapen insurance somewhat, and takes some of the pressure off of the PCPs.
I absolutely love the bolded section. This isn't the first time I've seen this idea put forth (It's a favorite suggestion of a couple of my favorite conservative bloggers), but it's the first time I've seen a person on the other side of the fence, so to speak, suggest it. Bipartisan agreement! Man, if only Congress were as levelheaded as Hatrack.
Lyrhawn, I don't expect we'll ever have a truly free market in the USA. For health care or health insurance or anything else, really. I'm not going to cry about that. That's the world we live in.
And, since it's getting to be about bedtime, I'll cop out again and say I agree with a lot of what KoM said. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I absolutely love the bolded section. This isn't the first time I've seen this idea put forth (It's a favorite suggestion of a couple of my favorite conservative bloggers), but it's the first time I've seen a person on the other side of the fence, so to speak, suggest it. Bipartisan agreement! Man, if only Congress were as levelheaded as Hatrack.
Well, I'd start off by saying I'm not a stereotypical liberal in a lot of ways. But more importantly, while that is something I support, there's another side to that coin: if health insurance is going to operate just like car insurance, the price of health insurance has to dramatically come down in response to such a measure. Also, the choice should be the consumers, not the insurance company's. We choose not to invoke car insurance for a variety of reasons: 1. We can often choose higher deductibles in order to gain a lower premium, with the understanding that minor fender benders will be paid for out of pocket, and the knowledge that our rates won't go up because of claims. There's a built-in financial incentive, then, to choose that path. But if your car gets totaled, then you call the insurance company. A lot of the time, we make this decision after we seek out the advice of a repair person, who estimates the cost of the damages.
If we're going to carry the analogy over, then we'd have to have discounts offered for health insurance premiums to people who act the same way. I'm not going to pay the same price for fewer services. I think this is especially something young people would sign onto, because we rarely use the health care system unless something more catastrophic happens.
And like the repair estimate, I think there would have to be an agreement with doctors that you can call or email them with your symptoms to get an expert opinion on whether or not it's worth it to come in and see him or not. A lot, maybe even most doctors already provide this service. My old doctor did, whom I no longer see since I lost my insurance.
I think this sort of arrangement also encourages wellness, and the idea of people taking care of themselves before they ever even reach the doctor's office, or feel the need to go, so they get sick less, again, because of the financial incentive.
However, this sort of arrangement would disproportionately negatively effect lower income groups. These are the sort of people who can't afford a car, let alone the insurance on it, and choose not to drive. But they can't choose not to get sick. How do we insure them? The same structure of financial incentives and higher deductibles won't work, and they'll go to the ER, as they've done in the past, where they can pass the bill off onto the hospital, and via raised prices, onto everyone with the money to pay. It's possible that using a model like this will bring down prices enough to bring in a lot more lower income workers, but for people living paycheck to paycheck, I don't really see it solving the problem. This is where the analogy falls apart.
That's still a problem that has to be solved. Tax breaks aren't going to solve it either. These people already don't pay income tax. Unless you absolve them of their other tax burdens, there's no way to return "their" money to them without creating fully refundable tax credits to give them. That puts us back into the realm of income redistribution and government hand-outs, which a lot of conservatives are going to have a problem with. What's the solution?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... It's really a fantastic business model from a profit stand point. Only insure people that don't cost you money, and exclude everyone who might be risky.
Or to put some numbers behind it:
quote:The insurers claim that rescission is very rare; at the Congressional hearing, two of three industry representatives said it happens to less than 0.5% of policies per year. But that is a deeply misleading number. That means that if you are in the individual market for twenty years, you have a 10% chance of your policy being rescinded; 30 years, and it goes up to 14%. There is a big difference between health insurance and a 90% chance of having health insurance. And remember, insurers only try to rescind policies if you turn out to need them; so the percentage of people who lose their policies when they need them is even higher. (The denominator should exclude all those people who never need expensive medical care, at least not before 65 when they go onto the single-payer system.)
quote:If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So you're both going with the black people are lazy and like welfare, excuse?
Disgusting. Are you that uncertain of your own views that you have to lie about those of others?
Lisa, it may not be what you meant to imply, but it is hardly a stretch to read it that way. I don't think you think that, but I did a double take when I read what you posted none the less, and reread it to make sure you had really said that.
Perhaps it has more to do with HOW you said something rather than what you meant to say.
BTW, calling Lyr (or myself) a racist makes as much sense as claiming you are a member of the Arab League.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dan, thank you for engaging people in a discussion. I read the earlier part of this thread am I almost gave up on the thread. Too many people were jawing back and forth with talking points and assumptions, and I didn't think that this thread would be worth much if it kept up like that.
I don't mind discussions where people disagree with me....most of the time I prefer it. I appreciate the fact that you and Lyr are talking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB]The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
The only MO I have is that if I reach the end of a 'reasonably sized post' and it concludes with some strawmanning or other rhetorical devices which, at its core, misrepresent me very unconstructively, I'm going to pause the greater 'discussion' and focus on that because it's pointless to continue that discussion at large as long as the other person does not appear able or willing to represent my real views over rhetorical revisionism. I'm going to tell you to quit it and see if you are serious about not actually doing that before I bother going forward.
You said that you didn't want to stuff words in my mouth. Then, you flippantly continue doing so, then you say stuff like "I kind of got tired of asking you to give me an actual position to work with" when there's no lack of evidence that I'm giving you ample position to work with.
These act like hard breaks in any willingness I have to keep debating with you as though you were being serious, since it's just flippant disregard/dismissal. Then, you blame your continued disregard on me. It's just lazy. Even this post is suggesting that my methodology is based on just ignoring most of what you say. If you actually think this about me at this point, what can I accomplish?
quote:As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Then do! A simple 'okay, okay, i'll cut out the strawmanning' will suffice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm a man, more than that, I'm a relatively young, large man. I'm statistically more likely to rape a woman than, say, another young woman would be. I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman alone on a dark street corner to be more uncomfortable with me approaching her than she would be if, say, Lisa were approaching her.
Would you be okay if we preemptively locked you up then?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:I have no problem with the DMV
Really? I mean... really? If this is sincere, and not just over-my-head sarcasm, it kind of hurts your credibility.
Really. I don't have to deal with them very often, but on the rare occasions that I have, they seem to do what they are supposed to do. It is tedious, but no more tedious than most tedious chores like dealing with the gas company or the phone company. What problems do you have?
I also have very few problems with other government services like police and fire departments, my garbage gets picked up and the roads (while not perfect) are generally usable. Same with public schools and universities. Not perfect, but I am glad that we have them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My problem is that they suspended my license for not insuring a car I didn't even own and then DIDN'T tell me, so I almost got arrested the next time I encountered a police officer.
It certainly wasn't deliberate, but that was some massive incompetence with serious consequences. I am not impressed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The quality of various different government departments varies tremendously from state to state.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Car insurance is a reactionary type of insurance. It kicks in when something bad happens. If you get into a wreck it is covered. If it is your fault your premiums may go up.
How is this different than health insurance in America right now? Depending on how you live your life, your health will be better or worse than the average person. When you get in a health "wreck" you will usually be covered. I know some people are dropped or denied coverage, but the actual number of people that happens to is miniscule. If you do not drive your health well (smoke, binge drink, eat nothing but fast food) then you are more likely to have a health wreck, and your insurance may go up.
The key to health care is preventative care. I am lucky in that my health insurance provider covers preventative care 100%, with no co-pay. If you can prevent the wreck from happening by correcting problems early on, both you and the insurance company saves money.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course, there are plenty of things over which we have no control at all that effect our health. Genetics, accidents, childhood diseases, and so forth.
I notice a tendency in conservatives to attribute unfortunate circumstances in others to some fault of the unfortunate person. While we certainly do have an impact on our circumstances, bad things do sometimes happen to people who do everything right and who don't somehow deserve misfortune.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That means that if you are in the individual market for twenty years, you have a 10% chance of your policy being rescinded; 30 years, and it goes up to 14%.
This is simply untrue; it assumes that rescissions are independent, which is clearly not true. What's more, it takes "less than 0.5%" and plugs 0.5% into the calculation, which is based on bad assumptions to start with. A really classic case of misusing statistics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meh. On the other hand, "less than 0.5%" is from pre-prepared testimony from insurance executives. I have no doubt that it has already been massaged downward to cast them in the best possible light and that the true statistic is much higher anyways.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Mucus, even if it were only .5% however, that is a lot of people. If there are 200 million insured Americans and .5% of them have their insurance revoked, that is still 1 million people.
And kmboots, I completely agree with you. There are things that are out of your control. Bad things happen to people at times without any reason. I don't believe I said otherwise.
I was comparing health with driving a car. If you drive carefully and treat it with respect, you are much less likely to get into a wreck. That isn't to say accidents still don't happen.
The same rule applies with your health. If you eat healthy, work out, and keep your personal hygiene habits, you are going to be less likely to have poor health. Again, "accidents" happen that are out of your control.
I notice a tendency in your posts to come up with ways to try and demean others by deliberately trying to say they meant something other than what they made clear in their post. I don't know if this stems from not reading the entire post or a desire to disagree with me on every single point I make, even if I agree with your view.
That being said, I will address your comment. Both sides do it. It could be said that conservatives do this to the extreme, and I would agree with you. I could also argue that liberals do the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum. I could argue that liberals shun personal responsibility and say that any morally reprehensible act is a direct result of "genetics" or "the way they were brought up" or "the lack of opportunity in the community they live" or that "his mother and father didn't love him" or what have you.
Both ideas are hogwash
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Mucus, even if it were only .5% however, that is a lot of people. If there are 200 million insured Americans and .5% of them have their insurance revoked, that is still 1 million people.
The number was for the individual market. Not many people get their insurance that way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [QB]The problem with discussing this with you is that it seems like your MO here has involved ignoring most of what I say in favor of getting bent out of shape at one or two sentences. At least twice you seemed to ignore a reasonably sized post and chose to just harp on a single comment I had made.
The only MO I have is that if I reach the end of a 'reasonably sized post' and it concludes with some strawmanning or other rhetorical devices which, at its core, misrepresent me very unconstructively, I'm going to pause the greater 'discussion' and focus on that because it's pointless to continue that discussion at large as long as the other person does not appear able or willing to represent my real views over rhetorical revisionism. I'm going to tell you to quit it and see if you are serious about not actually doing that before I bother going forward.
You said that you didn't want to stuff words in my mouth. Then, you flippantly continue doing so, then you say stuff like "I kind of got tired of asking you to give me an actual position to work with" when there's no lack of evidence that I'm giving you ample position to work with.
These act like hard breaks in any willingness I have to keep debating with you as though you were being serious, since it's just flippant disregard/dismissal. Then, you blame your continued disregard on me. It's just lazy. Even this post is suggesting that my methodology is based on just ignoring most of what you say. If you actually think this about me at this point, what can I accomplish?
quote:As I said above, I'd be happy to roll it back to the whole Tea Party/Malkin part of the discussion.
Then do! A simple 'okay, okay, i'll cut out the strawmanning' will suffice.
By giving this a meaningful response, I feel like I'm letting you control the discourse and tacitly admitting that this whole derail is my fault. Nevertheless, I really want the discussion to move back to somewhere meaningful, so I'm going to give it a shot.
The first "strawman" I used, I explicitly said "That probably makes you think X". I wasn't implying that I knew what you thought. I guessed, and I admitted that I was guessing. Nevertheless, I'll accept that I shouldn't have guessed at your motives and then extrapolated to say "if that is your motive then Y." I should have simply reacted to what you were saying.
And then, what really set us off down that wonderful little unproductive road was when I asked if you thought I was racist yet. Here's the thing...
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If you still don't see anything even subtly racist or xenophobic about a book that defended the WWII racial internments, well, there's not a lot I can say.
Perhaps I'm misreading you here. But the way I'm reading this, that "well, there's not a lot I can say" pretty strongly indicates that your conclusion is anyone who doesn't see any racism in Malkin's book obviously has some racist leanings themselves. Thus, when I respond by saying I don't think Malkin's view is racist, I also jump to the wild conclusion that you will, in fact, see me as a racist.
Where's the strawman here? I guess I misread you, in which case, hey, I'm really sorry. I don't like misreading people. I don't like "stuffing opinions in their mouth" (though I do love that phrase). So, if you weren't saying you think I'm a racist for not thinking Malkn is a racist, then we can pick up there and everybody wins.
Well, except my girlfriend. I have to go take her to an oral surgeon now, and she's getting a screw drilled into her jaw. So I think she loses. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I notice a tendency in conservatives to attribute unfortunate circumstances in others to some fault of the unfortunate person. While we certainly do have an impact on our circumstances, bad things do sometimes happen to people who do everything right and who don't somehow deserve misfortune.
More specifically, it's a westener thing. Many cultures don't show this error. It is tied not to human nature, but rather the way our culture tends to see the world.
[ February 26, 2010, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. But an appreciation for individualism as opposed to collectivism increases the bias.
kate - that's not kosher to pretend that a single thing you are linking to defines all conservatives. If you mean the adherents of that particular theology, then be more careful and less careless in your general accusations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's also the fun little Just World Theory error that exacerbates it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pointing to other niche loonies does the same thign as kate's link - only highlight how lazy and careless the accusation was in the first place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate - that's not kosher to pretend that a single thing you are linking to defines all conservatives. If you mean the adherents of that particular theology, then be more careful and less careless in your general accusations.
err...how is saying something applies to much of the conservative crowd equate to saying it applied to all conservatives? This criticism seems obviously unwarranted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"much of" does not mean "all".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I'm not sure what niche loonies you are talking about. Do you think that Just World Theory is something that fits into this category? The link I provided implies, but doesn't really go into detail, that this is a widespread and well-studied issue.
I'm having trouble seeing sense in the things you are saying. You seem to be throwing accusations at people that are obviously contradicted by what they are writing.
---
For the record, several studies of self-identified "liberals" vs. "conservatives" have shown a significantly higher prevalence of the fundamental attribution error in the conservative group. Which, honestly, I don't think is that surprising.
It's important to note that 1) this error is widespread across our culture, whether liberal or conservative and 2) this is not a universal trait among conservatives.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Comparing health insurance to car insurance is a very bad idea. In car insurance, discrimination is accepted. Car insurance looks at statistics. Women pay less than men and things like age, home ownership, credit scores, college degrees, student status, etc are accepted inputs into the equation.
Health insurance considers age, ignores sex, credit scores, marriage, race, etc. Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare. Car insurance is scientific in it's approach to the risk of the individual. This approach would be called sexist/racist profiling if applied to healthcare. Healthcare insurers need to ignore the costs of pregnancy and medical problems more common among different racial groups. Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive....if auto insurance type statistics were applied. Healthcare risk has a lot to do with genetics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:... Feel free to quote notable pro-Tea Party blogosphere personalities, certainly. Reynolds, Breitbart, Malkin, etc.
quote:In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror (ISBN 0-89526-051-4) is a 2004 book written by conservative American political commentator Michelle Malkin. Malkin tries to justify the United States government's internment of Japanese Americans in relocation camps during World War II and extend that logic to justifying racial profiling of Arabs during the post-2001 War on Terror.
Just bookmarking this in my account so it is more easily searchable. Should be handy next time someone is all "In this century, we won't succumb to putting people in internment camps. Americans have a more evolved sensibility."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare ... Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
War is hell. Interning every American Japanese was horrible. >99% of the Japs they interred were loyal Americans. For this reason, we aren't interring American Muslims today. Unfortunately, that <1% belong to terrorist cells. That fraction of a percent will kill hundreds, if not thousands. I hope you are as understanding when the victims are people you love.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hey guys, I just wanted to say that I've watched a couple interviews with Stewart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers and they seem pretty awesome. Maybe there's some video of them being racist and evil that I haven't seen yet. So far I've seen Rhodes interviewed by a conservative and interviewed (i.e. attacked) by Chris Matthews, and in both cases he was composed and relatively articulate (perhaps a bit less articulate with Chris Matthews, because he kept being put on the defensive).
So, yeah. They seem pretty radical. Er, to clarify, that's radical in the 1980s sense, not in the extremist sense.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Minorities and women are certainly the highest expense for heathcare ... Asians should have the cheapest health insurance and African Americans, the most expensive
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?
Maybe he's saying that minorities, on average, are a higher expense than white people. Asians are minorities, but there are so few of them compared to African Americans and Hispanics that they wouldn't affect the average minority expense very much.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Do you not consider Asians minorities or something?