posted
Cap...you aren't beating anyone at any game. What you are doing, with posts like that one, is making sure no one takes you seriously. You can rant, rave and foam at the mouth if you want.....as you seem to be doing in this thread.....just don't try and pass any of that off as facts, or "beating" anyone else.
That being said, I don't think there ARE any solid numbers on who makes up the Tea Party. The people who support the Tea party want us to believe they are a cross section of the US, but most of the people I know who are strongly in support of it are well off white folks, most of whom own houses well over $200,000 in value even today, and who have assets they are concerned are being devalued or taxed too much.
I would be interested in finding out who considers themselves Tea Party members as a whole, but even among Tea Party groups there are wide differences.
Just because I would like lower taxes doesn't mean I support the tea party. Just because I think heathcare sucks in the country doesn't mean I am a socialist.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The comparisons between the tea party and the John Birch society by a conservative is particularly interesting, since not too long ago that was a subject of focus by harpers. The parallels do get eerier the more you read into Goldwater and the birchers, right down to the brazenly open support for stuff which contravenes the constitution.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I would be interested in finding out who considers themselves Tea Party members as a whole, but even among Tea Party groups there are wide differences.
The Koch brothers?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The vast majority of the American middle class is not behind "Obamacare".
I'd need to see a source for that. I'd be unsurprised if it was Rassmussen.
There was this opinion poll they did first Tuesday (edit: after the first Monday) of November this year that did a pretty good job of establishing this.
---
I'm not sure you get this. The Democrats keep losing. They couldn't beat George W Bush. When there was a major backswing against his awful Presidency in 2006, they still couldn't stand up to him. When they had massive majorities in Congress and the Presidency, they still couldn't beat the Republicans.
If you believe that they are the better choice or, if you're going to go into crazy town and think that they are the good guys, then you're left with the option of either they're doing things very wrong or the American people are just too stupid to not consistently make horrible choices. I happen to think that it's pretty obvious that the Democrats are doing a very poor job in a ton of ways. What you seem to be saying is that the Democrats are doing a great job, but either the Republicans are masters of some sort of dark magics or that the American public is just so incredibly stupid.
See, this is why I ought to actually register as a Republican. So they can teach me some freakin' dark magic!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A coven of Young Republicans cornered me in an alley and stripped me of my mystical talisman of Nagaer when I changed my registration.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberals always want to protect the American people from their own stupidity. Seat belt and helmet laws, anyone....? Some parents feed their kids too much McDonalds and some American's choose to smoke. We need smart and benevolent liberals to decide what is good for us while outlawing that which isn't....individuals make the wrong choices. Some people are too stupid.....
Some people vote for a president who promises "hope and change".... Too stupid to get to the heart of the matter, too stupid understand nutrition. Suckers for marketing. Tit for tat, free or regulated...your choice. Of course, if you're stupid, you aren't free to make the "wrong choice", if the progressives have their way.
I'm pro choice....even for stupid people. Conservatives believe stupid people are free to choose, progressives believe the government should prevent them from having the wrong choice as an option.
posted
I'll just point out, we could have an interesting conversation here between people who believe very different things but who respect - although maybe some of you could work on that a little bit - each other, or you could do another run around with mal.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pro choice....even for stupid people. Conservatives believe stupid people are free to choose, progressives believe the government should prevent them from having the wrong choice as an option.
This sentence was so delicious. MORE IRONY PLEASE.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Another round with Mal? I oppose abortion but accept abortion clinics. I wouldn't even suggest an extra tax on abortion equivalent to the extra taxes on cigarettes. Both are wrong, (in my opinion)....we're a free nation. Free nation's don't differentiate between fetuses, sugar, fat, immigration or McD toys...we're a nation of laws. Liberals want to tax bad behavior out of existence...conservatives want to follow the law. Conservatives don't suggest a contraceptive tax. Conservatives don't use the tax code to manipulate behavior. Law is law, unless of course, it's immigration law.
I'm consistent. So is my daughter. She doesn't understand how she's called a racist, her best friend is black....she's 10 years old. I told her to get used to people using the race card to shut her up and told her to never shut up.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awesomely weird ramblings aside, your personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant since you brought conservatism as a whole into it.
Conservatives want to limit personal choice as much as Liberals do, they just want to do it about different stuff. No abortions, no gay marriage, no smoking weed, no mosques by Ground Zero...
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'll just point out, we could have an interesting conversation here between people who believe very different things but who respect - although maybe some of you could work on that a little bit - each other, or you could do another run around with mal.
You're confusing irony with your inability to interpret sarcasm.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Awesomely weird ramblings aside, your personal opinion on abortion is irrelevant since you brought conservatism as a whole into it.
Conservatives want to limit personal choice as much as Liberals do, they just want to do it about different stuff. No abortions, no gay marriage, no smoking weed, no mosques by Ground Zero...
I wont disagree with you. Conservatives do want to limit personal choice as well. My point is that conservatives want to do it legally. Liberals make sanctuary cities to ignore federal law. Liberals make local medical marijuana laws. Liberals might not be able to outlaw cigarettes, they'll tax them to the point they're unaffordable.
Conservatives and Liberals both want change. Conservatives want to change the law, liberals ignore or undermine the law. Can a city exist that is a "sanctuary" from federal law? I guess it depends on the law.
Conservatives are black and white, liberals are shades of gray. Only the wise understand the intricacies of the liberal. Stupid conservatives stick to the "letter" of the law. Smart liberals understand the "intent" of the law.
Where do you draw the line? Conservatives pick a point...liberals, the line is flexible.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:...the American people are just too stupid to not consistently make horrible choices.
I think this is provably true.
If that's the background that people are coming from, I think it is important to realize that. Then, they can figure out how to work with this situation.
As it is, this impression comes through pretty strongly to the voting public and it's one of the big reasons why people don't vote for Democrats. Health Care Reform is just another example of the Democrats being clear that they see the public's role as sitting back and doing what they are told. And you can see how well that went.
On the other side, the people running and headlining Fox News clearly think that their audience lacks...shall we say, critical discernment (Glen Beck getting people to donate to the Chamber of Commerce still cracks me up). And their audience loves them for it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Health Care Reform is just another example of the Democrats being clear that they see the public's role as sitting back and doing what they are told. And you can see how well that went.
See, I thought Health Care Reform was an example of Democrats doing exactly what they promised people they'd do if they got elected. I mean, it's not like it was a surprise agenda that Obama foisted upon us.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wont speak for Squicky here, but I'll provide a possible interpretation for what he meant and then say even if it wasn't what he was going for, I am. That the Democrats viewed their landslide (or whatever it was) as a mandate for the proposed agenda and thus did not engage the people (tm) in a discussion, or issue campaign but instead assumed that the battle was fought and over. Meanwhile the Republicans put on a fight for their ideas, thus this comment:
quote:Health Care Reform is just another example of the Democrats being clear that they see the public's role as sitting back and doing what they are told. And you can see how well that went.
We were supposed to just let them put through what they proposed rather than getting involved in it and the Democrats were blindsided when a large population did not just sit down for two years. I don't know how the two sides compare in terms of how hard they worked or how much time they spent putting out propaganda, but I heard a coherent message from the Republicans and ... well a lot of noise from the Democrats. At this point I'd like to remind everyone of my previous post where I stated I was in favor of the Democrat's health care plan, just not their "engaging the American Public" plan.
edit: Oh, I think you missed that I was talking about election day.
I'm asking you for your source. Please provide your source. The rest of it (about discovering that people are stupid) is irrelevant to me right now because I'm literally only asking about numbers on the middle class and support of Obamacare.
But I will say this:
quote: What you seem to be saying is that the Democrats are doing a great job
No. You should re-read my position on the democratic versus the republican plans on healthcare.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Meanwhile the Republicans put on a fight for their ideas ,
Certainly the put up a fight. I don't think that fight could even charitably be called "for their ideas." This is largely because following midterms of 2006, the Republicans have not *had* any new ideas. The fight was largely against reform. And I find this point important because it is a forgone conclusion that the nation in 2008 was in crisis- ie, in need of ideas. I'd be interested to know which, if any, of their ideas you saw them fighting for. If your meaning here was fighting *against* democratic ideas, then yes, they did do that. But which ideas did they have to fix the economic situation, to resolve costly military conflicts, and to assuage a crisis in the healthcare system? From which quarter did these ideas of which you speak come, and in what way did the Republicans fight for them?
If you were referring to tea-party "ideals," then again, I challenge your definition of "idea," and would ask you to justify your statement in light of what you mean by "ideas." I find this an important point you haven't addressed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But which ideas did they have to fix the economic situation, to resolve costly military conflicts, and to assuage a crisis in the healthcare system?
posted
When my step-dad was in the Marines, he noticed that they payed an odd price for things, the branch he was in typically payed twice as much for the same thing everyone else bought (tools) a simple wrench that costs $15 the military payed $30 for, nothing special the exact same wrench.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from a variety of administrative costs that drive that price higher, such as higher quality assurance standards (meaning, actually, that it *is* special, in that it is the same wrench, but triple checked to assure high quality), a fair amount of that can be chalked up to just good old fixed bidding corruption.
The government can't just buy stuff. They have to offer a public bid. But if they want something specific, or specifically from your company, they can offer the public bid in such a way as only you can fulfill that bid. Then you drive up the price, and maybe you spend some of that money getting the congressman in your state who got you that contract elected again. It's all very simple.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very very corrupted. As far as quality goes, it's the same or worse, as I recall they were always ordering replacement tools and sometimes they were paying significantly more than twice the price of the item.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
1. that's not a source. that's a personal assertion. 2. that's an inference that goes no further than your own conceptualization. It doesn't do anything to convince me that you can show a vast majority of the middle class being against obamacare. 3. that's not a source. 4. that's not a source. 5. please provide me a source or admit this is just your personal assumption.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you put it that way: My source is the election. And I think that it's a pretty clear one on what I'm claiming.
If you want to know why I think that, feel free to ask about it in a respectful way. If you're just looking to dismiss whatever I'm saying and aren't interested in a productive conversation, I'm not super interested in playing along.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that Americans voted out many Democrats and replaced them with Republicans does not lead to "the vast majority of the American middle class is against Obamacare."
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that the vast majority of the American middle class is against Obamacare. What I said was that they are not behind it. There's a very significant difference there.
edit: The Democrats didn't lose because of the people who came out to vote for the people who made repealing Obamacare a primary part of their campaign message. They lost because of the people who didn't come out and the people who did come out but were ambivalent, unsure, or indifferent towards Obamacare.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Well, if you put it that way: My source is the election.
*facepalm*
Do you have any idea what it means when I'm asking you to provide a source? Any at all?
I would have been interested if you did, because your assertion has not been borne true in any sort of actually informed sense, and I don't think it's true. But now it's evident you're not really getting that idea from anything other than amateur personal inference.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the question remains---what is wrong with it?
Why is it so terrible?
It offers health care for millions of people who could not get it before.
It offers insurance to people who could not get it before.
It does what the people asked it to do, in a way to be as minimally intrusive to business and individuals as they could make it.
What is wrong with the health care law that makes it the enemy of the Tea Party and the Republicans.
Besides one fact--that it was presented as something President Obama wanted done.
There is one underlying cord that surrounds the Tea Party's and the Republican's various members, organizations, and goals.
Its not race.
Its not conservatism or libertarianism.
Its the fact that they want to destroy President Obama.
He made them look bad in 2008. He made the conservative majority they thought they had in this country look like a defeated, whimpy minority.
As a result they will do anything they can to make him look ineffective, inefficient, and bad.
President Obama has offered and tried to be bipartisan since day one, but has met with only constant denials, partisanship, and a stone wall to bring him down. The healthcare bill was often opened to input from Republicans. Their continued answer was delay, deny, and destroy. Their only solution to Health Care Reform was to stop lawsuits against bad doctors cause that was hurting the bottom line of insurance companies. All the other suggestions that they ever made since President Reagan are in this law, but they deny it.
Except for political gain, why are they against this law?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you're just looking to dismiss whatever I'm saying and aren't interested in a productive conversation, I'm not super interested in playing along.
Trying to get a straight answer out of your (apparently completely unintentional) evasiveness is me trying to get a productive conversation out of this. My repeated insistence shouldn't be used by you as a cue to say 'whatever, you're just looking to dismiss whatever I'm saying' and peace out of the discussion, unless you're really, really trying to go for a frustrating level of super-evasiveness, this time intentional. :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I never said that the vast majority of the American middle class is against Obamacare. What I said was that they are not behind it. There's a very significant difference there.
edit: The Democrats didn't lose because of the people who came out to vote for the people who made repealing Obamacare a primary part of their campaign message. They lost because of the people who didn't come out and the people who did come out but were ambivalent, unsure, or indifferent towards Obamacare.
That is an assertion that you are making. However, Squick, I think Samp's point, which is entirely valid, is that the election results do not make such a statement in any clear or unobjectionable terms. Given the complexity of the electoral cycle, even setting aside completely the dynamics of how the majority of the middle class is reacting to Health Care reform legislation or the legislating process, it is certainly not fair for you to claim that the results of the election speak to any specific motivations involving the majority of the middle class. The terms are too broad, the players are too diverse to be lumped together, it is entangled with too many other factors, and it is too lightly shaded between "they don't like it," and "they don't like the process that it has gone through," and "they don't like the people involved in that process," and "they are disappointed with any of the above things," to carry much meaning.
I think samp would welcome you making the assertion you have made, however, that assertion must be supported by more than interpretable prima facie evidence, eg: "Americans in 1944 hated Germans because they invaded Germany." Perhaps the assertion is true, however the reasoning would entail a great deal more support to be credible- it does not stand as a conclusion based only on the current political reality of vote tallying. In that instance: hatred of Germans was *not* the reason for declaring war, in the sense that it was not the prime motivating factor, socially or politically, for entering the Second World War. (That's just a simplified example, I don't want to debate the veracity of the statement). I think you do appreciate that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And the question remains---what is wrong with it?
Why is it so terrible?
It offers health care for millions of people who could not get it before.
It offers insurance to people who could not get it before.
It does what the people asked it to do, in a way to be as minimally intrusive to business and individuals as they could make it.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but in the bill there are numerous things that will hurt businesses. Sure, 200 pages of the bill might be great, but the other 1800 is full of other legislation that shouldn't be in there, such as the new 1099 laws.
You realize that starting next year companies have to file and send a 1099 form whenever they purchase goods or services from another business? Your AC unit breaks on your building? Fill out a 1099 for them. Need to place an order to a vendor? Fill out a 1099. Need to ship freight with a trucking company? YOu have to 1099 them as well. Every transaction over $600 will now require a form 1099.
Look, the bill has a lot of positive things in it. I would argue most conservatives would agree. What I don't agree with is the other legislation that got placed in there that has nothing to do with health care. Remove all the extra stuff as well as all of the pork in the bill, and I'd bet there would be a lot less people screaming about it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, the bill has a lot of positive things in it. I would argue most conservatives would agree. What I don't agree with is the other legislation that got placed in there that has nothing to do with health care. Remove all the extra stuff as well as all of the pork in the bill, and I'd bet there would be a lot less people screaming about it.
I doubt that. The 1099 thing is just low-hanging fruit in that it's easy to describe and be outraged about, but it's not *that* onerous. I imagine companies will rapidly ramp up their abilities or subcontract 1099 administration such that the cost of implementation will be, at most, a couple dollars per $600+ transaction - effectively a fraction of a percent tax which will go directly into the pockets of the employees and new businesses that do this processing. At the same time, government revenue should increase as fewer people are able to dodge taxes by paying under the table.
Get rid of the obvious flaws and you still have "death panels" and "rationing" - blatant misrepresentation of even the obviously good stuff that's in there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, seriously. This just means somebody has to write a bunch of new code into their spreadsheets to generate the form. Big deal.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The fight over 1099 reform is one of the best case studies of the differences between Republicans and Democrats that we've seen this year.
Quick background: 1099 reform deals with a tax change in the health-care bill. The provision seeks to recoup taxes that small businesses should currently be paying but aren't. The problem is that the mechanism would mean a lot of paperwork. Enough, actually, that it's probably worth scrapping it. But that means you need to make up $17 billion.
Republicans wanted to do that by cutting public-health subsidies for the poor. Democrats said no. Democrats wanted to do it by cutting subsidies for oil and gas companies. Republicans said no. Democrats came up with another way to do it, this time by closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund managers to be taxed at a much lower rate than people in other professions. Republicans don't like this, either.
I really don't understand the vision of the economy, or of need in general, where it makes more sense to cut public-health spending than treat the income of hedge-fund managers like the income of, say, small-business owners. Is there some reason we want lots more people to enter the hedge-fund industry? Or that government should be directly subsidizing oil and gas production? I can at least understand the rationale for public-health programs. That sort of collective action is something you need government to organize. The presence of generous financial incentives for entering the hedge fund industry really isn't.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I doubt that. The 1099 thing is just low-hanging fruit in that it's easy to describe and be outraged about, but it's not *that* onerous.
True! And it kind of goes to show the benefits of maintaining a crude level of 'review' on the part of party adherents in order to foster outrage. I see both sides doing it, but they really pulled out all the stops for the health care bill.
Because — frankly — if you inform people of what the bill really does without focusing on minute parts for outrage's sake, they support it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
