Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drogoth on January 24, 2011, 03:15:41 am
-
Kinda wanted some opinions on the Tea Party. What do you people think?
I think they're retarded. For various reasons which I suppose I could get into if someone is actually interested in the debate. But yeah, Tea Party. Thoughts?
-
Should be dumped into the ocean but that would piss off the environmentalists. Shooting also results in lead pollution. Making rope takes material that could be used for clothing. Oil is too expensive to boil them in. Using them for animal feed would probably poison the animals and/or contaminate the food chain.
Man getting rid of them is too hard. Let just elect them to office where they can't do any real damage.
-
Setting aside my disgust at the message behind this movement; one of theocracy and right-wing nonsense, the biggest problem with the tea-party isn't even their message. Their biggest problem is that they don't know what they stand for. You'll find all kinds of stuff coming from their rallies and forum debates, such as: The president's a secret Muslim, communist, nazi sand-nigger, the president's part of the NWO who wants to kill 80% of the world's population, that his policies are those of "big government". My favorite is the birth certificate paranoia they have going, because that ties in with how loosely-knit a group they are, because the tea party movement has all kinds of kooks, including Ronbots(Ron Paul supporters), fundagelicals like Sarah Palin, infowarriors(Conspiracy theorists), and of course the good old racists. Hence, they have no shortage of bad craziness to spread amongst their followers. The only thing that keeps them united under the same flag is opposition to taxes.
Basically, they're like the delusional mind of Glenn Beck split into a million pieces, who will occasionally go together to rally for the one thing that unites them: Crazyness.
Also, an underlying motive of their entire movement seems to be racism.
-
I can see they've done an excellent job of provoking/trolling anyone who disagrees with right-wing politics.
Not taking sides here :p
-
Should be dumped into the ocean but that would piss off the environmentalists. Shooting also results in lead pollution. Making rope takes material that could be used for clothing. Oil is too expensive to boil them in. Using them for animal feed would probably poison the animals and/or contaminate the food chain.
Man getting rid of them is too hard. Let just elect them to office where they can't do any real damage.
I've developed an efficient and beneficial method of getting rid of people like that. What you do is, you give them a short course in clearing mines, then you give them the basic equipment and send them somewhere where mines still exist. If they paid attention, they'll probably clear some mines - but even if they haven't, they'll get at least one :P
-
These organizations have the tendency to fall apart in the moment they have to do organized things. Oh wait...
-
If cutting all government spending and cutting taxes so rich people can save more money will help any problems the US has right now... then by all means let them have their way. :rolleyes:
-
The fascinating thing is that they were, originally, a bunch of people who were protesting taxes in the usual meaningless drivel struck down by the courts every time way. This did not provide a sound base for rational discourse, obviously, but then the movement was co-opted and blatantly astroturfed to power.
Unfortunately they irrationality of it all amusingly backfired and there are a minimum of six different groups who now claim to be the leaders of the movement.
-
They're basically neo-cons who washed out of college.
-
They started out with what they considered to be good intentions, then Fox News latched onto it and made it out to be something entirely other from what it was, directing all the nuts, wierdos and people with a grudge against anything and everything to it.
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
-
If this is going to turn into a mud-slinging thread (which it looks like it is, already) I can just close it now and avoid wasting everyone's time.
If this is going to be a serious discussion then people should start being serious.
-
Well, as I said before, it was started by well intentioned people with an opinion. I didn't agree with those opinions but it was really a coin-toss as to whether they were right or not, because it was about 'where do we go from here?', and you cannot say which method will work until it's been tried. The problem is that it also attracted people like Christine O'Donnell and her 'human brains in mice' mentality.
Fox loves people like that, and so she with her 'opinions' has tended to get a lot more airtime than those who actually have a sane position to represent. I think that over the years the real purpose of the Tea Party has been lost, thanks to the media, and it is largely considered to be a loose collection of nutcases. There may still be a sane message in there that needs to get out, but until they can get rid of the popularity leeches, it's going to be very difficult to put those opinions forward.
-
the message behind this movement is cutting government spending (and therefore taxation), anything else was tacked on top of that.
-
Exactly, and that's a lot of tacking.
Also, I think there are problems with the name, I understand the original intention behind calling it the 'Tea Party', but I wouldn't be surprised if more people nowdays associated that name more with Alice in Wonderland than Boston, and get visions of several mad people running around shouting at each other. This possibly does not help.
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
I've always been taught that it was less about taxes than it was paying taxes to a government that ignored them when they needed help and prevented them from helping themselves. In fact, taxation is only a small bullet point mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish people would actually take the time to read the grievances...
-
Exactly, and that's a lot of tacking.
Also, I think there are problems with the name, I understand the original intention behind calling it the 'Tea Party', but I wouldn't be surprised if more people nowdays associated that name more with Alice in Wonderland than Boston, and get visions of several mad people running around shouting at each other. This possibly does not help.
Not to mention in the UK tea party is completely unrelated concept and a very formal and conservative institution
-
It's nothing special*. Just another symptom of the usual two-party seesaw partially conflated with the racism that often gets bound up in economic issues.
Nobody ever wants to cut taxes or government spending. Nobody. People say they do, but if you break it down item by item, any given American (including Tea Party members) will usually support most of the items, because they think Big Government and Welfare and Taxes are bad, but they think [any given individual item] generally sounds like a good thing. And all you have to do is look at the history of both parties in power to see what they usually do about government spending and deficits (tip: it is not 'reduce)
*probably
-
In all fairness, Goob, the opening post asked for opinions regarding the Tea Party. Calling something ****, when you think it's **** is just honesty.
The Tea Party is a movement, established by mainstream Republicans, as a counter to the "grassroots" campaigns of the Democrats. Unlike the Democratic equivilants, though, the Tea Party has gotten way, way beyond the Republicans' control. The GOP got the far right wing of their party so fired up that they're in danger of fracturing the GOP into a right/center-right party and a far right party. The short-term political gains that the GOP has made will likely be lost in the long term, should the general population get a sense of disunity within the Republican party.
The Tea Partiers themselves compose a very, very vocal minority that simply gets more press than it deserves, by all rights. Americans are by and large ambivilant about politics, so when a movement as extreme as the Tea Party emerges, their claims of representing mainstream America are best met with skepticism. Unlike most Americans, though, the press tends to immerse itself in politics, so members of the press corps tend to see (and thus report more heavily on) the viewpoints of these extreme political minorities, rather than the opinions of the ambivilant political majority. They report on the Tea Party and other politically extreme groups as representing America, because, almost like a member of the movement, they become so immersed in the rhetoric that they start to believe some of it. This is why, if you look at raw polling data, you see that Americans rarely stray far from a pretty stable political center, but when you look at political reporting for the last twenty or thirty years, you'd think everybody in the land was a political schizophrenic, swinging from one end of the political spectrum, all the way to the other every two to four years. By 2016, the Tea Party will be forgotten, probably replaced by some analogue on the left, and by 2020, that will be replaced by another group of loonies on the right.
Nobody ever wants to cut taxes or government spending. Nobody.
That's not entirely true. You're right about nobody wanting to cut spending, as they do enjoy having the government services available. Nobody particularly likes paying for those services, though, largely because many think that with a fiver and some effort, you can patch roads, run a school, provide emergency services, etc. Taxes are only necessary because of bureaucracy and lazy government employees!
I wouldn't be surprised if more people nowdays associated that name more with Alice in Wonderland than Boston, and get visions of several mad people running around shouting at each other.
With Sarah Palin appointed to the helm, Alice in Wonderland is probably a better point of reference anyway. [/zing]
-
Exactly, and that's a lot of tacking.
Also, I think there are problems with the name, I understand the original intention behind calling it the 'Tea Party', but I wouldn't be surprised if more people nowdays associated that name more with Alice in Wonderland than Boston, and get visions of several mad people running around shouting at each other. This possibly does not help.
Not to mention in the UK tea party is completely unrelated concept and a very formal and conservative institution
No they mean this Tea Party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party)
The one instigated by Samuel Adams so that he could eliminate beverage competition for his brewery...
(http://beertalking.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/080402_sam_adams_beer_logo.jpg)
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
I've always been taught that it was less about taxes than it was paying taxes to a government that ignored them when they needed help and prevented them from helping themselves. In fact, taxation is only a small bullet point mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish people would actually take the time to read the grievances...
Tea Party is generally about taxes, not about not being allowed to live west of the Appalachian mountains.
-
Exactly, and that's a lot of tacking.
Also, I think there are problems with the name, I understand the original intention behind calling it the 'Tea Party', but I wouldn't be surprised if more people nowdays associated that name more with Alice in Wonderland than Boston, and get visions of several mad people running around shouting at each other. This possibly does not help.
That's the mental image I got from the beginning :P
-
I'm just curious about how the Tea Party intends to lower the deficit while cutting spending AND lowering taxes. Cutting spending works while income remains steady. It doesn't work if your net income is still 0. Or in this case negative numbers.
I don't get it. Is there some disconnect where Tea Party members don't know what taxes are for? Do roads just pop into existence? Lights. police, schools, etc?
-
I don't get it. Is there some disconnect where Tea Party members don't know what taxes are for? Do roads just pop into existence? Lights. police, schools, etc?
I'm sure that private firms could handle those, in their eyes at least. I know most of them seem to be serious private school (translates to daily paid sunday school) proponents.
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
I've always been taught that it was less about taxes than it was paying taxes to a government that ignored them when they needed help and prevented them from helping themselves. In fact, taxation is only a small bullet point mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish people would actually take the time to read the grievances...
Tea Party is generally about taxes, not about not being allowed to live west of the Appalachian mountains.
And so that would imply that the entire link between revolutionary era "tea partiers" and modern tea partiers is null. That said, why did you bring it up?
(also the tea party with the colonists really wasn't about just taxes in and of itself. The Tea Act of 1773 actually reduced the price of legally imported tea in the colonies.)
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
I've always been taught that it was less about taxes than it was paying taxes to a government that ignored them when they needed help and prevented them from helping themselves. In fact, taxation is only a small bullet point mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish people would actually take the time to read the grievances...
Tea Party is generally about taxes, not about not being allowed to live west of the Appalachian mountains.
And so that would imply that the entire link between revolutionary era "tea partiers" and modern tea partiers is null. That said, why did you bring it up?
(also the tea party with the colonists really wasn't about just taxes in and of itself. The Tea Act of 1773 actually reduced the price of legally imported tea in the colonies.)
Well I didn't name the group, now did I?
-
The really fascinating thing is that the original colonists were *****ing about taxes that were less than what people in England were paying... Colonists' taxes weren't even enough to cover the cost of running the colonies. Not to mention most of the colonists didn't even pay their taxes anyway.
I wonder if the current Tea Party will start looking to the Sons of Liberty.
I've always been taught that it was less about taxes than it was paying taxes to a government that ignored them when they needed help and prevented them from helping themselves. In fact, taxation is only a small bullet point mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence.
I really wish people would actually take the time to read the grievances...
Tea Party is generally about taxes, not about not being allowed to live west of the Appalachian mountains.
And so that would imply that the entire link between revolutionary era "tea partiers" and modern tea partiers is null. That said, why did you bring it up?
(also the tea party with the colonists really wasn't about just taxes in and of itself. The Tea Act of 1773 actually reduced the price of legally imported tea in the colonies.)
Well I didn't name the group, now did I?
Modern tea partiers are going to become a terrorist organization bent on creating a government in which they have a say on whether or not they get taxed? I'm afraid I don't understand what kind of point you're making.
-
What's hilarious to me is their militant advocacy for undoing the very institutions that keep citizens safe, and I'm not talking about the local public service ones. Imagine the crap we'd get ourselves into if we shut down all the federal government regulatory institutions? They're leaky enough as it is now, but if they just weren't there in the first place... hell, that's what we'd get.
I say we should let them have their way, and then the rest of the United States would wake up (provided the Tea Partiers don't gerrymander or engage in blatant voting fraud or some other dastardly power-grab) and think 'oh **** we're dumbasses, this sucks,' and their movement would end almost immediately. Thing is, I don't trust these people enough. People who think anarchy is the way to riches should not be engaged in politics in any way.
-
Someone really should form the Coffee Party.
-
they already did
-
they already did
like this one? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_enema) :P
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Party
-
Tea Party's mostly formed by a bunch of poorly-educated white people who hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad), socialists/communists (because the Cold War told them it was bad), and big government (because Glenn Beck told them it was bad).
Bear in mind, I guarantee you 90% of Tea Partiers don't know the difference between socialism and communism, and how the Democratic Party is nowhere near even the most remote definition of socialist.
And the one thing I've always found interesting; the Tea Party sat by idly for eight years while Bush expanded the government and absolutely exploded the deficit, but as soon as Obama was elected, they decided it was a problem? (Oh wait...I forgot...Bush was a white Republican...)
I also don't know why everyone's surprised that the TP is turning violent; what did you expect out of a group that it named itself after a group of colonists that dressed up in Native American war attire and destroyed an entire shipment of cargo?
-
Technically, the US is a socialist state by definition, rather then a democracy.
Or so my teacher said. It wasn't some nutballs political statement, it was something that I remember her having good reasons for pointing out.
-
The US is a representative democracy with a mixed economy rather than a pure democracy with a laissez faire system.
Socialism isn't really a government system. It's more of an economic system.
-
Technically, the US is a socialist state by definition, rather then a democracy.
Or so my teacher said. It wasn't some nutballs political statement, it was something that I remember her having good reasons for pointing out.
yeah your teacher has a really interesting definition of socialism.
-
I remember being told once that Communism is like trying to run a company entirely with middle management, no-one to make policy decisions or the coffee...
-
hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad)
So a $1.4 trillion deficit is nothing to worry about? :wtf:
-
Never said that.
Mostly pointed that out to illustrate Tea Party hypocrisy when it comes to who's making the runaway spending happen. They seem to take a much different attitude to a Republican president doing than they do to a Democrat.
I remember being told once that Communism is like trying to run a company entirely with middle management, no-one to make policy decisions or the coffee...
:lol: The best part of waking uppppp is commiiieesss in your coffffeeeee
-
hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad)
So a $1.4 trillion deficit is nothing to worry about? :wtf:
Proportionally I'm not actually sure we're doing that badly compared to some historical instances.
-
I guarantee you 90% of Tea Partiers don't know the difference between socialism and communism, and how the Democratic Party is nowhere near even the most remote definition of socialist.
Or the difference between Communism and Absolute Monarchy apparently:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4f60w.jpgg)
I'm pissed they're going to degrade the "Don't Tread on Me" flag. That's a cool flag, it doesn't need to be soiled by them.
-
Yeah, that's what gets me the most too. That flag was totally badass until people started misusing it all over the place.
-
Yeah, that's what gets me the most too. That flag was totally badass until people started misusing it all over the place.
i chalk it in for tiles in my hopscotch games
-
Yeah, that's what gets me the most too. That flag was totally badass until people started misusing it all over the place.
i chalk it in for tiles in my hopscotch games
That's actually a pretty badass idea.
-
Yeah, that's what gets me the most too. That flag was totally badass until people started misusing it all over the place.
i chalk it in for tiles in my hopscotch games
can I play too? sounds cool
-
hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad)
So a $1.4 trillion deficit is nothing to worry about? :wtf:
We've had an outlandish deficit for quite a while now. No one's saying it isn't a problem, it just can't all be blamed on obama :/
-
hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad)
So a $1.4 trillion deficit is nothing to worry about? :wtf:
Proportionally I'm not actually sure we're doing that badly compared to some historical instances.
Proportionally perhaps. But that doesn't help much when the country is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. It doesn't matter how bad things might have been in comparison in the past, because circumstances were different and solutions may have been available that are unavailable now, and vice versa. Point being, Repubs and Dems need to learn to work together rather then being vehemently opposed to anything the other says, or else the country WILL collapse into bankruptcy. Eventually. Solutions only work when the government isn't paralyzed, after all.
-
I think it's impossible to work together when the people you have to work with are as fanatical as Tea Partiers. Fanaticism doesn't allow for compromise, and no rational person could bow to their demands.
Cooperation also requires mutual respect. Whenever I heard news about the past US election, it was always about Sarah Palin making veiled threats and the crowd responding with booing or making threats of their own. That's not respectful.
So there's no way to work with them.
-
One could argue that societal self-destruction is an inevitability due to Mankind's genetic prelation for self-gain, if one were a pedantic ass-hat.
-
Democrats = idiots
Republicans = idiots
Tea Party = idiots
Its much easier this way, it's just some hide it better than others. :P
I think it's impossible to work together when the people you have to work with are as fanatical as Tea Partiers. Fanaticism doesn't allow for compromise, and no rational person could bow to their demands.
Cooperation also requires mutual respect. Whenever I heard news about the past US election, it was always about Sarah Palin making veiled threats and the crowd responding with booing or making threats of their own. That's not respectful.
So there's no way to work with them.
No offense and don't take this as me defending the tea party, but by saying that do you really believe if the Tea Party did not exist there would be compromise? Heck no.
-
Repubs and Dems ... work together
:wakka: :wakka: :wakka:
From what I've seen, the really hardcore activist Democrats and Republicans would happily watch the country burn before they ever conceded even the slightest positive thing about the other party, and the more moderate, level-headed citizens are too busy dealing with work and kids and... real life to be bothered making a scene on TV about politics.
-
That's actually pretty accurate. 99% of the active posters at Democratic Underground have no intention of saying even the slightest nice thing about someone with an (R), and I doubt anyone on Free Republic would do the same for a (D).
-
(http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/race-and-the-antichrist-then-and-now.png?w=300&h=132)
A nice perspective. The anti-christ thing is also very indicative of where they're coming from with this stuff.
-
I think it's impossible to work together when the people you have to work with are as fanatical as Tea Partiers. Fanaticism doesn't allow for compromise, and no rational person could bow to their demands.
See, this is what worries me: when people are absolutely convinced that the "other side" is completely crazy and can't be reasoned with. That's where things start to get ugly.
-
Technically, the US is a socialist state by definition, rather then a democracy.
Or so my teacher said. It wasn't some nutballs political statement, it was something that I remember her having good reasons for pointing out.
For the record, Socialism is not a SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. Democracy is a SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
Democracy, Theocracy, Authoritarianism, all describe a system of government; i.e. the power distribution.
Socialism, Communism, Capitalism all describe different types of economic systems.
Socialism is not an opposite of democracy; in fact, many have made the argument that socialism cannot really exist outside of a democracy, and vice versa. (I do have many quotes, and if anyone really wants me to, I can dig them up)
-
Socialism is not an opposite of democracy; in fact, many have made the argument that socialism cannot really exist outside of a democracy, and vice versa. (I do have many quotes, and if anyone really wants me to, I can dig them up)
Exactly. Reform socialism and social democracy simply can't exist without democracy.
That's the problem the US...everyone thinks Socialism, and their minds jump straight to the authoritarian USSR. Socialism may have been it's economic system, but the USSR was authoritarian through and through. Not all socialist systems are prone to authoritarian rule, and not all authoritarian countries utilize a socialist economy.
-
I think the Tea Partiers have more than proven their craziness. Showing up at democratic rallies carrying firearms and interrupting the proceedings? It's sending the message they'd rather reason with bullets than with brains. I dunno about you, but I believe that such fear tactics have no place in a democratic society. Their antics put them on my 'aspiring tyrants' list. They should put the guns and threats away if they want to be taken seriously.
I agree, denouncing one side as out-and-out crazy and rejecting the possibility of further discourse is utterly illogical, but let's face it, they've pretty much said 'we're done talking'. I'm thankful the Dems haven't said the same. I hope the few reasonables within the TP ranks can help reign them in.
And it is really sad that the combined system of governance and economic policy we should be calling 'Stalinism' is what everyone believes communism to be. Thus why we should cut the military budget in half and devote the resources to the Dept. of Education.
-
Some corrections seem to be in order here.
I'm just curious about how the Tea Party intends to lower the deficit while cutting spending AND lowering taxes. Cutting spending works while income remains steady. It doesn't work if your net income is still 0. Or in this case negative numbers.
Lowering the deficit in this way works if you cut spending faster than you cut taxes. I should think this would be obvious.
I don't get it. Is there some disconnect where Tea Party members don't know what taxes are for? Do roads just pop into existence? Lights. police, schools, etc?
You're conveniently forgetting everything else that drains the budget. Social security, national defense, interest on the debt, executive departments, etc. are much higher on the list. In fact, many cities are raising taxes and cutting back on road work, maintenance, etc. because public pensions require such a large share of the pie.
What's hilarious to me is their militant advocacy for undoing the very institutions that keep citizens safe, and I'm not talking about the local public service ones. Imagine the crap we'd get ourselves into if we shut down all the federal government regulatory institutions? They're leaky enough as it is now, but if they just weren't there in the first place... hell, that's what we'd get.
What institutions are you referring to here?
Tea Party's mostly formed by a bunch of poorly-educated white people who hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad), socialists/communists (because the Cold War told them it was bad), and big government (because Glenn Beck told them it was bad).
That's an unsupported generalization, and falls into the soft-serve mudslinging category...
And the one thing I've always found interesting; the Tea Party sat by idly for eight years while Bush expanded the government and absolutely exploded the deficit, but as soon as Obama was elected, they decided it was a problem? (Oh wait...I forgot...Bush was a white Republican...)
This is probably due, in a large part, to the phenomenon Battuta has mentioned previously: people tend to look the other way if the economy is doing all right. However, your premise is incorrect: the opposition started when the recession hit, which was before Obama was elected. Many people forget that the first TARP bill (introduced in the last months of the Bush administration) was voted down due to strong populist opposition, until the politicians caved to the bankers' doomsday scenarios.
I also don't know why everyone's surprised that the TP is turning violent; what did you expect out of a group that it named itself after a group of colonists that dressed up in Native American war attire and destroyed an entire shipment of cargo?
Please cite where the Tea Party has become violent.
Or the difference between Communism and Absolute Monarchy apparently:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4f60w.jpgg)
This refers to the "czars", both current and proposed, which are in charge of various bureaucratic regulatory bodies and thus unaccountable to the people. Climate czar, TARP czar, Internet czar, food czar, etc. It's drawing a link between the unaccountability of the appointed czars and the unaccountability of the Soviet government.
I think it's impossible to work together when the people you have to work with are as fanatical as Tea Partiers. Fanaticism doesn't allow for compromise, and no rational person could bow to their demands.
See, this is what worries me: when people are absolutely convinced that the "other side" is completely crazy and can't be reasoned with. That's where things start to get ugly.
This. Sushi's point bears repeating.
I think the Tea Partiers have more than proven their craziness. Showing up at democratic rallies carrying firearms and interrupting the proceedings? It's sending the message they'd rather reason with bullets than with brains. I dunno about you, but I believe that such fear tactics have no place in a democratic society. Their antics put them on my 'aspiring tyrants' list. They should put the guns and threats away if they want to be taken seriously.
So exercising rights is equivalent to fear tactics? If a police officer pulls you over and you choose to remain silent, can he then arrest you for intimidation?
-
Tea Party's mostly formed by a bunch of poorly-educated white people who hate runaway spending (because Fox told them it was bad), socialists/communists (because the Cold War told them it was bad), and big government (because Glenn Beck told them it was bad).
That's an unsupported generalization, and falls into the soft-serve mudslinging category...
Fair enough. The most outspoken ones certainly fit this category though.
And the one thing I've always found interesting; the Tea Party sat by idly for eight years while Bush expanded the government and absolutely exploded the deficit, but as soon as Obama was elected, they decided it was a problem? (Oh wait...I forgot...Bush was a white Republican...)
This is probably due, in a large part, to the phenomenon Battuta has mentioned previously: people tend to look the other way if the economy is doing all right. However, your premise is incorrect: the opposition started when the recession hit, which was before Obama was elected. Many people forget that the first TARP bill (introduced in the last months of the Bush administration) was voted down due to strong populist opposition, until the politicians caved to the bankers' doomsday scenarios.
Also true. They were quick enough to blame Obama for things that even Bush did though. I can't imagine all the times I've had to hear someone accuse of Obama of passing TARP and bailing out Fannie and Freddie. It's just politically convenient for them to blame the other party.
I also don't know why everyone's surprised that the TP is turning violent; what did you expect out of a group that it named itself after a group of colonists that dressed up in Native American war attire and destroyed an entire shipment of cargo?
Please cite where the Tea Party has become violent.
...really? Death threats against Democrats who voted for the health care bill, carrying guns to town halls, spitting on Democrats on the Capitol steps.
Oh, and do I even need to mention "Second Amendment remedies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle#Second_Amendment), "if ballots don't work, bullets will" (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-radio-host-leaves-congress-job-after-threats-and-lockdown/), "don't retreat, reload" (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TJzUwz8a3fI/AAAAAAAA6io/wBYhL0X3z7k/s1600/PalinRifleMap.png), "you're gonna have to shoot them in the head" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck), "you gotta make the other guy afraid to come out of his own house" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_%28politician%29), and hosting political fundraisers at gun ranges. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Kelly) The Tea Party hasn't killed anyone yet, but if this kind of nonsense keeps up, I'd be shocked if we DIDN'T have another Oklahoma City.
This refers to the "czars", both current and proposed, which are in charge of various bureaucratic regulatory bodies and thus unaccountable to the people. Climate czar, TARP czar, Internet czar, food czar, etc. It's drawing a link between the unaccountability of the appointed czars and the unaccountability of the Soviet government.
Oddly enough, Bush had far more czars than Obama does right now. Again, no Tea Party there.
This. Sushi's point bears repeating.
Whenever they want to stop calling me and everyone who believes what I believe "the enemies of the Constitution", I'd be happy to sit down and have a chat. Oh, and it would be nice if they didn't try to kill me too.
So exercising rights is equivalent to fear tactics? If a police officer pulls you over and you choose to remain silent, can he then arrest you for intimidation?
Death threats, carrying firearms to public events, and threatening a violent uprising if they don't get their way isn't the Tea Party exercising their rights. Not only are those things illegal, they also fit this bill:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
That's the Department of Defense's definition of terrorism. Threatening to murder Democratic politicians and threatening to violently overthrow the government if healthcare reform passes ("we came unarmed...this time" (http://zeldalily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/we-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg)) crosses the line from political activism to downright domestic terrorism.
Now, I could tolerate this if it was a small minority doing it...but since none of the Tea Party leaders want to renounce these people (and they haven't....I've looked), it just says that they support what these domestic terrorists are saying. Now I know there's plenty of sensible people in the Tea Party with legitimate concerns, but until that part gets vocal and disavows the violent part, I'm not going to listen to them.
-
The president's part of the NWO who wants to kill 80% of the world's population
I never understood conspiricy theorists joining the Tea Party rally. If anyone's involved in a conspiracy, the republicans are. Cutting taxes for the rich and the corperations, but not the middle and lower classes. Aboloshing any healthcare plan so that the citizens are at the mercy of the corperations. The 'war on Terror', fighting everyone who attempts to break free from USA involvement, demonization of authorian regime's that keep corperate power in control (or try to), etc.
-
Or the difference between Communism and Absolute Monarchy apparently:
[lolshot]http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4f60w.jpgg[/lolshot]
This refers to the "czars", both current and proposed, which are in charge of various bureaucratic regulatory bodies and thus unaccountable to the people. Climate czar, TARP czar, Internet czar, food czar, etc. It's drawing a link between the unaccountability of the appointed czars and the unaccountability of the Soviet government.
I understand he's referring to Czars the political appointment in the US, that doesn't negate the fact that the USSR had no CZARS because they killed the last one and his entire family. That poster shows a depressing level of ignorance and little grasp historical knowledge and if you seriously are trying to tell me that it doesn't then you have slipped from debating from a position of logic to deluding yourself and making excuses.
-
Guys, before you even think about comparing anything to communism, Nazism (fascism), or anything else, take at least one political science class, or really study one political science book.
It won't make you an expert, but it will give you enough information to know when those comparisons are bull****.
Understanding Politics by Magstadt is a very good book to start with.
-
Books are for SOCIALIST COMMIE NAZI LIBRULS
-
Some corrections seem to be in order here.
I'm just curious about how the Tea Party intends to lower the deficit while cutting spending AND lowering taxes. Cutting spending works while income remains steady. It doesn't work if your net income is still 0. Or in this case negative numbers.
Lowering the deficit in this way works if you cut spending faster than you cut taxes. I should think this would be obvious.
I don't get it. Is there some disconnect where Tea Party members don't know what taxes are for? Do roads just pop into existence? Lights. police, schools, etc?
You're conveniently forgetting everything else that drains the budget. Social security, national defense, interest on the debt, executive departments, etc. are much higher on the list. In fact, many cities are raising taxes and cutting back on road work, maintenance, etc. because public pensions require such a large share of the pie.
Lowering the deficit works when you cut faster then you spend yes, but lets get serious. The US does not cut faster then it spends, ever. The military budget alone is atrociously high. The only way cutting spending will work while the US covers is various budget commitments would be to keep taxes constant. Or even raise them. The problem is, the American people have become addicted to low taxes and high service. In essentials, the philosophy of the tea party would be that 1=4. You get what you pay for, which nicely ends up at the infrastructure concerns in the second point. Roadwork maintenance, utilities, law enforcement and education are the most important things in the budget. They are the building blocks of modern civilization, and when they crumble, so to falls everything else. That represents a serious misappropriation of resources if the base parts of civilization come in second to for example, the military. Social security is useless if the people you're helping can't use the aid money to access services because the roadways are crumbling. In addition, failed education means more people on welfare etc etc. I think theres a major issue when more money is appropriated to fixing the symptoms while cutting money from fixing the problem.
America has since Reagan run on the tax philosophy 1=4. It doesn't work. These services CANNOT all be maintained with the retardedly low tax rates in the States. Things wouldn't have to be cut at all, and America wouldn't be nearly as far in debt if taxes hadn't been slashed a stupidly high amount. As for what is getting cut now, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but like I said, I think roads and education are far more important then how many nukes can be launched at once.
As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:
Government contracts private enterprise to build road.
Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.
You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?
The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.
-
Guys, before you even think about comparing anything to communism, Nazism (fascism), or anything else, take at least one political science class, or really study one political science book.
It won't make you an expert, but it will give you enough information to know when those comparisons are bull****.
Understanding Politics by Magstadt is a very good book to start with.
You need political science class to understand? WHat's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?
-
You need political science class to understand? WHat's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?
History lessons concentrate on actions, they do an inadequate job of explaining who.
For instance, you could learn all about ancient egypt without understanding what a despotism was, you could know Athens had one of the first democracies without knowing what exactly makes a democracy a democracy.
Political science explains what all of these terms mean, and it ties them to the history it helps explain.
Take the Nazis for example. "National Socialism" is what it means, but in reality, the economy, though it used some socialist principles, was not pure socialism, nor was it the main focus of the state. The Nazi state was a fascist state, but many history books never explain that.
-
You need political science class to understand? What's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?
Actually; scratch that. That's a ridiculous question. It's like asking why someone should take a psychology class when sociology does a perfectly good job of explaining people's behavior.
-
Political science explains what all of these terms mean, and it ties them to the history it helps explain.
But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.
And I still do not think it is a ridicolous question. Do you really need political science class to be able to see when someone is BS'ing when he is calling some politician a fascist?
-
But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.
Yes. I agree, you need both. If someone calls someone else a 'Nazi' history would be a far better way of debunking that.
When it comes to refuting false political assertions however, such as 'this country is now socialist' or some other such non-sense, political science is a much better tool to understand the flaw in the assertion.
-
But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.
Yes. I agree, you need both. If someone calls someone else a 'Nazi' history would be a far better way of debunking that.
When it comes to refuting false political assertions however, such as 'this country is now socialist' or some other such non-sense, political science is a much better tool to understand the flaw in the assertion.
Aaah. I wasn't thinking about socialism when you said that. As in, socialism as it is with social democracies and the economy system and all that... Heh. So it is entirely my mistake.
But wait... There isn't really a clear line between socialism and all those other forms, right? Most countries employ a bit of both, for example with minimum loans and progressive income tax and all that.
-
As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:
Government contracts private enterprise to build road.
Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.
You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?
The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.
I think that is what a few people do not get... "privatize everything" basically means "pay for everything". And while roads are important they do kinda pale compared to the other responsibilities of government.
America is already way on its way to handing over political power to private corporations... but i really wish people would stop and think for a moment where this road ultimately leads.
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism.
Capitalism on the other hand, could easily do without democracy... for a while anyways, until the natural trickle up of capital leads to so much centralisation of power that the people in charge can implement whatever economic system suits them most.
There are few visions of the future more cynical than those of totalitarian capitalism.
-
As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:
Government contracts private enterprise to build road.
Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.
You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?
The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.
I think that is what a few people do not get... "privatize everything" basically means "pay for everything". And while roads are important they do kinda pale compared to the other responsibilities of government.
America is already way on its way to handing over political power to private corporations... but i really wish people would stop and think for a moment where this road ultimately leads.
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism. Capitalism on the other hand, could easily do without democracy.
There are few visions of the future more cynical than those of totalitarian capitalism.
The future isn't going to be the setting for a neo-noir cyperpunk classic if we use stop and use foresight.
-
The future isn't going to be the setting for a neo-noir cyperpunk classic if we use stop and use foresight.
And stop and foresight is something we... and especially politicians... are really good at... mh...
Frankly... ever since the 90s, if not earlier, we've gone full steam past every and any stop sign we came across.
Just ponder for a moment... in the latest financial crisis we had large corporations scamming and cheating to their hearts content and they screwed up... and then we/society/state do/does not have a "choice" but to pay for the loss. That's how far we've come... right now we effectively already have established an (unstable) "no risk" capitalism.... where profits soar while wages and salary decline... and losses get paid by state because otherwise the system would fail.
Sorry to break it in to ya... but we're not already past the last stop sign... it appears we don't have any brakes anymore either.
(Enron might have been a stop sign where meaningful changes could have been implemented... but how long ago was that?)
You are correct in one point however. We might not end up with a typical neo-noir cyperpunk classic. At this point the actual outcome is pretty uncertain. What is certain however is that our economic system is currently canibalizing our political system at an ever increasing rate. What is also certain is that the current economic situation is as inherently unstable as before the crisis... and the inevitable next crisis might as well be the foreshadow of either a national bankruptcy or a dollar crash/inflation of never before seen proportions... at which point it will not only be doubtful how much of a role the United States as a political entitiy will have left to play in global politics, but also how much of a role the US government, i.e. the elected officials will still play in national politics. No money... no power... not in our current system anyways. Which leaves to wonder what will evolve out of the whole mess.
-
More of a Bladerunner type guy myself, so the dreary collapsed economy deal doesn't sound to bad. Omega was certainly more lively and at least was willing to wear its true colors, I always found Illium more distasteful since it maintained a veneer of perfection over its rotten core. :P
-
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism.
Someone will have to inform the Democratic Socialists, who feel that a state economy led by a government held accountable to the people by way of democracy holds true promise. Intriguingly, that was the direction the USSR seemed to be moving, under Gorbachev, prior to the 1991 coup. If I could poke my head into an alternate timeline, I'd love to see a world where Perestroika got to play out to completion, including the implementation of multi-candidate elections in the USSR. (Not sure I'd like to live there, mind you, but I'd at least like to see how things would have played out.)
To the point, though, any given political system is not beholden to any particular economic model, nor is any economic model slaved to a specific political system.
-
Sweden is a country that is a parliamentary democracy that is nearly entirely socialized.
Democracy, in very simple terms, is government by the people. If the people want a socialist economy, what else are you going to do?
Socialism at its base is the principle of common ownership of the means of production - the idea that everyone has a relatively equal portion of societies goods. A more fair, and a more 'democratic' ideal I don't think you'll find.
-
Sweden is a country that is a parliamentary democracy that is nearly entirely socialized.
Democracy, in very simple terms, is government by the people. If the people want a socialist economy, what else are you going to do?
Socialism at its base is the principle of common ownership of the means of production - the idea that everyone has a relatively equal portion of societies goods. A more fair, and a more 'democratic' ideal I don't think you'll find.
Uhm... in a "socialist country" there are no privately owned companies, by definition,...
Sweden has a high redistributive income tax and puts a lot of emphasis on being a welfare state... but please... don't mix that up with "socialism" or "central planning"...
A centrally organized economy is simply very bad at giving individual people what they all want. (And Sweden wouldn't be where it's at if it ran its economy after that model.)
That is a basic management fact. Central planning is pretty much incompatible with our current society... and that is, even if it actually... worked.
For the "quick and dirty" explanation of why it doesn't work look here: "http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html"
Socialism/central planning simply doesn't work right from the beginning and eventually collapses under the impossibility of planning a full scale economy from scratch every year.
Capitalism on the other hand, if left to its own devices, is doomed from the start to ever increase wealth on the top at the expense of everyone else until you end up with a small oligarchy or a monopoly as the "defacto" ruling class which then has enough power to do with your political system whatever they want.
Interestingly.... Karl Marx theory was pretty solid in it's criticism of capitalisms flaws and ultimate failures... , the problem with it was that socialism (which he didn't really focus on in his work anyways) simply is not a viable alternative.
The travesty of the last decades is that... instead of being aware of the well researched and documented dangers and flaws of capitalism... so we can at least try to safeguard against them... we've pretty much removed any and all regulation and unchained the beast to do what it will.
The worry of course is that the at this point pretty much inevitable failure of western democratic capitalism will have much... much uglier consequences than the fall of the Sowiet Union... as we just don't have a conveniently available competing system to switch to as an alternative anymore. (If you don't like corporate totalitarian rule that is ;))
-
Uhm... in a "socialist country" there are no privately owned companies, by definition,...
Communism is not socialism. Lrn2politicalsystem plz.
-
He's actually right in that Sweden is not fully socialist, they just have a (very) high amount of socialized programs. It doesn't actually try to put the means of production into collective hands.
-
You have to be careful when you use the label "socialism". It's a political all-endorsing state of a... state. It has precious little to do with high level taxation and welfare programs - which are ultimately there to preserve political stability and prevent serious civil problems.
There is a more sinister undercurrent in the US political speak in labelling countries like Norway - which has larger number of private entrepreuners than United States! - as somehow "socialist". Nevermind the fact that in United States and much of the american-dominated internet the idea of political left is so significantly skewed to the right to effectively affect the political climate of other nations. The reason is that as long as powers that be label Norway or Sweden or Italy or Belgium or Canada or whatever as "socialist" there is absolutely no incentive to use anything those nations have going on. Welfare programs would be undoubtedly great for large number of people all across the world, but they are very bad for upper class. Better social security could lead to unions gaining more power, rise in the salaries and above all change in the political spectrum of a nation. That's bad for those who benefit from status quo which, in the capitalist nations and upper class, are those who own the means of production and who control the narrative.
-
I guess I'm already resigned to the fate of the US. When gas reaches over $4 a gallon nationwide our shaky economy will collapse like a shattered wall of bricks. Common sense tells me there is really nothing to be done to change that.
-
I guess I'm already resigned to the fate of the US. When gas reaches over $4 a gallon nationwide our shaky economy will collapse like a shattered wall of bricks. Common sense tells me there is really nothing to be done to change that.
You mean like last time it hit $4/gallon? And the time before that?
-
I guess I'm already resigned to the fate of the US. When gas reaches over $4 a gallon nationwide our shaky economy will collapse like a shattered wall of bricks. Common sense tells me there is really nothing to be done to change that.
You mean like last time it hit $4/gallon? And the time before that?
Situation was different. The American economy is shaking on the ground now rather then just being on its knees.
-
I guess I'm already resigned to the fate of the US. When gas reaches over $4 a gallon nationwide our shaky economy will collapse like a shattered wall of bricks. Common sense tells me there is really nothing to be done to change that.
You mean like last time it hit $4/gallon? And the time before that?
You mean last time like in 2008, when the housing market collapsed?
-
Yeah! Exactly like that, since it was $4 a gallon when the housing market started collapsing.
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
-
The only reason gas isn't $4 a gallon is because it's so heavily subsidized
-
It's getting there though,...it's 3.28 out here in Omaha...$3.18 if you count the E10 I put in my truck.
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Four-dollars-per-gallon probably didn't have a significant effect, but at a certain price-point, people start considering accomodations closer to their jobs, local government offices, and businesses. In other words, given a sufficient spike in gas prices, the suburbs start to empty, and urban housing gets packed. It's not necessarily a formula for a total collapse of the housing market, but in the case of a sustained increase in fuel prices, the whole paradigm of build-out-not-up would have to get turned on its ear.
It's getting there though,...it's 3.28 out here in Omaha...$3.18 if you count the E10 I put in my truck.
It's roughly $2.85-per-gallon at the gas station near my apartment, in Knoxville. From that gas station, though, I could spit and hit a tap on one of the major branches of the Colonial Pipeline. Still I'm glad that I average less than a gallon-per-day in petrol use, because sitting on a pipeline or not, I doubt fuel prices have anywhere to go but up.
-
Lucky bastards. It's 7,76 dollars to the gallon over in Holland.
(1,50 euro's a liter)
-
Uhm... in a "socialist country" there are no privately owned companies, by definition,...
Communism is not socialism. Lrn2politicalsystem plz.
Sweden is certainly not a communist country, but... the point is that Sweden is not a socialist country either - not by the Marxian definition anyways. ... or do you want to imply there are secret plans and movements against the private ownership of IKEA, Ericcson, et cetera.?;)
Right wing much or just lost in definition?
-
The only reason gas isn't $4 a gallon is because it's so heavily subsidized
Source, please.
-
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm
-
Obama mentioned in the 2011 State of the Union that gas is subsidized, too. So yeah, it's definitely true.
-
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm
the subsidies in listed in that source amount to $33 per person per year.
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Of course it didn't, but the events coincided fairly nicely, which was my attempt to illustrate how the economy won't magically epic-collapse if gas hits $4 again while we're in a recession.
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Of course it didn't, but the events coincided fairly nicely, which was my attempt to illustrate how the economy won't magically epic-collapse if gas hits $4 again while we're in a recession.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! Of Course there's causality between those co-incidental events! That's BasIc CorreLationist tHeory! We're all gonna die! It's the End of Days! My Toes Itch! 9-12 was an outside job! gyaaaaahhhhhhh!
</nervousbreakdown>
4$ gas may not bring about the end of the world as we know it, but, speaking as someone who has to drive 10 miles to the corner store, it's sure gonna suck big time.
-
Teehee, "Sheeple".
But in all seriousness, I acknowledge that we're in a recession, but few people ever think that they have "enough" money. It's probably time to just grit our teeth and bear it. Economy is cyclical. It will get better.
-
Teehee, "Sheeple".
But in all seriousness, I acknowledge that we're in a recession, but few people ever think that they have "enough" money. It's probably time to just grit our teeth and bear it. Economy is cyclical. It will get better.
Economy is cyclical, so is history. The point is not that things will be horrible forever, the point is whether or not America is financially sound enough to weather the bad times if they get much worse. Just because we live in modern times doesn't mean nations are safe from the cycles of history. America is in bad shape, and its gonna take a lot of work to pull through this in one piece
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Four-dollars-per-gallon probably didn't have a significant effect, but at a certain price-point, people start considering accomodations closer to their jobs, local government offices, and businesses. In other words, given a sufficient spike in gas prices, the suburbs start to empty, and urban housing gets packed. It's not necessarily a formula for a total collapse of the housing market, but in the case of a sustained increase in fuel prices, the whole paradigm of build-out-not-up would have to get turned on its ear.
I can't be the only one who sees that as a good thing.
-
Economy is cyclical, so is history. The point is not that things will be horrible forever, the point is whether or not America is financially sound enough to weather the bad times if they get much worse. Just because we live in modern times doesn't mean nations are safe from the cycles of history. America is in bad shape, and its gonna take a lot of work to pull through this in one piece
Oh, I'm not arguing that some people have some work to do. But it all boils down to Darwinism, really. If we can't make it through a trough on the cycle....we don't deserve to. And life will go on.
-
noooooooo social darwinism baaad :<
-
noooooooo social darwinism baaad :<
Bad in the sense that it's cruel? Yes.
Such is life.
-
I kind of doubt the US will suddenly be thrown into full third world conditions. The current government might collapse eventually, but it takes a lot of work to totally destroy the infrastructure.
-
noooooooo social darwinism baaad :<
Bad in the sense that it's cruel? Yes.
Such is life.
Bad in the sense that our society works best when we do everything we can to go against the whole darwinism thing.
-
Bad in the sense that our society works best when we do everything we can to go against the whole darwinism thing.
Depends on your definition of 'best', really
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Four-dollars-per-gallon probably didn't have a significant effect, but at a certain price-point, people start considering accomodations closer to their jobs, local government offices, and businesses. In other words, given a sufficient spike in gas prices, the suburbs start to empty, and urban housing gets packed. It's not necessarily a formula for a total collapse of the housing market, but in the case of a sustained increase in fuel prices, the whole paradigm of build-out-not-up would have to get turned on its ear.
I can't be the only one who sees that as a good thing.
Cities are crowded, smelly places, and people still drive cars in places like New York despite the traffic caused by the cramped conditions.
-
I kind of doubt the US will suddenly be thrown into full third world conditions. The current government might collapse eventually, but it takes a lot of work to totally destroy the infrastructure.
The American literacy rate is falling, and the middle class is actively shrinking, infrastructure crumbling, while debt sky rockets.
Falling literacy and an actively shrinking middle class are horrifying in a developed nation, and by definition are a backspin into third world conditions if they progress unchecked. Fact of the matter is, first world developed nations do NOT have falling literacy and shrinking middle classes. Since both those things are examples of a positive nation when rising and a failing state when falling.
Third world in the sense of sub-saharan africa? I doubt it. Third world in the sense of lack of education and socio-economic future? If things aren't changed then yes. It depends on what you define as 'third world'
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Four-dollars-per-gallon probably didn't have a significant effect, but at a certain price-point, people start considering accomodations closer to their jobs, local government offices, and businesses. In other words, given a sufficient spike in gas prices, the suburbs start to empty, and urban housing gets packed. It's not necessarily a formula for a total collapse of the housing market, but in the case of a sustained increase in fuel prices, the whole paradigm of build-out-not-up would have to get turned on its ear.
I can't be the only one who sees that as a good thing.
Cities are crowded, smelly places, and people still drive cars in places like New York despite the traffic caused by the cramped conditions.
Yes, but public transportation becomes reasonable and good (unlike the shoddy excuse for a bus system we have here). There are fewer roads to build and maintain (and other things that are similar, like power lines and sewer systems and water pipes and such). Access to a wide variety of health services for more people is another plus.
I mean, yeah, there are a lot of downsides, but it's not like horizontal space is infinite. We have to use it efficiently.
-
I kind of doubt the US will suddenly be thrown into full third world conditions. The current government might collapse eventually, but it takes a lot of work to totally destroy the infrastructure.
Actually... it doesn't take any work at all. Only takes neglect. ;)
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Of course it didn't, but the events coincided fairly nicely, which was my attempt to illustrate how the economy won't magically epic-collapse if gas hits $4 again while we're in a recession.
While I agree it won't just all of sudden epically collapse, I don't see how our weak economy won't sink even farther back into a deeper more prolonged recession. Too many people on un-employment, heck the retail markets have been gaining what a percent or two a month. Food prices are soaring, and higher fuel prices will only add to that. Then add a bigger strain on companies on people not ordering their products and the price to ship it will in turn create more layoffs.
I'm normally an optimist, but I see no Republican or Democrat or anyone in between who can fix whats coming. We need to keep oil prices down to give our economy a chance. But, it seams like for every little good news, oil wants to rise. The sad part is that is not even adding in nation debt our wonderful fat politicians have added. Maybe we should decrease our politicians salaries to the level of local town governments. Maybe then we could get some good people in there.
-
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Of course it didn't, but the events coincided fairly nicely, which was my attempt to illustrate how the economy won't magically epic-collapse if gas hits $4 again while we're in a recession.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! Of Course there's causality between those co-incidental events! That's BasIc CorreLationist tHeory! We're all gonna die! It's the End of Days! My Toes Itch! 9-12 was an outside job! gyaaaaahhhhhhh!
</nervousbreakdown>
4$ gas may not bring about the end of the world as we know it, but, speaking as someone who has to drive 10 miles to the corner store, it's sure gonna suck big time.
I don't exactly think that $4 a gallon caused the housing market to collapse...
Of course it didn't, but the events coincided fairly nicely, which was my attempt to illustrate how the economy won't magically epic-collapse if gas hits $4 again while we're in a recession.
While I agree it won't just all of sudden epically collapse, I don't see how our weak economy won't sink even farther back into a deeper more prolonged recession. Too many people on un-employment, heck the retail markets have been gaining what a percent or two a month. Food prices are soaring, and higher fuel prices will only add to that. Then add a bigger strain on companies on people not ordering their products and the price to ship it will in turn create more layoffs.
I'm normally an optimist, but I see no Republican or Democrat or anyone in between who can fix whats coming. We need to keep oil prices down to give our economy a chance. But, it seams like for every little good news, oil wants to rise. The sad part is that is not even adding in nation debt our wonderful fat politicians have added. Maybe we should decrease our politicians salaries to the level of local town governments. Maybe then we could get some good people in there.
That's what happens when we as a society normalize 2+ cars per family, look down on public transportation as something only poor people use, tear up railroad tracks, insist on living in houses many miles from work/school/post offices/everything else, et cetera et cetera.
American values are coming back to bite us in the ass.
-
Holy Hell, Zack made a good point. :nervous:
-
I think it was the 'American Values' combined with a collection of bad political choices. Because heads up, America is not the only country with an American-esque culture, but the other ones are in far better shape
-
I think it was the 'American Values' combined with a collection of bad political choices. Because heads up, America is not the only country with an American-esque culture, but the other ones are in far better shape
As far as "western industrialized nations" go, America really is unique in its capitalistic/free market extremism.
The only reason the Democrats get called "Left Wing" is because they are "slightly Less extremist Right Wing" than the Republicans. And of course everything more Left Wing than the Democrats must be Socalism or even worse, Communism.... ;)
And I'm not talking hearsay here... but rather about a measurable (through statistics) and documented (through culture studies) fact of American culture.
Both of the big parties in America are so far right that any kind of party that actually WAS "balanced" or god forbid "Left Wing" (as the rest of the world sees it) simply isn t compatible with American culture.
As far as the trend of unchaining capitalism from its political/democratic oversight goes, i also really do not think it matters all that much which of both parties is in power.
We might be talking about a difference in "speed"... but certainly not in "direction".
-
I think it was the 'American Values' combined with a collection of bad political choices. Because heads up, America is not the only country with an American-esque culture, but the other ones are in far better shape
I don't think political choices are so much of a problem. Political choices are influenced heavily by the society the politicians are a part of. So a society that has self destructive values will have politics that reflect those values.
For instance, Canada shares many of the same values as the US ( consumerism, wastefullness, desire for growth), but there's one big difference: Space. Our country is much bigger and and has a lower population than the US. So where these destructive values are creating problems elsewhere, Canada has still has land and resources to destroy. Once they're gone, then we'll be in the same boat.
-
I think it was the 'American Values' combined with a collection of bad political choices. Because heads up, America is not the only country with an American-esque culture, but the other ones are in far better shape
I don't think political choices are so much of a problem. Political choices are influenced heavily by the society the politicians are a part of. So a society that has self destructive values will have politics that reflect those values.
For instance, Canada shares many of the same values as the US ( consumerism, wastefullness, desire for growth), but there's one big difference: Space. Our country is much bigger and and has a lower population than the US. So where these destructive values are creating problems elsewhere, Canada has still has land and resources to destroy. Once they're gone, then we'll be in the same boat.
The problems associated with America culture have almost succeeded in destroying America because they were unchecked an unmonitored.
Plentiful resources isn't the reason Canada is in better shape then the states. Canada monitors is business's (notably its financial sector) much more tightly then the states. The Canadians are currently boasting one of the best economies in the world, and that comes down to far deeper reasons then they have a bunch of stuff.
-
Canada's economy is heavily invested in the primary sector, though. The main point I'm trying to make is that these political decisions are heavily dependant on the society in question.
For the most part, having more regulation is a good decision. So a politician in the US decides the same thing and proposes a piece of legislation to regulate, say, the banks. It may be a good decision, but it won't pass into law because it's a smart move. It'll get passed into law if it jives with the majority's values. If ideologies, no matter how ignorant, get in the way with sufficient force, it won't succeed. Likewise, bad political decisions have a lot to do with the culture in question, the people the politician is surrounded with.
-
Why do all the good countries have to be in cold climates? :[
-
Canada's economy is heavily invested in the primary sector, though. The main point I'm trying to make is that these political decisions are heavily dependant on the society in question.
For the most part, having more regulation is a good decision. So a politician in the US decides the same thing and proposes a piece of legislation to regulate, say, the banks. It may be a good decision, but it won't pass into law because it's a smart move. It'll get passed into law if it jives with the majority's values. If ideologies, no matter how ignorant, get in the way with sufficient force, it won't succeed. Likewise, bad political decisions have a lot to do with the culture in question, the people the politician is surrounded with.
See I agree with you entirely on why the decisions were made.
What I dispute is that that Canada is on the same path and just has more time because of stuff. The political values and ideologies that run the country are so fundamentally different from those that prevail in America. Thats what makes the difference, not the amount of oil in one country or another
-
IIRC Canada is still 'left' of the states.
-
Still the best piece on the Tea Party I've read. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928) Matt Taibbi tears them to shreds and vacuums up the leftovers.
-
Still the best piece on the Tea Party I've read. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928) Matt Taibbi tears them to shreds and vacuums up the leftovers.
well hello there!
-
Still the best piece on the Tea Party I've read. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928) Matt Taibbi tears them to shreds and vacuums up the leftovers.
I give it high marks for readability and very bad ones for being a piece designed to preach to the choir.
-
Still the best piece on the Tea Party I've read. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928) Matt Taibbi tears them to shreds and vacuums up the leftovers.
"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it. [...] They're full of ****. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them."
My excerpt for those who don't have the time to read it.
-
well hello there!
Hi!
I give it high marks for readability and very bad ones for being a piece designed to preach to the choir.
Yeah, his rhetoric tends to be more vinegar than honey, but he knows his stuff inside and out, particularly concerning the financial system. His arguments are at least as well-researched as they are heavy-handed
-
Why do all the good countries have to be in cold climates? :[
Because most of the time, lazy people gravitate towards warm climates, leaving the metaphorical cream of the human 'crop,' people who are willing to actually do work, in the colder climes.
In unrelated news, I spent today traipsing around doing yard work in two feet of snow, and this post is in no-way self serving.
(And at least one thing said in this post is completely, verifiably true. Two, if you count this parenthetical...)
-
Still the best piece on the Tea Party I've read. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928) Matt Taibbi tears them to shreds and vacuums up the leftovers.
(http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928/1000x306/main.jpg)
That image basically explains the whole article! :)
-
Why do all the good countries have to be in cold climates? :[
Because you have to work hard in order to stay warm.
-
Why do all the good countries have to be in cold climates? :[
(http://www.australia.edu/images/stories/map_of_australian_regions_and_climate_zones.png)
:D
On topic though, I found this kinda humorous. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/27/us-taxes-nassau-teaparty-idUSTRE70Q5NY20110127
-
Note that all the major cities are in the cold areas :P.
That Reuter's article is somehow not suprising.
-
They're only cool relative to the really hot areas.
-
There's Darwin, but they somehow don't count.