[Winstonm]

Quote

“Let me get this straight,” I say to David. “You’ve been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?”

“Well,” he says, “there’s a lot of people on welfare who don’t deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.”

“But,” I protest, “you live off the government. And have been your whole life!”

“Yeah,” he says, “but I don’t make very much.” Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it’s going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I’ve concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They’re full of *****.

[PassedOut]

Sure. The Tea Party movement is all about maintaining those folks' free lunches without having to pay for them. As card-carrying members of the "me generation," they feel that they deserve it.

[kenberg]

I pretty much agree with this. To listen to some on the right you would think the country never had a deficit problem or an immigration problem before Obama became president.

If I may briefly sound off in criticism of Obama, or perhaps just on the media coverage: I read the excerpts from the Washington Post of Bob Woodward's new book, Obama's Wars. During the review of the Afghan policy Obama kept asking for options. As near as I can get it from Woodward's writing, he wanted an option that would take few troops, not cost much, be quick, and be successful. Oddly, the generals never provided such an option. This refusal was repeatedly referred to as "the generals boxing him [Obama] in".


It gets hard to do a parody of politics.

[JoAnneM]

So, if you are a public employee, not working for a business entity, you are on welfare?

[nigel_k]

There's nothing wrong with advocating policies you think are best for the country while doing what's best for yourself under the current policies. Otherwise lots of people who opposed the Bush tax cuts need to get out their chequebook and send a large donation to the IRS.

Surely it's possible to criticize about the Tea Party folks without resorting to these silly arguments. Even if some individuals were guilty of hypocrisy (and this is not an example) it wouldn't prove much about the merits or otherwise of their ideas.

[hrothgar]

nigel_k, on Oct 4 2010, 03:20 AM, said:

There's nothing wrong with advocating policies you think are best for the country while doing what's best for yourself under the current policies.

This sort of behavior might be rational. However, this doesn't mean that it deserves our respect or even approval.

One of the central critiques of the Tea Party movement is that their demands are completely unrealistic. They demand sharp reductions in government expenditures, however, god forbid that anyone touch military spending, medicare, social security, aid to their state, or - pretty much - the entire Federal Budget.

This special individual is perfect example why this entire movement is an incoherent mess.

[Lobowolf]

JoAnneM, on Oct 3 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

So, if you are a public employee, not working for a business entity, you are on welfare?

Apparently...and getting a check for working full-time is a free lunch.

[mike777]

rats rats

if only we could debate a:
1) jobs lots of jobs budget.....I mean lots of jobs!
2) gdp growth lots of growth budget


if lots and lots of jobs and lots and lots of growth means.....lots of taxes..ok......do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

[cloa513]

Still leaves administration- simplification of the mess of regulations and laws in the US could save a vast amount of money. A whole bunch of them could be repealed with only savings and only benefits. Harmonization of laws throughout the US states would mean they couldn't complain about the states getting a little less money to do less admin.

[kenberg]

A few things

1. I don't know who Mark Taibbi is, but he probably doesn't know who I am, so it's even.

2. This is mostly in response to Nigel. Recently on another thread I commented on some very minor and very elective surgery I had that was imo too expensive and still fully covered by medicare/insurance. Yes, as I noted, I accepted the coverage because that's the way it is right now, and no, I don't regarf this as hypocritical. But I think Mr. Taibbi is saying something a little different, basically "I am fully entitled to my benefits, it's others who are not entitled to theirs". If someone wants to adopt this "I'm all right Jack" approach, it's a free country but there is no reason the rest of us should pay him much heed.

3. I'm fine with hearing conservative ideas. I have some myself. I find it difficult to use "tea party" and "ideas" in the same sentence. Well, I just did, but you know what I mean. Joe the Plumber seems to be their mascot. Obama, the Dems, the Libs were all conspiring to keep him from his dream of owning a plumbing company. Except he didn't have a plumbing license, he had no money, and, as I recall, he owed back taxes. It's all Obama's fault. Or Nancy Pelosi's. Certainly not Joe's.

4. Here is a specific that illustrates a general: A friend has a sister with some real problems. Her husband died, she lives in Michigan where opportunities for employment are scarce, she maybe was too generous with accommodating the needs/whims of her adult son, now she may well lose her house. It's a mess. Since the banks seem to have approached foreclosures with all the care and attention to detail that they gave to loan applications the process is now stalled until the banks can figure out which end is up. I guess I would like to hear someone from the tea party say something like a. This, replicated nationally, is a problem in need of a solution, b. It really isn't Barack Obama's fault, c. Reading paragraph x of section y of the Constitution is probably not going to lead to an answer.

5. I have many reasons to be extremely grateful for being born in the time and place that I was. I hope we can pass these advantages on to future generations of Americans. The tea party folks, with an occasional exception, strike me as a bunch of whiners who want to blame Obama if they stub a toe.

[PassedOut]

Paul Krugman discusses the relationship between the Tea Party and Fox News: Fear and Favor

Quote

Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.

Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.

As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.

But John Stewart still provides a counterweight.

[ArtK78]

PassedOut, on Oct 4 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

Paul Krugman discusses the relationship between the Tea Party and Fox News: Fear and Favor

Quote

Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.

Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.

As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.

But John Stewart still provides a counterweight.

And a funny one at that.

[mycroft]

PassedOut, on Oct 3 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

Sure. The Tea Party movement is all about maintaining those folks' free lunches without having to pay for anybody else's. As card-carrying members of the "me generation," they feel that they deserve it.

There. Fixed that for you. :-)
(note, not meant as a "you were wrong" sense, at all)

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Oct 4 2010, 07:34 AM, said:

But I think Mr. Taibbi is saying something a little different, basically "I am fully entitled to my benefits, it's others who are not entitled to theirs". If someone wants to adopt this "I'm all right Jack" approach, it's a free country but there is no reason the rest of us should pay him much heed.

i don't know who tabbi is either, and don't really know exactly what he's talking about, but i think it's fair to say that some (most) who received gov't assistance are entitled to it... even so, it would be incorrect, imo, to deny that some who receive such assistance are not so entitled... neither do i see anything inherently wrong with pointing out that this is the case

Quote

I guess I would like to hear someone from the tea party say something like a. This,  replicated nationally, is a problem in need of a solution, b. It really isn't Barack Obama's fault, c. Reading paragraph x of section y of the Constitution is probably not going to lead to an answer.

i'm not from the tea party, but as soon as i'm dictator i'll take care of this problem (and others)

PassedOut, on Oct 4 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

Paul Krugman discusses the relationship between the Tea Party and Fox News: Fear and Favor

is that the same guy that said (more or less) "Call it socialism, But a 91% tax on selfish millionaires is a great idea because they don’t help society…"?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 5 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

is that the same guy that said (more or less) "Call it socialism, But a 91% tax on selfish millionaires is a great idea because they don’t help society…"?

As usual, Jimmy is doing a great job parroting right wing talking points.

Google the phrase

"Call it socialism, But a 91% tax on selfish millionaires is a great idea because they don’t help society…"?

You'll find it on all sorts of sites that Jimmy used to claim that he didn't read / regurgitate. (In this case, its hard to tell whether he's getting his material from Beck, The John Birch Society, or some even more deluded group)

If you prefer, you might want to check out the actual interview with Krugman and see for yourself whether said quote is an accurate reflection of what he said...

There is an abridged version available at

http://www.ronpaulfo...d.php?p=2914929

I'm trying to track down a more compete version (we all know enough not to trust a "fair and unbalanced" individual like Beck to do a reasonable editing job)

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Oct 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Quote

I guess I would like to hear someone from the tea party say something like a. This,  replicated nationally, is a problem in need of a solution, b. It really isn't Barack Obama's fault, c. Reading paragraph x of section y of the Constitution is probably not going to lead to an answer.

i'm not from the tea party, but as soon as i'm dictator i'll take care of this problem (and others)

Promises, promises. We just can't trust these guys who are seeking office.

Still, Chairman Jimmy has a certain ring to it.

And for the children out there who never heard it, one of my favorites

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Maz9ddxEQnM

[PassedOut]

mycroft, on Oct 4 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 3 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

Sure. The Tea Party movement is all about maintaining those folks' free lunches without having to pay for anybody else's. As card-carrying members of the "me generation," they feel that they deserve it.

There. Fixed that for you. :-)

A good editor is a treasure.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Oct 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 4 2010, 07:34 AM, said:

But I think Mr. Taibbi is saying something a little different, basically "I am fully entitled to my benefits, it's others who are not entitled to theirs". If someone wants to adopt this "I'm all right Jack" approach, it's a free country but there is no reason the rest of us should pay him much heed.

i don't know who tabbi is either, and don't really know exactly what he's talking about, but i think it's fair to say that some (most) who received gov't assistance are entitled to it... even so, it would be incorrect, imo, to deny that some who receive such assistance are not so entitled... neither do i see anything inherently wrong with pointing out that this is the case

Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, or perhaps not, but can you find me a Tea Party member who thinks that they themselves are one of those people who are not entitled to such assistance? "I'm entitled to assistance but many who receive it aren't" would be a lot more credible if it wasn't being claimed by everyone who receives assistance.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Oct 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

i think it's fair to say that some (most) who received gov't assistance are entitled to it... even so, it would be incorrect, imo, to deny that some who receive such assistance are not so entitled... neither do i see anything inherently wrong with pointing out that this is the case

Except for outright fraud, which only the crooks themselves want to keep (and this represents but a tiny fraction of all government expenditures), every person who receives a government check considers the money well spent -- vital even. It is always the other guy who is "not entitled." And I too have my opinions on who should not be getting checks from the government.

The problem is with politicians who promise tax cuts without identifying the spending cuts necessary to balance those tax cuts. And they do so because they know that the folks who actually benefit from the spending that would be cut will bleat to high heaven about it and that the politicians would thereby lose votes.

Of course some fools actually believe that cutting taxes causes increased receipts, kind of like the businessman who decides to sell at a loss, counting on increased volume for success. You can't reason with folks that stupid.

If you look at the current pledge to America from the republicans, you will see a strong endorsement of tax cuts, but not the matching spending cuts. It is therefore a completely dishonest document, and it makes sense only to the crooks who produced it and the fools who actually fall for it. (Those are the only two possibilities I can think of, so it must be one or the other.)

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Oct 4 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 5 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

is that the same guy that said (more or less) "Call it socialism, But a 91% tax on selfish millionaires is a great idea because they don’t help society…"?

As usual, Jimmy is doing a great job parroting right wing talking points.

am i? i read this on an ayn rand site/forum... i didn't notice that it was particularly right wing though, but that's probably because i'm a neo-facist anyway... good job of shifting the focus from the paraphrase to the paraphraser

PassedOut, on Oct 5 2010, 04:56 AM, said:

If you look at the current pledge to America from the republicans, you will see a strong endorsement of tax cuts, but not the matching spending cuts. It is therefore a completely dishonest document, and it makes sense only to the crooks who produced it and the fools who actually fall for it. (Those are the only two possibilities I can think of, so it must be one or the other.)

makes sense to me that you'd think this... it has that holier-than-thou ring to it peculiar (but not unique) to you