Notices
Results 1 to 65 of 65

Thread: Video - Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier

  1. #1 Video - Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Here in Colorado it looks as if we are about to elect as senator a person who does not believe in evolution, believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest, has been sent to ethics retraining when he was a district attorney, thinks global warming is a liberal scam and believes he should be elected because he "doesn't wear high heels".

    This video is worth watching, but it doesn't make me feel any better.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfP...layer_embedded


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Ain't democracy grand? It's amazing how much a populace can be manipulated when you fail to educate them properly.

    Btw - That video was absolutely frakking brilliant.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    this reminds me of too many conversations i've had in the past few months.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    I got about half way through the video, and then I had to turn it off. Whoever made the video wears a ten gallon hat on a two pint head. I will Google the mentioned person that is standing as Senator.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    The "mentioned person" is Ken Buck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    OK Dude,
    Going to have a look.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Yes, he is a very interesting person. I am instinctively a Right Winger, but I do not care for many of his policies or his U turns. I do like this video clip though.
    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/...otation/12184/
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Jane Norton was the anointed Republican candidate until Buck jumped in. He took an extreme right wing posture during the primary and defeated her, so the Republican managers had to swing behind him and train him to sound more moderate (i.e. lie about his beliefs) to attract the swing voters. It must be hard to maintain a story line you don't believe in and he's had a few slip ups.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Jane Norton was the anointed Republican candidate until Buck jumped in. He took an extreme right wing posture during the primary and defeated her, so the Republican managers had to swing behind him and train him to sound more moderate (i.e. lie about his beliefs) to attract the swing voters. It must be hard to maintain a story line you don't believe in and he's had a few slip ups.
    Yes he has had quite a few slip ups, but that makes good political reading. I do intend to keep an eye on this dude. Do you think that he will have a tilt at the US Presidency ?
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    it's notoriously difficult to keep the truth about your views a secret when running for president.

    if he even tries then this video will come up again i'm sure. the chances of someone this far right winning in 2012 are slim. although the tea party movement could do a lot of damage to american politics in the next two years, perhaps giving the guy a chance.

    for all our sakes i hope not, i'd rather not be transported back to a society of levitical law.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by saul

    for all our sakes i hope not, i'd rather not be transported back to a society of levitical law.
    That is extreme.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Do you think that he will have a tilt at the US Presidency ?
    I couldn't believe this country was dumb enough to elect Reagan.
    I couldn't believe we were dumb enough to elect Bush - twice.
    I make no predictions about this particular dumbass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    You appear to have a whack job in the Whitehouse right now.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    You appear to have a whack job in the Whitehouse right now.
    In what way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    I am instinctively a Right Winger, but...
    Not to point out the obvious, or anything, but you have been raised and reared in a culture which tilts you right wing. There is quite literally nothing "instinctive" about your political ideology. You were not born with your political worldview or leanings. You were fed it on a spoon by those around you in positions of authority, and you keep coming back for seconds like hostages in the Norrmalmstorg robbery.


    But yeah... This thread is about a video and despair at how successful lies and ignorance have become as winning political strategy in our nation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfP...layer_embedded
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    This thread is about a video and despair at how successful lies and ignorance have become as winning political strategy in our nation.
    Maybe there's a large demographic who would like to vote, but rather not feel obliged to think much about politics. They would like an unsophisticated maverick who promises to keep it simple in their minds.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    I am instinctively a Right Winger, but...
    Not to point out the obvious, or anything, but you have been raised and reared in a culture which tilts you right wing. There is quite literally nothing "instinctive" about your political ideology. You were not born with your political worldview or leanings. You were fed it on a spoon by those around you in positions of authority, and you keep coming back for seconds like hostages in the Norrmalmstorg robbery.
    I was raised and reared in that same culture, if you are referring to England, and I seem to have turned out quite differently! But perhaps you meant a smaller cultural unit, such as family. Even so, I'm not so sure we are blank slates at birth, even politically, and certainly not so sure we can't change our minds. (I voted for Margaret Thatcher once...)

    But yeah... This thread is about a video and despair at how successful lies and ignorance have become as winning political strategy in our nation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfP...layer_embedded
    Quite, and how given enough money, you can make people believe almost anything, while not even believing it yourself. The Tea Partiers are dupes of the corporate interests that are buying their seats in Congress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The pool of candidates in the upcoming US elections this year has been mind-boggling. I don't know who's worse, "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell or Paladino's hypocrisy about gays while he sends around bestiality porn by email.

    The Rent is Too Damn High party guy in New York is kind of amusing too, at least he's not a douchebag like Paladino.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    I was raised and reared in that same culture, if you are referring to England, and I seem to have turned out quite differently! But perhaps you meant a smaller cultural unit, such as family.
    Indeed, also friends and co-workers, for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Even so, I'm not so sure we are blank slates at birth, even politically
    Fair enough. I could have been more precise in my language. I did not mean to imply that we were born politically tabula rasa, only that the direction of our political bias is not an instinct (like fear of heights or snakes, or desire to be taught and guided by tribal authority figures, for example).

    I was using a lazy method of giving him a hard time for being ignorant. Apologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I was just curious – didn’t want the old country labeled as an incubator of right wing beliefs. I believe it is less polarized these days than the USA. The Tories in the UK are not out to destroy the social safety nets, which is the goal of many Republicans and as far as I can tell from their brief moments of coherence, is the unanimous goal of the Tea Party.

    They haven’t thought it through though. It will be interesting to see if Ken Buck (if elected), whose home district of Weld County contains numerous cattle and sheep ranches, feed lots and corn, wheat and potato growers, fights to remove all agricultural subsidies as well as Social Security and unemployment benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Where you grow up definitely does help to determine your political leanings. Frankly, difference in geographical culture and politics is essentially the only reason Canada hasn't become an essentially two party state.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...08_Ridings.svg

    You can see on this map how the left leaning Liberals predominate in the East and in urban centers. The nationalist Bloc Quebecois holds almost all the seats in Quebec (it doesn't run anyone outside of the province), the socialist democratic NDP holds much of the areas of the country primarily inhabited by natives and seems to be the de facto party of the left in much of Western Canada, it also has very strong union support in the manufacturing (or former manufacturing) areas of Canada North of Detroit. The conservatives party in Canada has two bases, since it was formed out of the merger of the socially conservative Reform party and the fiscally conservative Progressive Conservative party. The social conservative wing does very well in the prairies, and has been the dominating political force in that region (particularly oil rich Alberta) for decades, the fiscal conservatives do well everywhere that the Liberal party or NDP is unpopular.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It's just amazing what kinds of fanatics you can get when one side thinks they are going to lose all their say. It's like haggling at a used car lot. Buyer names an insanely low price, seller gives a clearly too high price...... and all with the hope they'll both settle on something reasonable. Each side seems to think if they ask too much they'll get just enough.

    But what happens if the opening offer doesn't get fought back against? Conservatives need to learn that it isn't the liberals' job to battle them down. If they win they'd better be willing to line up and make personal apologies to all those women who end up bearing rape babies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    I was just curious – didn’t want the old country labeled as an incubator of right wing beliefs. I believe it is less polarized these days than the USA. The Tories in the UK are not out to destroy the social safety nets, which is the goal of many Republicans and as far as I can tell from their brief moments of coherence, is the unanimous goal of the Tea Party.

    They haven’t thought it through though. It will be interesting to see if Ken Buck (if elected), whose home district of Weld County contains numerous cattle and sheep ranches, feed lots and corn, wheat and potato growers, fights to remove all agricultural subsidies as well as Social Security and unemployment benefits.
    TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already. It doesn't mean no taxes or no government services. It is a reaction against the constantly increasing size of government, and proportion of your income that goes for taxes. It is really an issue of personal freedom. Unless you are an out and out communist, you too have a limit to the amount of taxes you would be willing to pay. When it gets to that point, you too, might be a member of the TEA party.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already. It doesn't mean no taxes or no government services. It is a reaction against the constantly increasing size of government, and proportion of your income that goes for taxes. It is really an issue of personal freedom. Unless you are an out and out communist, you too have a limit to the amount of taxes you would be willing to pay. When it gets to that point, you too, might be a member of the TEA party.
    Except, the US has pretty low tax rates already relative to the rest of the world. The idea that we're being made into communists is pure hyperbole not rooted in reality, but instead in ignorance... If you look at the rest of the world, our taxes are quite low. In short, the claims of the tea party don't align with the available facts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    [quote="Bunbury"]I was just curious – didn’t want the old country labeled as an incubator of right wing beliefs. I believe it is less polarized these days than the USA. quote]

    i can attest to that.

    and harrold, inow's response seems to say more than i really can. our taxes aren't that bad, your response does a lot to give solidity to inow's remarks about Dave. the political environment that you're exposed to currently doesn't feed you straight facts.

    I of course am subject to the same environment. if someone asked me to point to an un-biased news source i simply could not. i get most of my news from the left leaning media, but like to listen to what the right has to say. the best you or i can hope to do is be open to new information when it becomes available. i believe that the wikipedia article is just that; a piece of new information that could and certainly should at least modify your views about the tea party.

    on another note, even communists have a limit to how much we can be taxed. i'd like to keep at least 5% of my income for luxuries and vacations. although there may be some more hardcore communists who would like to see everyone allocated the same resources for entertainment... i think that just goes too far.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    There is a reason why I am happy to live in the USA. It is precisely because we have more freedom than some other countries. Why should I be happy if we are taxed less than another country?

    Saul, you make my point. You would be happy to keep 5 percent of the money you earn yourself? Are you sure you're not being too extravagant?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    There is a reason why I am happy to live in the USA. It is precisely because we have more freedom than some other countries. Why should I be happy if we are taxed less than another country?
    But that's an attempt to shift the goalposts, Harold. Nobody asked you to be happy. The point is that your comments imply that you lack perspective, and the actual request to you was to recognize that your claims about high taxes in the US are not supported by the available facts. Your argument rests on hyperbole, and little more... which is the exact problem with the tea party being discussed in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already. It doesn't mean no taxes or no government services. It is a reaction against the constantly increasing size of government, and proportion of your income that goes for taxes.
    It is really an issue of personal freedom. Unless you are an out and out communist, you too have a limit to the amount of taxes you would be willing to pay. When it gets to that point, you too, might be a member of the TEA party.
    Harold, like most working people my taxes have gone down since Obama was elected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Just to reinforce the above point:


    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...48-503544.html

    Today [April 15, 2010], thousands of Tea Partiers will descend on Washington to declare they've been "Taxed Enough Already." Yesterday's poll found that 64 percent of Tea Party supporters think the administration has raised taxes -- a finding that might leave Democrats banging their heads against their desks.

    "The American people need to be reminded that 98 percent of Americans got a tax cut last year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday.

    Reid was referring to the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus -- essentially, the only Obama policy to really impact people's 2009 tax returns. In fact, tax refunds reached an all-time high this year in part because of the stimulus, the president said in his weekly address on Saturday. Meanwhile, taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution.

    "The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous," Gale told Hotsheet. "The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    My theory right now is that taxes increase the "subsistence wage", which is minimum amount of money an unskilled worker can demand to be payed. (Absent a union or a "minimum wage" law, it's the maximum amount they can demand too).


    So, the bottom level wage earners don't mind increasing taxes because they know market forces will compel their employers to raise their wages to match the new subsistence wage, whether they like it or not. Having a "progressive" tax system that demands more from the wealthier citizens doesn't hurt their decision either. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    But that's an attempt to shift the goalposts, Harold. Nobody asked you to be happy.
    How did I shift the goalpost? I simply explained the rationale behind the tea party and countered a fallacious argument that tea partiers are hypocritical for accepting any sort of government benefits.

    People want to keep more of their money. The taxation rate in other countries is irrelevant.

    We also see and understand that an increase in the size of government and number of government programs means more of our earnings go to the government, directly or indirectly. If you pay for a government program by massively increasing the debt, instead of raising taxes, it is going to catch up to us in the form of taxes (later) or higher cost of goods and services charged to us by the people or corporations who had their taxes increased. There is no free lunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, the bottom level wage earners don't mind increasing taxes because they know market forces will compel their employers to raise their wages to match the new subsistence wage, whether they like it or not.
    No, the bottom level wage earners don't mind increasing taxes, because they don't pay them. This is the problem in a democracy. The politician who wants to rob Peter to pay Paul, can count on the vote of Paul.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    your last remark is completely right harold. the politician who wishes to take money from the 1% that controls 33% of the wealth can count on the 33% of the population that controls only 1-5% of the wealth. with another 18% of the population being convinced to vote for said politician, socialism is the natural order of things.

    the only time it doesn't occur is when that 18% is convinced the politician is going to take money from them, or that there is some moral reason against keeping 33% of the population alive(because it can easily be demonstrated that said people experience a much greater pre-reproductive death rate). now the classic arguement is that the 1% should have a moral obligation to help the poor, and that they should voluntarily help them. of course some of these people do, but most of them keep most of their money and let it sit in the banks, stock markets, bonds, and other laborless ways of making money.

    the tea party attempts to tell the working class that their taxes are rising - or going to rise - despite obvious signs that this is not the truth. even if comparing ourselves to the rest of the civilized world were not a good measure(i think it is), comparing ourselves now to ourselves a few years ago is a good measure, and our taxes have in fact stabilized or gone down in the working and poor class. it is pure ignorance that leads people to believe that the tea party stands on stone rather than sand.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If you pay for a government program by massively increasing the debt, instead of raising taxes, it is going to catch up to us in the form of taxes (later) or higher cost of goods and services charged to us by the people or corporations who had their taxes increased. There is no free lunch.
    I assume you are referring here to Bush's two wars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Right now it seems that the result in Colorado is still to be announced. Bunbury, I do hope, that you get the result, that you want.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    So far so good. We got the right result in the Governor’s race. We’ll have to wait a while for the Senate result.

    It is interesting that all the Colorado ballot issues regarding tax reductions, allowing the state to opt out of the health care law and the anti-abortion amendment failed by large margins, while the candidate who claims he can reduce taxes, is against universal health care and against all abortions seems likely to win the Senate seat. This lack of ideological consistency should keep the pundits busy for a while.

    Also, the amendment requiring the state to establish a panel to prepare for the coming invasion of extraterrestrials failed by a wide margin. (I am not kidding.)

    Your concern for my state is deeply appreciated.

    Edit: Great news Michael Bennet won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    But that's an attempt to shift the goalposts, Harold. Nobody asked you to be happy.
    How did I shift the goalpost? I simply explained the rationale behind the tea party and countered a fallacious argument that tea partiers are hypocritical for accepting any sort of government benefits.

    People want to keep more of their money. The taxation rate in other countries is irrelevant.

    We also see and understand that an increase in the size of government and number of government programs means more of our earnings go to the government, directly or indirectly. If you pay for a government program by massively increasing the debt, instead of raising taxes, it is going to catch up to us in the form of taxes (later) or higher cost of goods and services charged to us by the people or corporations who had their taxes increased. There is no free lunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, the bottom level wage earners don't mind increasing taxes because they know market forces will compel their employers to raise their wages to match the new subsistence wage, whether they like it or not.
    No, the bottom level wage earners don't mind increasing taxes, because they don't pay them. This is the problem in a democracy. The politician who wants to rob Peter to pay Paul, can count on the vote of Paul.
    You're certainly right about them not paying taxes anyway, but it's actually ironic in that event. Depending on how the money is spent, their wages could increase automatically in order to accommodate the new tax, so they're no richer or poorer by not being taxed.

    The taxing and spending works to their benefit so long as the services were non-necessities like public parks and etc. In that situation, the government spending acts like a pseudo-disposable income (except it's getting spent for you), which very poor workers normally would not have (or they'd have very little). By spending money on luxuries on their behalf, their employers are thereby forced to pay them enough to afford those luxuries, whereas otherwise they would only be paid enough to subsist.

    On the other hand, if the service is help with necessities (like food stamps and welfare), then it counts against their "subsistence wage", and that means their wages won't increase to compensate because they need less money to survive (and the government will probably be less efficient too). There are a lot of employers who deliberately keep their workers' pay/hours small enough so they can collect federal aid.


    As for the wealthy, they pay the same amount either way. Either by the increase in wages paid to their workers (if the workers are taxed more), or by direct taxation (if they themselves are taxed more), the result isn't a whole lot different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You're certainly right about them not paying taxes
    They may pay no income taxes but there are many other taxes they do pay including FICA and Medicare, also car registration property taxes, sales tax and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The middle class shoulders the majority of the tax burden anyway. The rich get around paying taxes, and the poor pay very little.

    But that might just be my union bias poking through. Collective action is always the best way to achieve anything, it's better to put your taxes into public healthcare and social security than to have to invest alone into those properties. The system works if we pay more attention to managing the bloated bureaucracy instead of just bitching about taxes. I'd rather keep my taxes the same and work on better managing the money the government does have.

    @Bunbury, I'm pretty sure they can get their sales taxes back. At least in Canada you can file for a return of your sales taxes if you're below a certain income. Not sure if the US lets you do that. I let my accountant mother handle all my taxes though, I'll be helpless when she dies.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    The middle class shoulders the majority of the tax burden anyway.
    I think this warrants clarity, as it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.


    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15117

    * The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers -- those with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $62,068 -- earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than 4 out of every 5 dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent).
    * The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes.
    * That means the top 1 percent paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent.
    I'd also go so far as to suggest that the "top-earning 25% of taxpayers" is not validly described as entirely "middle class."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm pretty sure they can get their sales taxes back. At least in Canada you can file for a return of your sales taxes if you're below a certain income. Not sure if the US lets you do that.
    Most states don't charge sales tax on groceries, but as far as I know there is no refund for low income families on sales taxes on other goods and services. But I'm not a tax expert.

    There was a discussion going on above where the received wisdom was that low income people don't pay taxes. I just feel such discussions are more useful when based on facts rather than false beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    As for the wealthy, they pay the same amount either way. Either by the increase in wages paid to their workers (if the workers are taxed more), or by direct taxation (if they themselves are taxed more), the result isn't a whole lot different.
    That makes the extraordinary amount of effort the wealthy put into getting the tax burden shifted to the lower income levels a bit puzzling, no?

    In my state, the rich and the corporate were donating big money and effort toward backing an expansion of the sales tax base to include necessities like clothing, even, rather than raising the income tax on higher incomes.

    Apparently there is bit of wiggle room in the "raise wages to cover the difference" part of the equation.

    As far as the lower incomes not paying taxes - the working poor pay 15% in Social Security alone, in the US. That's as much as the top level hedge fund managers pay in total taxation on their incomes, if they choose their residences and spending habits wisely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    As for the wealthy, they pay the same amount either way. Either by the increase in wages paid to their workers (if the workers are taxed more), or by direct taxation (if they themselves are taxed more), the result isn't a whole lot different.
    That makes the extraordinary amount of effort the wealthy put into getting the tax burden shifted to the lower income levels a bit puzzling, no?
    Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're overly bright. Why do you think they've been needing so many bailouts lately? They seem to think if they can shift the burden of cost over to someone else, then they're off the hook, but of course that isn't true. It just comes right back to them in a different form. Put all the burden on the poor, and pretty soon Home loans start to go into default. Purchase of high volume items (anything you'd build an assembly line for) drop off, and when the loans you took out to build that assembly line come due, you can't pay them and you go out of business.

    Basically: "Trickle Up" is more true than "Trickle Down." The USA has no shortage of investment money available (and we can create more whenever we want), but we have quite a shortage of consumption money, for some reason.



    Apparently there is bit of wiggle room in the "raise wages to cover the difference" part of the equation.
    .
    Well, that is somewhat true. In the USA, our entitlements kind of extend what people think of as a "subsistence wage", and probably a lot of people in the third world would feel very rich if they had what we Americans consider to be bare survival. So, a change in cultural ideals can allow a lowering of workers wages without the backlash - in the USA. (Whereas, if workers are at a true subsistence wage, and you tax them without increasing their wages, they would stop subsisting and die.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    a rich business man is paying his workers x dollars per hour for their work. now let's say that the workers only take home .75x after taxation. also allow us to say that in this scenario .75x time hours worked by the workers is the minimum amount of money required by these people to survive.

    the businessman is getting x dollars worth of labor for x dollars. and he can sell the products of the labor for y dollars(which is more than x plus cost of materials), making a profit. and we can say(in this hypothetical example only) that the government taxes the businessman for .25 y, leaving him with .75 y.

    faced with the choice of having a 25%% increase in taxes either on himself or his workers there are two scenarios:

    1) he passes on the tax burden to the workers and in order for them to maintain the subsistance wage, he must pay them 1.5x per hour for the same number of hours of work. in some cases the workers can work harder in this same amount of time, but in others they can't. the worst case scenario for the businessman in this case is that he is still only getting x dollars worth of labor. and still only selling y dollars worth of products, and still taking in .75 y dollars after taxation. now because of an increase in his worker's wages, he is now taking home .75 y - .5 x

    2) he takes the 25% tax burden on himself. he still pays the workers x dollars, still gets x dollars of labor, still sells y dollars of product. but now he's only got .5y in revenues after taxation.

    the point where both of these equations are equal is when 2x=y, i'm confident all of you have the maths for that calculation. in cases where y>2x, option 1 is always better. now look at business models, the profit margin(y/x) is generally higher than this, especially for large businesses. that is why it is better for a business owner to pass taxes down the line, than absorb them themselves.

    * this is directed to the remark that business owners trying to shift the tax burden down is puzzling.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    What I would really like to hear from Tea Party supporters is how exactly, with specifics, do they propose to reduce or eliminate the federal deficit? Which specific programs will they aim to cut and by how much?

    I think this would be worth discussing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    a rich business man is paying his workers x dollars per hour for their work. now let's say that the workers only take home .75x after taxation. also allow us to say that in this scenario .75x time hours worked by the workers is the minimum amount of money required by these people to survive.

    the businessman is getting x dollars worth of labor for x dollars. and he can sell the products of the labor for y dollars(which is more than x plus cost of materials), making a profit. and we can say(in this hypothetical example only) that the government taxes the businessman for .25 y, leaving him with .75 y.
    If we're talking about taxing the rich, as opposed to taxing a corporation's gross profits, then the government is taxing his net income, not his gross income.

    So, instead of paying .25 y, he should be paying .25(y-x), and his take home pay is 0.75(y-x)



    faced with the choice of having a 25%% increase in taxes either on himself or his workers there are two scenarios:

    1) he passes on the tax burden to the workers and in order for them to maintain the subsistance wage, he must pay them 1.5x per hour for the same number of hours of work. in some cases the workers can work harder in this same amount of time, but in others they can't. the worst case scenario for the businessman in this case is that he is still only getting x dollars worth of labor. and still only selling y dollars worth of products, and still taking in .75 y dollars after taxation. now because of an increase in his worker's wages, he is now taking home .75 y - .5 x
    Using the above assumption that Y was his gross income, let us amend that to 0.75 (y - 1.5x) being his take home pay. Or we can write that as 0.75y - 1.125x


    2) he takes the 25% tax burden on himself. he still pays the workers x dollars, still gets x dollars of labor, still sells y dollars of product. but now he's only got .5y in revenues after taxation.
    Now he's getting 0.5(y - x)

    the point where both of these equations are equal is when 2x=y, i'm confident all of you have the maths for that calculation. in cases where y>2x, option 1 is always better. now look at business models, the profit margin(y/x) is generally higher than this, especially for large businesses. that is why it is better for a business owner to pass taxes down the line, than absorb them themselves.

    * this is directed to the remark that business owners trying to shift the tax burden down is puzzling.

    So, the break even point is actually at 2.5x = y. At 2x = y, he would be taking home 0.375x in the first scenario, and 0.5x in the second scenario. At 3x = y, he would take home 1.125x in the first scenario, and 1.0x in the second scenario.

    However, the second scenario also has the advantage that it doesn't increase the business's risk, because the business's break-even point between income and expenses remains unchanged. In the first scenario there is a chance of triggering business failure if the margin is too small. (That is if the margin were less than 1.5x = y)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    thank you kojax for correcting my errors. i tend to focus more on the impacts of capitalist business structures, my knowledge of some of their exact processes is hazy.

    in any case, we can see how in many instances(and for the people with the most money) it is cheaper to shift the tax burden down.

    and i agree that a discussion about the tea party's official stance on a bunch of subjects would be very interesting. however they don't have an official political platform, just a bunch of people with different beliefs running on tickets for other parties yet professing to be tea partiers. some of the most notable tea-partiers(IMO) would include sarah palin... i don't think anyone has forgotten her failure to understand even her own position on many issues.

    for those of you who actually missed that most hilarious of political seasons, here's a clip of something that might resemble the tea party's stance on some issues:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmu...eature=related

    the important thing about this is that

    she can't name a single one...

    also i'd like to mention that the "federalist" position she takes(which i believe is an important part of the tea party movement) is dead wrong. federalists believed in a strong central government, it was the anti-federalists who wanted states rights over the government.

    the anti-federalist position is easily debunked by anyone with a basic education in history. my history professor constantly mentioned during all of the colonial, pre-revolution, revolutionary periods, as well as every time up untill the civil war how the constitution says "we the people" and it means the people are sovereign, not the states. the people made the constitution, not the states. the people have power over the central government, not the states. the federal government makes the real rules, not the states. all of the attempts to subvert the federal government before the civil war used the banner of state's rights, post civil war the issue was decided. power lies in the federal government, given to it by the people. Palin's support for the archaic idea of state's rights does not change the result of the civil war.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    for those of you who actually missed that most hilarious of political seasons, here's a clip of something that might resemble the tea party's stance on some issues:
    Hilarious? No, heartbreaking for me, to think that such ignorance and stupidity can be sold to the American public as presidential material. Get an agent; get someone to write a book for you; get a scriptwriter to pen your outrage at the "bastards" (Does anyone really believe that was spontaneous?) and voila you're a contender. Good grief.

    The incubus has had its way with a sleeping Republican Party and the result is - the Republican party, pretty much as before. McConnell says we kinda like our earmarks, and we'll raise the debt ceiling anyway. We'll squawk about repealing universal health care and extending the tax cuts for the super rich, but we can't really do it because both of these actions make the deficit worse. And by the way Tea Partiers, please shut up about canceling farm subsidies - don't you know they grow corn in Iowa?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Sarah Palin, well she is a looker. Politics is full of politicians who do not do any research or do not take well to briefs, but they somehow get into these positions and people actually vote for them.
    Here is an unfortunate quote from David Miliband with regard to Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister, when Tony Blair stood down.
    " The smooth transition to Gordon Brown, the energising, refreshing transition to Gordon Brown - not to anyone else - is a transition that is about ideas and values more than about dates. "
    David Miliband quote
    http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/pol...david_miliband
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    bunbury there are certainly two ways of looking at it.

    you seem to take the view that she was under serious consideration by most people. of course if this is the case, yes that's heartbreaking. i would absolutely loose my already limited faith in the ability of humanity to care for itself. our politics is good evidence that america is(or at least was) falling into an idiocracy, but we're not far enough in the hole yet that someone as uniquely(and to anyone with a high regard for intellegence, insultingly) ignorant as palin would actually be considered by most people.


    I'm not omniscient so i can't say for sure about every person in america, but i never came into contact with one person who actually respected palin. to me, to my family, to my colleagues, and to my friends that political season became a joke as soon as McCain announced that palin would be his vice president.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Palin is a much stronger force and much more respected than you seem to be aware of a result of interactions with your circle of friends and family, saul. We'll see what happens, but the respect for her is pretty profound in numerous areas among millions of people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    you seem to take the view that she was under serious consideration by most people.
    No, not most people, but more than a few. The threat is that her sales team can package her just as they do any other air head pop star. Personally, I think she is in it for the money and won't run, but I'm not sure enough about that to dismiss the idea.

    i never came into contact with one person who actually respected palin. to me, to my family, to my colleagues, and to my friends that political season became a joke as soon as McCain announced that palin would be his vice president.
    Well I'm pretty much in that same boat - I cannot think of anyone I have come face to face with who has admitted to having any respect for her, but maybe it's just a reflection of whom we mix with. I also used to like and respect McCain, but that has all long gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by saul


    I'm not omniscient so i can't say for sure about every person in america, but i never came into contact with one person who actually respected palin. to me, to my family, to my colleagues, and to my friends that political season became a joke as soon as McCain announced that palin would be his vice president.
    Obviously you have not been to Alaska, or you have not been in contact with with any person who is able to vote in Alaska. Sarah Palin was voted in, as Governer of Alaska in 2006. Are far too many people voting the wrong way ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I thought this was interesting. George W. Bush is apparently not a big fan of the tea party or Sarah Palin, and offers high praise for Obama across the board. My respect for him just increased a bit. I especially like the last part of the quote below from the article's author.



    http://www.thenation.com/blog/155939...-george-w-bush

    Ultimately, argues Bush, Obama represented the future while McCain was the face of the past. "Like Dad in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain was on the wrong side of generational politics," argues Bush. "Electing him would have meant skipping back a generation. By contrast, 47-year-old Barack Obama represented a generational step forward."

    Points well taken.

    But is Bush just a fan of Obama's campaign?

    No way.

    Bush's book is filled with praise for Obama.

    The almost 500-page book mentions the current president ten times.

    Every mention is favorable, with Bush heaping praise on Obama's foreign policy decisions and recalling thoughtful discussions with his successor regarding everything from organization of the White House to bailing out failing auto companies.

    The balance Bush strikes in the book—and in the interviews to promote it—is a telling one. He's got plenty of praise for Obama and plenty of criticism for McCain, Republicans and even the Tea Party movement. Warning in an interview with the Times of London about the dangers of right-wing populism, Bush says: "Here is what I am most concerned about: isolationism, protectionism, and nativism, the evil triplets that occasionally hold hands in America."

    "I don't think there is a Tea Party platform. A tea party is a frustrated-people movement," Bush told the Times. He compared the current movement to the "Reform Party" movement that formed around billionaire Ross Perot in 1992. "The difference between 1992 and this cycle is that [Reform Party activists] had a candidate around whom to rally," says Bush.

    Gee, what about Sarah Palin?

    According to the New York Daily News, he has one word for the Tea Party heroine. "Unqualified."

    Coming from George W. Bush, of all people, that's a harsh review.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Gee, what about Sarah Palin?

    According to the New York Daily News, he has one word for the Tea Party heroine. "Unqualified."

    Coming from George W. Bush, of all people, that's a harsh review.
    Except Bush denies saying that.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-limbaugh.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Gee, what about Sarah Palin?

    According to the New York Daily News, he has one word for the Tea Party heroine. "Unqualified."

    Coming from George W. Bush, of all people, that's a harsh review.
    Except Bush denies saying that.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-limbaugh.html
    Thanks for pointing that out, but ultimately this is a case of he-said/she-said. My guess is that he never did say those EXACT words, hence can make this denial in good faith, but that he said something remarkably similar with the exact same meaning and impact. I speculate, though.


    From your link:

    Bush also seeks to set the record straight about what he didn't say about Sarah Palin. Rush asked about reports he'd told friends she was a poor 2008 running mate choice by John McCain. Bush's response:

    I have never said that, of course, nor have I read about it. You know, I'm not gonna comment on anybody who might be running for president. But that's what happens in today's world, the blogosphere. You know, people get to hide behind some codename or something. They toss out a gossip or rumor and it floats around the Internet. I never said that, never would have said that.


    ... And here is what the Daily News suggested:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...moirs_say.html

    The 43rd President has told friends the ex-Alaska governor isn't qualified to be President and criticizes Arizona Sen. John McCain for putting Palin on the 2008 GOP ticket and handing her a national platform.

    "Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told the Daily News.

    "He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin."

    It's not entirely unreasonable that he would have said this, nor is it unreasonable that he didn't. I'm inclined to trust your link more since it's a direct quote from the former president, and not a comment supported by "said a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking." I mean, seriously... "familiar with his thinking?" That could mean freaking anything.

    Regardless, I'm fine withdrawing my newfound respect for him if he didn't, in fact, say or imply that. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    [quote="Dave Wilson"]
    Obviously you have not been to Alaska, or you have not been in contact with with any person who is able to vote in Alaska.
    Here's what Alaskans think of Palin: http://www.rightspeak.net/2010/11/pp...rah-palin.html

    Q10 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
    of Sarah Palin?
    Favorable .............. 33%
    Unfavorable........... 58%
    Not sure ................ 8%

    Q11 Do you want Sarah Palin to run for President in
    2012?
    Yes........................ 18%
    No ......................... 70%
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    [quote="Bunbury"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Obviously you have not been to Alaska, or you have not been in contact with with any person who is able to vote in Alaska.
    Here's what Alaskans think of Palin: http://www.rightspeak.net/2010/11/pp...rah-palin.html

    Q10 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
    of Sarah Palin?
    Favorable .............. 33%
    Unfavorable........... 58%
    Not sure ................ 8%

    Q11 Do you want Sarah Palin to run for President in
    2012?
    Yes........................ 18%
    No ......................... 70%
    OK, So this spurious post of yours, explains how Sarah Palin was voted in as Governor of Alaska in 2006, by the majority of the voters in Alaska.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    OK, So this spurious post of yours, explains how Sarah Palin was voted in as Governor of Alaska in 2006, by the majority of the voters in Alaska.
    No. It shows how people feel about her now that they've actually given her that chance to lead. Now that they've seen what she is and is not capable of, her unfavorability rating is 58%, and 70% would not vote her into the presidency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    In which sense of the word is it spurious? Just curious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I thought this was interesting. George W. Bush is apparently not a big fan of the tea party or Sarah Palin, and offers high praise for Obama across the board. My respect for him just increased a bit. I especially like the last part of the quote below from the article's author.



    http://www.thenation.com/blog/155939...-george-w-bush

    Ultimately, argues Bush, Obama represented the future while McCain was the face of the past. "Like Dad in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain was on the wrong side of generational politics," argues Bush. "Electing him would have meant skipping back a generation. By contrast, 47-year-old Barack Obama represented a generational step forward."

    Points well taken.

    But is Bush just a fan of Obama's campaign?

    No way.

    Bush's book is filled with praise for Obama.

    The almost 500-page book mentions the current president ten times.

    Every mention is favorable, with Bush heaping praise on Obama's foreign policy decisions and recalling thoughtful discussions with his successor regarding everything from organization of the White House to bailing out failing auto companies.

    The balance Bush strikes in the book—and in the interviews to promote it—is a telling one. He's got plenty of praise for Obama and plenty of criticism for McCain, Republicans and even the Tea Party movement. Warning in an interview with the Times of London about the dangers of right-wing populism, Bush says: "Here is what I am most concerned about: isolationism, protectionism, and nativism, the evil triplets that occasionally hold hands in America."

    "I don't think there is a Tea Party platform. A tea party is a frustrated-people movement," Bush told the Times. He compared the current movement to the "Reform Party" movement that formed around billionaire Ross Perot in 1992. "The difference between 1992 and this cycle is that [Reform Party activists] had a candidate around whom to rally," says Bush.

    Gee, what about Sarah Palin?

    According to the New York Daily News, he has one word for the Tea Party heroine. "Unqualified."

    Coming from George W. Bush, of all people, that's a harsh review.
    my esteem for bush's brain isn't so great. however i think even he is smart enough to realize the consequences of throwing his support behind obama, it would look something like this:

    http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/20...-bush-end.html

    the important part was around 3:30 where palin mentions that upon hearing that bush wanted to endorse him, McCain could not be found.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Palin is a much stronger force and much more respected than you seem to be aware of a result of interactions with your circle of friends and family, saul. We'll see what happens, but the respect for her is pretty profound in numerous areas among millions of people.
    I guess a lot of people think managing to present oneself as being "one part folksy, one part sassy, and a little dash of high school bitchy" (in the SNL video above anyway) is an intellectual accomplishment. And well they should. Their TV sets told them that fitting themselves into the right American personality type was the way to achieve success in life (as opposed to obtaining proficiency in fields like economics, or science and technology.)


    So they look at Sarah Palin and see a big success.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    And whoever helps her with her marketing is absolutely genius for this reality show with her and her family which debuts this weekend on The Learning Channel.

    http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/


    It has zero to do with politics, and just shows Palin being a sassy, nature-wise, salt of the earth real human being with tough survival skills and classic family traits... You know... a perfectly candid and transparent view into her life... 100% natural, unscripted, and unedited... you know... at all... Just Sarah being Sarah [/sarcasm]

    It will help to paint a very specific picture and will do wonders for her image among those who already like her, and probably many who are currently sitting on the fence about what they think of her. Pure genius, because it's almost certainly gonna help and push her forward politically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It has zero to do with politics
    Yep, sarcasm noted. Of course it has everything to do with politics. But only with perpetuating the myth that she wants to be president so she can keep the money rolling in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It has zero to do with politics
    Yep, sarcasm noted. Of course it has everything to do with politics. But only with perpetuating the myth that she wants to be president so she can keep the money rolling in.
    i can only hope you're right. i can deal with a rich creationist, but not with one as president.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •