Can someone explain the "tea parties"?

[Fast_Eddie]

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

[JJIII]

"What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work."


Doesn't matter. It makes a good sound bite. :)

[Boreas]

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

You're not missing a thing. The Teabaggers are basically a pack of spoiled brats and sore losers and their Tea Parties are little more than mass tantrums like a couple hundred people screaming and spinning around on the floor in Wal-Mart. It's "The Me Generation" on a rampage.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Doesn't matter. It makes a good sound bite. :)

Kinda what I thought. Make it sound like something nobel even though they know it's really just whining. "Waaahhh, I don't *wanna* pay any taxes! Wahhhh."

[Charles]

I thought that they were more concerned with deficit spending and politics as usual.

Chas

[Charles]

I thought that they were more concerned with deficit spending and politics as usual.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

How many here got a tax break recently?

I did.

Granted, it aint much, but I got one.

My Sis bought her first house the recently, and received her $8,000 tax rebate.

Sorry, Chas, but I think their fight against "deficit spending and politics as usual" started once the dreaded "tax hikes" didn't happen. And if this really is their concern, then where were they when Reagan and the Shrubberies were running up their deficits? And Clintons def----Oh that's right, he didn't leave a deficit. And didn't Satan, (Ooops--pardon me), Dick Cheney say deficits don't matter anyways? I guess it's okey doke when it's Republicans doing it?

I gotta say it. When I see Hannity and Beck and their merry band of acolytes running about ranting and tossing empty boxes marked "Tea" ('cuz their too effin' cheap to use the real thing.) in the water I gotta wonder----WTF, have these people just lost it or what?:confused:

I dunno, I think Eddie might be on to something here. I think I smell bovine excressence.

Dave

[noonereal]

Any of you guys ever been to one? If you had, you would know how wrong the replies to this thread are. The ones I've been to are "mostly" professional middle aged couples that are very concerned about the debt we keep digging deeper into. That's what I've noticed anyhow.

My opinion, the attendees are sincere but the organizers could care less how they rally the protesters and knowingly mislead them from their platforms.

[Charles]

How many here got a tax break recently?

I did.

Granted, it aint much, but I got one.

My Sis bought her first house the recently, and received her $8,000 tax rebate.

Sorry, Chas, but I think their fight against "deficit spending and politics as usual" started once the dreaded "tax hikes" didn't happen. And if this really is their concern, then where were they when Reagan and the Shrubberies were running up their deficits? And Clintons def----Oh that's right, he didn't leave a deficit. And didn't Satan, (Ooops--pardon me), Dick Cheney say deficits don't matter anyways? I guess it's okey doke when it's Republicans doing it?

I gotta say it. When I see Hannity and Beck and their merry band of acolytes running about ranting and tossing empty boxes marked "Tea" ('cuz their too effin' cheap to use the real thing.) in the water I gotta wonder----WTF, have these people just lost it or what?:confused:

I dunno, I think Eddie might be on to something here. I think I smell bovine excressence.

Dave

Personally, all I see is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

The 8K tax credit is more like an interest free 8K loan from the government...which was what my accountant broke it down to. Is he right, hell if I know, but he is a damn good CPA.

Is the tax break you speak of really a tax break, or only a withholding break? Wouldn't be the 1st time this has happened, and we will find out for sure quick enough.

Clinton's budget surplus? I thought the congress wrote the budget. Either way, I'm not so sure I'm buying that one.

And if Cheney says that deficits don't matter isn't an indication that he was right...it's more of an indication as to how little difference there is between the current parties.

And there are more ways to raise taxes than just with the income tax.

Gotta go for now,

Chas

[merrylander]

These so called Tea Parties are as phoney as the first one was. The colonies asked for soldiers to fight off the Indians on the western frontier. Mother England sent them, then she sent the bill in the form of a tea tax. Admittedly she tried to kill two birds with one stone, i.e., it also served to save the East India Company. Why should the people back in England have paid for the troops, they were not trying to take the Indian's lands. The fact that the General she sent was incompetent was cause for complaint and negotiation is beside the point. The Boston Tea Party was an excuse to further the cause of thos folks who wanted to rebel - oops, meant to say wanted independence.:rolleyes:

[d-ray657]

To the extent that the Boston Tea Party has come to stand for the protest against taxation without representation, I can see some analogy to the current situation. For the past several years we have been accelerating the accumulation of a national debt that it will be up to future generations to pay. Although they will have to pay for it, they don't have any say in how it is being spent. I do think there is more merit, and a better chance of receiving vaue for the investment, in spending to salvage a wrecked economy than in spending to destroy a sovereign nation and pay Haliburton to rebuild it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Any of you guys ever been to one? If you had, you would know how wrong the replies to this thread are. The ones I've been to are "mostly" professional middle aged couples that are very concerned about the debt we keep digging deeper into. That's what I've noticed anyhow.

All well and good. If they want to work to make this country better more power to them. But I don't like the deceptive bull shit of calling it something that makes it look like something it isn't. They're not revolutionaries standing up for their rights. They're Republicans who are sore that they didn't win.

[merrylander]

"Come to stand for Taxation without representation" still does not explain the real reason, if everyone in this country honestly believed that, the citizens of the District of Columbia would have a vote.

[Grumpy]

All well and good. If they want to work to make this country better more power to them. But I don't like the deceptive bull shit of calling it something that makes it look like something it isn't. They're not revolutionaries standing up for their rights. They're Republicans who are sore that they didn't win.


At the rate we are spending what we don't have, can you blame them for being upset ?

[noonereal]

At the rate we are spending what we don't have, can you blame them for being upset ?

The point is their upset is misplaced.

It was the boy king who started the spree and caused us to sped as drunken sailors to get healthy again.

[painter]

You're not missing a thing. The Teabaggers are basically a pack of spoiled brats and sore losers and their Tea Parties are little more than mass tantrums like a couple hundred people screaming and spinning around on the floor in Wal-Mart. It's "The Me Generation" on a rampage.

John


I understand your point. Remember only those radical enough make the news.
There are seasoned citizens forming groups who truly are concerned with issues that have caused their children to loose their jobs and houses.
It's heart breaking. Where I come from... the American dream can seem like a nightmare. Buffalo NY is the third POOREST city in the nation. I guess it depends where you live and what you see that determines your views on protests and the reason behind them.

[noonereal]

I understand your point. Remember only those radical enough make the news.
There are seasoned citizens forming groups who truly are concerned with issues that have caused their children to loose their jobs and houses.
It's heart breaking. Where I come from... the American dream can seem like a nightmare. Buffalo NY is the third POOREST city in the nation. I guess it depends where you live and what you see that determines your views on protests and the reason behind them.

Good post.


I can unequivocally agree.

:confused:

[Fast_Eddie]

To the extent that the Boston Tea Party has come to stand for the protest against taxation without representation, I can see some analogy to the current situation. For the past several years we have been accelerating the accumulation of a national debt that it will be up to future generations to pay. Although they will have to pay for it, they don't have any say in how it is being spent. I do think there is more merit, and a better chance of receiving vaue for the investment, in spending to salvage a wrecked economy than in spending to destroy a sovereign nation and pay Haliburton to rebuild it.


That would make sense, if (1) there were 12 year olds going to the tea parties an (2) if the people going to them were calling for higher taxes instead of lower (lower? really? how f^&*ing low are we going to go?) taxes.

[merrylander]

I understand your point. Remember only those radical enough make the news.
There are seasoned citizens forming groups who truly are concerned with issues that have caused their children to loose their jobs and houses.
It's heart breaking. Where I come from... the American dream can seem like a nightmare. Buffalo NY is the third POOREST city in the nation. I guess it depends where you live and what you see that determines your views on protests and the reason behind them.


Perhaps I am mistaken, but the American Dream used to mean working together for the common good. You did not begrudge your neighbour his/her successes, but simply worked harder to ensure your own.

I fear that spirit has gone out of the dream.

[Fast_Eddie]

At the rate we are spending what we don't have, can you blame them for being upset ?

As soon as I see a "raise my taxes now" sign at one of these events I will not only understand, I will start attending. Time to pay the bills. How do we do that in this country? We pay taxes. Currently taxes are at historically low rates and our debt is historically high. Do the math.

[painter]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but the American Dream used to mean working together for the common good. You did not begrudge your neighbour his/her successes, but simply worked harder to ensure your own.

I fear that spirit has gone out of the dream.

YES!!!
Working together...JOBS

Begrudge your neighbor his/her successes- socialism

Work harder to ensure your own---more jobs and a strong economy= spirit and means to provide whatever YOU consider the American Dream.

[noonereal]

YES!!!
Working together...JOBS

Begrudge your neighbor his/her successes- socialism

.

I know i don't begrudge my neighbors success (but I know they have begrudge mine, part of the human condition I guess:() but I also demand a level playing field for my children.


How socialism fits into the conversation is beyond me though.

[d-ray657]

That would make sense, if (1) there were 12 year olds going to the tea parties an (2) if the people going to them were calling for higher taxes instead of lower (lower? really? how f^&*ing low are we going to go?) taxes.

I'll slightly disagree with point (1), but wholeheartedly agree with point (2). I do believe that people of this generation can genuinely express concern for the interests of coming generations, so the 12 year olds don't need to be there. The one's there are not expressing genuine concern for the coming generations because they are not willing to pay for it. I would expect some of the protesters to have also bought the idea that anyone who spoke against the Iraq invasion was unpatriotic. If they are not willing to pony up the cost of that fiasco, then the don't have any concern for the future generations.

At least part of the stimulus plan was directed at rebuiliding the infrastructure, and we are talking on spending money to develop alternative energy methods. The future generations will reap the benefits of those investments. What the invasion of Iraq bought us was decreased international standing, less stabity in the middle east and increasing fuel prices.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

I'll slightly disagree with point (1), but wholeheartedly agree with point (2). I do believe that people of this generation can genuinely express concern for the interests of coming generations, so the 12 year olds don't need to be there.

Um, okay, if we're going to split hairs - I'm game.

If they're worried about the 12 year olds who aren't there, wouldn't they have to be calling the higher taxes? It's bull shit. It's a bunch of poor folks who have been lied to and still believe the lies. They've so deeply indoctrinated to believe that lower taxes are always the solution that they can't even process information that suggests otherwise. The idea that there might be a point at which taxes are too low isn't part of their religion and the yellers they blindly follow won't tell them otherwise. Hell, even the Laughable Curve would say that.

And about that damned curve- someone show me the formula that the Laughing at America Curve shows. Since this scribble on a bar napkin is the basis of our tax policy, where is the math? How do we figure the ideal point on the curve? Where's the formula.

There isn't one. Because it's bull shit.

[JCricket]

I know i don't begrudge my neighbors success (but I know they have begrudge mine, part of the human condition I guess:() but I also demand a level playing field for my children.


How socialism fits into the conversation is beyond me though.

I agree on this one.
I think of socialism as a deistribution of goods and wealth to benefit everyone. I know that economists and many political groups will argue it doesn't work, but I think that is the actual theory behind "socialism".

Mark
aka cricket

[Boreas]

The point is their upset is misplaced.

It was the boy king who started the spree and caused us to sped as drunken sailors to get healthy again.

Actually, it was St. Ronnie.

John

[d-ray657]

Um, okay, if we're going to split hairs - I'm game.

If they're worried about the 12 year olds who aren't there, wouldn't they have to be calling the higher taxes? It's bull shit. It's a bunch of poor folks who have been lied to and still believe the lies. They've so deeply indoctrinated to believe that lower taxes are always the solution that they can't even process information that suggests otherwise. The idea that there might be a point at which taxes are too low isn't part of their religion and the yellers they blindly follow won't tell them otherwise. Hell, even the Laughable Curve would say that.

And about that damned curve- someone show me the formula that the Laughing at America Curve shows. Since this scribble on a bar napkin is the basis of our tax policy, where is the math? How do we figure the ideal point on the curve? Where's the formula.

There isn't one. Because it's bull shit.

I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on you Eddie. I agree with you that these demonstrations are NOT about the kids. I tried to point out the hypocracy in supporting an extremely expensive dispay of false machismo in Iraq, but not being willing to pay for it. When spending is occurring for something that will benefit future generations, then they start worrying about debt, but still don't want to take the responsibility to pay off any of it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Actually, it was St. Ronnie.

John

yes it was


but the tread had reversed

[Fast_Eddie]

Actually, it was St. Ronnie.

John

I have said it before and will say it again: history will look back on Reagan and say "that was the beginning of the end of America". In so many ways he hurt us so badly and his efforts have outlived him. Unless someone can come along and sell common sense as well as he sold myth we're in for a tough couple of centuries.

[Grumpy]

As soon as I see a "raise my taxes now" sign at one of these events I will not only understand, I will start attending. Time to pay the bills. How do we do that in this country? We pay taxes. Currently taxes are at historically low rates and our debt is historically high. Do the math.


I was not talking about taxes. Thats something we all have to pay.

I am talking about throwing good money after bad in to an economy that would be better served if they just handing the cash to us to infuse in the economy.

[Charles]

Um, okay, if we're going to split hairs - I'm game.

If they're worried about the 12 year olds who aren't there, wouldn't they have to be calling the higher taxes? It's bull shit. It's a bunch of poor folks who have been lied to and still believe the lies. They've so deeply indoctrinated to believe that lower taxes are always the solution that they can't even process information that suggests otherwise. The idea that there might be a point at which taxes are too low isn't part of their religion and the yellers they blindly follow won't tell them otherwise. Hell, even the Laughable Curve would say that.

And about that damned curve- someone show me the formula that the Laughing at America Curve shows. Since this scribble on a bar napkin is the basis of our tax policy, where is the math? How do we figure the ideal point on the curve? Where's the formula.

There isn't one. Because it's bull shit.

You mean the Laffer curve, don't 'cha?

I get it!!!!

As one of those poor dumb people who is unable to process information, which is apparent since I arrive at conclusions which you don't seem to like, much less show any respect for, please allow me to elaborate.

Now go easy on me, I'm pretty stoopid, and all that I know are the lies that I've been spoon fed for years.

When taxes are lower, people have more money to spend. Which means that I tend to have more work. Once I have more work than I can do, I hire more people. And raise my prices, because people have more money, and can afford it.

It's kinda like supply and demand, or some weird, antiquated idea like that.

Anyway, when I have more work, and more employees, and a bunch of people bitching about when I'm gonnna do their job, I start paying my employees more. I buy the beer, and pass out bigger bonuses...at least to those who deserve it. Got no choice, I need 'em.

I know, it's all about me!!!!

So now I have more employees, working longer, making more money...and guess what happens...they start paying more in taxes. And so do I.

I might even do something as crazy as buy a truck, or more equipment, in a move to keep from giving it all to my Favorite Uncle. He can go find another tit to suck.

And by attempting to shelter my ill gotten gains (I am a capitalist...which means I don't deserve shit for my labor), I go about creating more jobs for more people, who also start paying more taxes.

Raise the taxes on my customers, I start running out of work, quit buying things, and send my boys home. And they quit paying taxes.

This is my understanding of the Laffer, Laughable, Laughing at America, or bull shit Curve. Which is simply a theory of taxation, and has it's own merits.

But I'm just a knuckle dragging dumb ass, a tool of the VRWC, Beck's punk, whatever. But I can count.

Chas

BTW, the National Debt is nothing more than a hidden tax. It will never be paid, and we'll cover the interest with increasingly worthless fiat currency. Buy a bunch of CD's and see how well your wealth is holding up in a few years.

And as a side note, Confederate Script has a face value far in excess to our Yankee Greenbacks. And it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Fast_Eddie]

Well I'm just a bumpkin yadda yadda.

Whatever.

Let's keep it simple. True or false - according to the Laffer curve, there is an optimal point at which taxes create the most revenue for the country. Above that point or below that point will generate less revenue.

[Fast_Eddie]

As much as I seem to offend you, your odd rant actually makes my point pretty well. That is *not* an explanation of the Laffer curve. You simply said, in a very long winded manner, that low taxes are good. And for business, they are good. You ignore the fact that at some point, a thriving economy does our nation little good if they don’t collect some taxes. Sure, companies can get rich, but the government doesn’t get any money if there are no taxes.

And that is exactly what the Laffer curve says. It’s not a theory of the economy so much as a way of graphically stating the obvious: at zero percent tax rate, the government makes no money at all. At 100% tax rate there is no incentive to be productive. No one argues that. What’s laughable about the Laffer curve is that it pretends to present that information in useful way- simply graph where we are and see if we’re at the right spot. Unfortunately, it provides no formula for doing so. In fact, the way it's typically graphed, it puts that perfect point at what appears to be 50%. But a politician said taxes were too high and threw the Laffer curve up to prove it. Bush Sr. was right when he called it voodoo. It doesn’t offer any practical information. And even if it did, it would say there is a point at which taxes are too low.

So get all bent out of shape if you like, your rant above demonstrates that you have little understanding of the Laffer curve, even though you continue to vote for people who claim to be using it as the basis for economic policy.

[Charles]

Well I'm just a bumpkin yadda yadda.

Whatever.

Let's keep it simple. True or false - according to the Laffer curve, there is an optimal point at which taxes create the most revenue for the country. Above that point or below that point will generate less revenue.

True.

And I can see where you're going with this. What is the optimal point according to the Laffer Curve?

I cannot answer this. The Laffer Curve is a theory, not a natural law. And the parameters of taxation continue to evolve.

Case in point, the AMT. Originally enacted to catch a handful of the rich who managed not to pay any taxes, it hasn't been indexed for inflation, and now millions of middle class Americans find themselves falling under it's guidelines.

Another case in point. If the Government can create as much money (not wealth) as they please, why should we pay ANY taxes?

Need more money, fire up the printing presses. Hell, that's too much work, just move the digit on the computer screen.

IMHO, we pay taxes for three reasons.

1. To allow the powers that be the ability to control the general population.

2. To maintain the facade that our currency, and therefore our labor, actually has some value.

3. To allow the powers that be to steal our wealth. They take the widget we produced with the sweat of our brow, and give us a piece of paper that isn't fit to wipe your ass with...too slick. Then they create inflation to make it worth even less.

No doubt the situation is far more complex than this. Society does need revenue for the good of everyone, but something stinks here. Besides, there's more than one way to skin the cat. Besides raising taxes.

Back to the Laughable Curve. All it does is to attempt to define the point where the great unwashed will continue to work as slaves, and not sit down on their asses, or worse, resort to the pitchfork and torch.

Don't fault the Laffer Curve...fault the powers that be. It's only an idea.

Chas

BTW, it's working according to plan. We're poking one another in the eye, and the big boys are heading out the back door with our widgets.

[Fast_Eddie]

Back to the Laughable Curve. All it does is to attempt to define the point where the great unwashed will continue to work as slaves, and not sit down on their asses, or worse, resort to the pitchfork and torch.

Again, not poking at you, but the Laffer Curve does *not* do this. That is why Bush called it voodoo and why I call it laughable. It was literally scribbled on a bar nap. That's not a joke. It does not now nor did it ever attempt to "define the point." It merely said that such a point exists.

I would suggest that with taxes at historically low levels it's likely that we are well south of that optimal point.

[Charles]

As much as I seem to offend you, your odd rant actually makes my point pretty well. That is *not* an explanation of the Laffer curve. You simply said, in a very long winded manner, that low taxes are good. And for business, they are good. You ignore the fact that at some point, a thriving economy does our nation little good if they don’t collect some taxes. Sure, companies can get rich, but the government doesn’t get any money if there are no taxes.

And that is exactly what the Laffer curve says. It’s not a theory of the economy so much as a way of graphically stating the obvious: at zero percent tax rate, the government makes no money at all. At 100% tax rate there is no incentive to be productive. No one argues that. What’s laughable about the Laffer curve is that it pretends to present that information in useful way- simply graph where we are and see if we’re at the right spot. Unfortunately, it provides no formula to doing so. In fact, the way it's typically graphed, it puts that perfect point at what appears to be 50%. But a politician said taxes were too high and threw the Laffer curve up to prove it. Bush Sr. was right when he called it voodoo. It doesn’t offer any practical information. And even if it did, it would say there is a point at which taxes are too low.

So get all bent out of shape if you like, your rant above demonstrates that you have little understanding of the Laffer curve, even though you continue to vote for people who claim to be using it as the basis for economic policy.

No offense, but could you tell me something that I don't already know?

I understand the Laffer Curve perfectly...it's not exactly an abstract concept.

What you have little understanding of is that your egotistical and insulting manner doesn't set well at times.

Perhaps we should both go pound sand up our asses...with a mallet?

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

What you have little understanding of is that your egotistical and insulting manner doesn't set well at times.

I should work on that. Sorry if I came on too strong.

I really am trying to make a point. And I'm sorry if I'm rubbing you the wrong way. Go back and read the long post you made - maybe you do understand the Laffer curve, but that post does not show it. The point I'm making is that the Republican Party has for going on 40 years now been using the Laffer Curve as proof that we need to lower taxes, even though Laffer never suggested that our point on the curve was knowable. It is just a nice graphic to use to mislead people. It's used in an effort to say "I know this seems backward, but if we lower taxes we'll actually have more money." It's not greedy to want lower taxes, it's good for America. But it's not working. Since we started this game of "I can lower taxes more than you can" we've gotten ourselves into a deep hole.

Laffer said tax cuts would pay for themselves and our debt would go down. It's not working.

[d-ray657]

OK guys, It's my turn to step in and say cool it!

We have learned a whole lot here from civil discourse.
We can disagree without making our disagreements personal.
Everyone here has something to contribute, even if it's just to make us think enough to better understand the strength of our own arguments.

Let's blame everything on a bad day and start over.

I've run out of platitudes, but I respect you guys enough to not want personal remarks get in the way of the great atmosphere we have here.

And yes the kettle is black and by golly it seems that this pot of pontification is too.

Regards

D-Ray

[Charles]

Again, not poking at you, but the Laffer Curve does *not* do this. That is why Bush called it voodoo and why I call it laughable. It was literally scribbled on a bar nap. That's not a joke. It does not now nor did it ever attempt to "define the point." It merely said that such a point exists.

I would suggest that with taxes at historically low levels it's likely that we are well south of that optimal point.

Taxes are historically low?

Perhaps the income tax. Ain't the only one.

"Voodoo Economics"? Look around, the entire world is operating under the principles of "Voodoo Economics".

There's more money on the table than the GNP of the entire world combined. Can't raise taxes high enough to cover everyone's bet.

Chas

[Charles]

OK guys, It's my turn to step in and say cool it!

We have learned a whole lot here from civil discourse.
We can disagree without making our disagreements personal.
Everyone here has something to contribute, even if it's just to make us think enough to better understand the strength of our own arguments.

Let's blame everything on a bad day and start over.

I've run out of platitudes, but I respect you guys enough to not want personal remarks get in the way of the great atmosphere we have here.

Regards

D-Ray

Cooler heads prevail.

Thank you, D-Man. I'll now move to a thread that you're not monitoring.

Chas

[Fast_Eddie]

Unbeliveable. Sure, let's move on. What the hell. This is a total waste of time. How many facts do I have to present to make a point? Jesus could come back to Earth and say "Reagan was wrong" and a hoard of folks would say "well, when he said 'wrong' he really meant..."

[Charles]

Unbeliveable. Sure, let's move on. What the hell. This is a total waste of time. How many facts do I have to present to make a point? Jesus could come back to Earth and say "Reagan was wrong" and a hoard of folks would say "well, when he said 'wrong' he really meant..."

I donno, come up with some facts, and a point, and I'll fill ya in!!!

Just kiddin, tryin' to play nice in the sandbox,

Chas

[Boreas]

"Voodoo Economics"? Look around, the entire world is operating under the principles of "Voodoo Economics".

As you may know, the phrase "Voodoo Economics" was coined during the 1980 election campaign by none other than George H W Bush. He was describing the economic policies favored by his primary opponent Ronald Reagan. Those policies, deregulating everything, cutting taxes on the wealthy "to stimulate growth" and then borrowing from foreign countries to cover the shortfall, are what got us into our current mess.

Indeed, other countries did model their economies along "Reaganomics" lines. To the extent they did they found themselves in the same sort of mess we do. Britain is an example. Margaret Thatcher was Reagan's disciple after all. Iceland really drank the kool aid and their economy has totally collapsed.

John

[wajobu]

...and neither do the cries of "Obama is Hitler and a Socialist". If these idiots knew their history, one is a Fascist and the other is a Socialist. So many of these protesters have not a clue about World history or history of their own government. Stop them on the street and ask them some questions about the branches of US govt., the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, anything. In general, they're clueless. They only know what is fed to them by Glenn Beck, etc. Lemmings, they are.

I get the Boston Tea Party. They had no representation in the government that ruled them. Their motto "No Taxation without Representation" seems a cry for fair governance by the people, for the people.

But what's with the Tea Party folks today? They *are* represented. They got to vote and representatives from their districts and their states went to Washington to represent their interests. I know, they voted for someone else. That's not lack of representation. That's just losing. Their motto? "No taxation." A cry *against* fair governance by the people. They want the will of the people subverted. "I know we didn't win, but do what we want anyhow!" Aren't they fighting for exactly the opposite goal of the original tea partiers?

What am I missing? Their metaphor doesn't work.

[Charles]

As you may know, the phrase "Voodoo Economics" was coined during the 1980 election campaign by none other than George H W Bush. He was describing the economic policies favored by his primary opponent Ronald Reagan. Those policies, deregulating everything, cutting taxes on the wealthy "to stimulate growth" and then borrowing from foreign countries to cover the shortfall, are what got us into our current mess.

Indeed, other countries did model their economies along "Reaganomics" lines. To the extent they did they found themselves in the same sort of mess we do. Britain is an example. Margaret Thatcher was Reagan's disciple after all. Iceland really drank the kool aid and their economy has totally collapsed.

John

GHWB kind of dropped the voodoo economics once he became XO. I'm not so sure that reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge cost him the election, personally, I feel the Democrats time had come. The Gulf War and Perot, mainly Perot, was what cost him the election.

I'm not sure that either "Reaganomics" or raising taxes are inherently wrong.
That said, blindly following the same discipline is almost destined to failure.

The situation remains fluid.

As to passing the blame to Reagan, Shrub, Carter, Obama, FDR, the Congress, Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the Republicans, the Democrats, the collective people, etc is only politics as usual.

Pretty much all of them have been handed a basket of parts containing a Rambler and a washing machine, and told to "Fix it!"

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the economy plugs along as well as it does.

And I will tip my hat to anyone who comes up with the ultimate answer. Not an impossible scenario, but a most unlikely one.

But I do know one thing. Blaming it on the other guy don't work.

Chas

[d-ray657]

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is not the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

Excellent response.

It will take me some time to digest this.

I suspect that we're pretty much on the same page. Perhaps we let labels and misconceptions stand in the way of a constructive criticism.

Something which I really can't pin on you.

Give me some time, I promise not to take your statements out of context and play "gotcha".

Good evening, my friend,

Chas

[d-ray657]

Excellent response.

It will take me some time to digest this.

I suspect that we're pretty much on the same page. Perhaps we let labels and misconceptions stand in the way of a constructive criticism.

Something which I really can't pin on you.

Give me some time, I promise not to take your statements out of context and play "gotcha".

Good evening, my friend,

Chas

Your are too kind, dear sir. I find it difficult to resist a good chance at a "gotcha." I also make pretty free use of labels, but then, some labels do accurately discribe the nuts inside. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

It is sad that some government efforts don't get the opportunity to run their course. On the other hand, reaganomics got a nearly thirty year run, in which it had plenty of time to show it's merits and warts. In the long run, it has created serious financial difficulties.

We have put someone into office who is a pragmatic executive. The administration wants to do some things that actually fit into the free market economy - provide some competiton for the insurance companies. Because there is so much concentration of capital in insurance companies, it would be difficult for others to enter the market as effectively as the feds. The insurance companies are afraid of competing with an entity that will not be skimming off enormous profits.

Despite the President's incremental approach to change - the change the voters said they wanted -the GOP has done everything in its power to prevent change. Even the alternative bill that they offered is simply a rehash of failed measures that had been introduced and passed in the house but failed in the senate. These were the measures the republicans offered before the voters threw plenty of the bums out.

Instead of giving the President any opportunity to implement the mandate he received from the voters, they misrepresent his programs as socialism, while they desparately try to hang on to reaganism. Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford to live on borrowed money any more. We can't afford to let the bankers and their cronies to regulate themselves. There has to be a recognition that maximizing profits is the only value that is important (Notice that I did not say making a profit). We have to try something other than reaganomics.

Regards,

D-Ray

(Weeping)
Beautiful, just beautiful. I'm gonna have to sleep on this. But I could have said any better.

Cordially,
Dave

[BlueStreak]

GHWB kind of dropped the voodoo economics once he became XO. I'm not so sure that reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge cost him the election, personally, I feel the Democrats time had come. The Gulf War and Perot, mainly Perot, was what cost him the election.

I'm not sure that either "Reaganomics" or raising taxes are inherently wrong.
That said, blindly following the same discipline is almost destined to failure.

The situation remains fluid.

As to passing the blame to Reagan, Shrub, Carter, Obama, FDR, the Congress, Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the Republicans, the Democrats, the collective people, etc is only politics as usual.

Pretty much all of them have been handed a basket of parts containing a Rambler and a washing machine, and told to "Fix it!"

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that the economy plugs along as well as it does.

And I will tip my hat to anyone who comes up with the ultimate answer. Not an impossible scenario, but a most unlikely one.

But I do know one thing. Blaming it on the other guy don't work.

Chas

Another beauty! I can go to sleep tonight hoping that a better day is coming......

Thanks, Chas!

Cordially,
Dave

[merrylander]

Was it Einstein who said "Repeating the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?

All the fruitcakes were here in DC pretending that their "Tea Party" was a press conference , except no questions were asked. They had Senator Jim Demented, the Midnight Cowboy, that crazed woman Bachmann, et. al.

Is it something in the water?