Tea Parties

[riddarhusetgal]

I watch TV and I see these tea party protesters and I think to myself that I pay more in taxes than many of these people earn in a year and they are the ones that are so pissed off.

Please explain to me why the wealthy in this country overwhelmingly voted for someone who they knew was going to raise their taxes and why the richest of the rich (like Warren Buffet mentioned earlier) also support him.

Your argument makes no fucking sense.

Exactly. The idiot, deluted plebes, have convinced themselves that $5 extra dollars in their pockets (tax cut) is better than:

a) healthcare that focuses on preventative care and long term health
b) education that keeps them competitive in a global labor market,
c) public transportation that doesn't keep them indebted to car companies for the rest of their lives
d) a stable social net for the elderly so they are not dying in the streets (like they were before Roosevelt, Johnson and several others made the right changes) and the like.

And you know what the funny thing is? They're too gullible (foolish) to ask themselves, "hang on a minute, if the super rich are voting for sensible tax policy changes, maybe they know what they are doing - after all they are richer than I am in the first place...I mean why would they vote against their own self interest [economically in the short term that is...] if it weren't to enhance the quality of life for every one concerned?"...


The Rich Support McCain, the Super-Rich Support Obama - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Anyway, there's no cure for brainwashing and foolish zealotry so don't try. The thing I'm curious about though is whether or not these protesters really are foolish enough to believe that the people who run the Heritage Foundation or the other organizations that fronted the money for these events, would dare:

1) live where they do
2) send their kids to the schools their kids have to go to


or the like. The best thing you can do is shut up and exercise the same judgment that put you where you are and leaves them where they are - results speak for themselves.

 

[guerilla]

Please explain to me why the wealthy in this country overwhelmingly voted for someone who they knew was going to raise their taxes and why the richest of the rich (like Warren Buffet mentioned earlier) also support him.

Because inflation is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and anyone who will perpetuate massive public debt, will create boom environments. Anyone who has leverage available stands to make massive profits in a boom. That is the wealthy.

Economic booms fueled by easy credit always transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy. History is a testament to this.

The tax is all smoke and mirrors. Most of them don't pay tax, pay little tax, or just keep their money offshore. Middle class citizens do not have this luxury.

But to understand it well, you have to understand that the wealthy have always been fans of big government. Alexander Hamilton understood this, which is why he wanted to create public debt (against the protestations of Thomas Jefferson), to facilitate a government bond market.

I'm glad you see the world as black / white and big government vs no government.

Well, in a sense, this is true. No government ever gets smaller unless there is a revolution or a collapse. Government as the only legal check on itself, will always rule in it's own favor, which is why governments generally tend to abuse their own laws, because they have a monopoly on the process of accountability.

You can only vote for the change they allow on the ballot. And you can only prosecute the cases they are willing to hear.

 

[HarveyJ]

You're altruistic with other peoples money.

Ayn Rand proved that altruism is incoherent. You cannot place the interest of others above your own. It is logically impossible.

Of course, if one is an illogical socialist, then it probably makes a lot of sense.

This position is incompatible with being a "good Christian", which a lot of these people insist they are.
Logic doesn't enter into this argument, don't try to pretend it does.

Plenty of people put other people interests above their own, all the time.
And I believe we've had the argument about Rand being a bitter, delusional woman that became a joke within her own community.

 

[conv3rsion]

Because inflation is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and anyone who will perpetuate massive public debt, will create boom environments. Anyone who has leverage available stands to make massive profits in a boom. That is the wealthy.

You know, I can't argue with you here. I've thought about this, and you're absolutely right.

 

[guerilla]

Exactly. The idiot, deluted plebes, have convinced themselves that $5 extra dollars in their pockets (tax cut) is better than:

a) healthcare that focuses on preventative care and long term health
b) education that keeps them competitive in a global labor market,
c) public transportation that doesn't keep them indebted to car companies for the rest of their lives
d) a stable social net for the elderly so they are not dying in the streets (like they were before Roosevelt, Johnson and several others made the right changes) and the like.

And you know what the funny thing is? They're too gullible (foolish) to ask themselves, "hang on a minute, if the super rich are voting for sensible tax policy changes, maybe they know what they are doing - after all they are richer than I am in the first place...I mean why would they vote against their own self interest [economically in the short term that is...] if it weren't to enhance the quality of life for every one concerned?"...

Yeah, those stupid little guys. Those stupid poor people, they don't know what is good for them. They should ape the behavior of their betters.

This is exactly the sort of aristocratic arrogance that makes the little guy resent people like you. People who think that their money, education and travel itinerary makes them better. When revolutions come, aristocrats see the guillotine because the little guy is tired of getting fucked in the ass.

The super rich voted for Obama because they realize he will keep the money train going for the financial elites, the war going for the military elites and the welfare train going for the political elites, all while pacifying the plebes with promises of change, and free stuff.

They voted for Obama because he would do what Bush was doing, but put a more friendly and well spoken face on it.

And they voted for Obama, because a lot of them have white guilt, and really believe that their money is a burden, and their success is exploitative, and that blacks are cool and metropolitan if they go to an Ivy League school.

Seriously, I try to ignore your posts, but this one where you shit on the little guy for protesting his taxes, instead of paying taxes like the super rich makes me sick.

I may be a capitalist, but I know a system of enslavement when I see one. I know why real wages are falling, and it's not because taxes were cut by Republicans. Liberty does not make people poor. It makes them prosperous. Socialism and statism makes people poor. It's killed 10s of millions of people in the 20th century alone.

Marx had one thing right. The elites always want to control capital, either by using force, or law. His mistake was that property should be made ownerless, instead of maintaining that the property of the poor should be defended as a principle.

The system does not protect property for the poor. It is just an extended enforcement arm for the ultra-rich and they pretend to pay handsomely for it.

 

[guerilla]

This position is incompatible with being a "good Christian", which a lot of these people insist they are.
Logic doesn't enter into this argument, don't try to pretend it does.

Altruism outside of Christianity is also illogical.

Plenty of people put other people interests above their own, all the time.

No they do not.

And I believe we've had the argument about Rand being a bitter, delusional woman that became a joke within her own community.

Rand was wrong on a few things, but not on individualism and human action.

Whether she was a joke or not, is exactly the sort of superficial nonsense progressives rely on when they can't make an argument. It's an Ad Hominem.

If you can refute Rand on altruism, do it. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[_poto_]

Altruism outside of Christianity is also illogical.

going to have to disagree with you... I'm a Buddhist and altruism (selflessness) is a fundamental part of Buddhist philosophy... most other major religions contain altruist aspects too...

looks like a certain amount of altruism is hard wired into us...

from wikipedia:

A new study by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, US, is seen by some as breathing new life into the model of group selection for Altruism, known as "Survival of the nicest". Bowles conducted a genetic analysis of contemporary foraging groups, including Australian aboriginals, native Siberian Inuit populations and indigenous tribal groups in Africa. It was found that hunter-gatherer bands of up to 30 individuals were considerably more closely related than was previously thought. Under these conditions, thought to be similar to those of the middle and upper Paleolithic, altruism towards other group-members would improve the overall fitness of the group.

If an individual defended the group but was killed, any genes that the individual shared with the overall group would still be passed on. Early customs such as food sharing or monogamy could have levelled out the “cost” of altruistic behaviour, in the same way that income taxes redistribute income in society. He assembled genetic, climactic, archaeological, ethnographic and experimental data to examine the cost-benefit relationship of human cooperation in ancient populations. In his model, members of a group bearing genes for altruistic behaviour pay a "tax" by limiting their reproductive opportunities to benefit from sharing food and information, thereby increasing the average fitness of the group as well as their inter-relatedness. Bands of altruistic humans would then act together to gain resources from other groups at this challenging time in history.

thought this bit was interesting too:

Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October, 2006,[5] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed their interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

so if I understand it, we're hard wired to share and have evolved in cooperative groups that may have benefited from distributing resources, but that doesn't mean that the system of taxation and welfare that we have in today's society is beneficial or even sustainable... just that people are predisposed to sharing wealth and helping each other, which in itself isn't illogical...

I do think the world would be a very sad place without any altruism... but I also don't believe in forcing anyone to give... imho, altruistic giving should be voluntary, not forced by the government, socialized or controlled...

 

[guerilla]

Poto, I am all for charity. Altruism is not charity.

The hardest thing to explain to people, is that in a free market, we need trading partners, because trade increases prosperity. You want your partner to be happy, productive, healthy. So it is in your best interest to be charitable to the people who provide value to you. To help them, to be friendly with them, to understand and tolerate them.

To help poor people become productive, so you can trade with them, and for them to increase their productivity, so they can trade with others.

True capitalism is about weaving a thick and sophisticated social web based on peace and justice. The difference is, it's done voluntarily, not because some cop will bash your head in with a stick if you don't pay taxes.

And I can dig buddhism, but I'm not a mystic, just a fierce rationalist. I don't want to get into refutations of anyone's religion because while I may not agree, I'd rather be tolerant of people who mean me no harm.

 

[_poto_]

Poto, I am all for charity. Altruism is not charity.

reading the definition for altruism:
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

am I missing something? that sure sounds like charity to me...

maybe you're talking about forced altruism (Ayn Rand type of compulsory altruism), but that is not by definition true altruism... it is merely people using the guise of altruism to mask their socialistic thievery...

The hardest thing to explain to people, is that in a free market, we need trading partners, because trade increases prosperity. You want your partner to be happy, productive, healthy. So it is in your best interest to be charitable to the people who provide value to you. To help them, to be friendly with them, to understand and tolerate them.

To help poor people become productive, so you can trade with them, and for them to increase their productivity, so they can trade with others.

True capitalism is about weaving a thick and sophisticated social web based on peace and justice. The difference is, it's done voluntarily, not because some cop will bash your head in with a stick if you don't pay taxes.

And I can dig buddhism, but I'm not a mystic, just a fierce rationalist. I don't want to get into refutations of anyone's religion because while I may not agree, I'd rather be tolerant of people who mean me no harm.

I totally agree with you on those points... and thanks for being tolerant of me... I know I can be a pain-in-the-ass sometimes

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Seriously, I try to ignore your posts, but this one where you shit on the little guy for protesting his taxes, instead of paying taxes like the super rich makes me sick.

zealotry - fanaticism: excessive intolerance of opposing views
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn



---

When you are ready to have a sensible conversation not colored by unbridled zealotry, sophism and bounded irrationality, let me know.

By the way, since this discussion began, you mentioned two pieces of literature I had not been familiar with:


I googled them both. I also wishlist-ed

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400063256/ref=s9_sims_c2_s1_p14_t2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=08RZVQSPC8SVG0PM8FZC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846"]Amazon.com: American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House: Jon Meacham: Books[/ame]
American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House (Hardcover)



[ame="http://www.amazon.com/THEORY-MONEY-CREDIT-Works-Ludwig/dp/0913966703/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3CCH8NKQ1I6DU&colid=2XIIX7EWM9LSG"]Amazon.com: THEORY OF MONEY AND CREDIT, THE (Lib Works Ludwig Von Mises CL): LUDWIG VON MISES: Books[/ame]
THEORY OF MONEY AND CREDIT, THE (Lib Works Ludwig Von Mises CL)




even though it couldn't be further from my own personal philosophy of sound, moderated keynesian economics or my political views. What you really can't seem to understand is that your close-minded, unwillingness to look at life from a different perspective lays waste to all you profess to hold dear.


THIS my fellow American is the difference between you and I...



So you continue to hold your "one-size-fits-all" view of "objective" reality, hurling lowly sexist comments and the like. I'll continue living life based on a sincere and honest appreciation for a diversity of truths; we can then see who turns out to be the better capitalist, citizen and human being, ok?

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[guerilla]

reading the definition for altruism:
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

am I missing something? that sure sounds like charity to me...

Charity is not selflessness. It is selfishness. You help someone because it is in your interest to do so. You have a reason to want to help them.

I didn't want to touch selflessness after you mentioned Buddhism, so please take this as separate from anything religious.

I know many schools of thought see self direction as destructive or bad, but without being self directed, then any good we do, or any love we share would be without value.

Sharing doesn't mean you abandon your own welfare. It means that sharing increases your welfare, by assisting someone else. That it is good, not just in a spiritual, but in a material sense to help others. We instinctively choose to share because from a socio-biology standpoint, the people who shared, had the most prosperity, and thus they were more capable of survival.

maybe you're talking about forced altruism (Ayn Rand type of compulsory altruism), but that is not by definition true altruism... it is merely people using the guise of altruism to mask their socialistic thievery...

Rand argues that when you help someone, you do it consciously.

If you were selfless, you could not direct yourself to act specifically. You would feed kids in Africa over your own kids. You would help a poor person and not pay your own rent. It's not possible to remove self, without removing the ability to act.

Rand comes off as a real bitch, but if people can grasp what she is saying at it's root, it makes perfect sense.

This is a fantastic interview. The best part is around 4:00 of the first video, and through to the first couple minutes of the second video.

I totally agree with you on those points... and thanks for being tolerant of me... I know I can be a pain-in-the-ass sometimes

Nah, you're cool. But it's in my selfish interest to be tolerant of you. We might be able to trade something later.

 

[guerilla]

@Riddar, I'll PM you.

 

[HarveyJ]

guerilla: I could quote empirical double blind studies about altruism, conducted by people such as J Trivers or WD Hamilton or a dozen others over the last 60 years, but you've decided to follow the outdated philosophy of an (admittedly well written) fiction writer who had a grudge against Commies for fucking up her childhood nostalgia.
I can throw as much empirical evidence as I like at you, and you won't budge from your position because you think you're right. We've been down this path before.
Unlike Ridderhustgal, I don't have the patience to deal with someone that clings to belief in fiction. Here's a King James Bible for you.

Oh, and your hero Rand, she says that charity isn't the sole domain of Christianity (and implicitly, religion)... So take your logical (lack of) objectivism, and shove it.
Running a society like that logically ends up in people getting shivved.

 

[ricdes]

Right!...typical liberal response. Most liberal demonstrations are fake as hell. The participants are shipped in and are usually college students, throw backs from the 60's or ignorant fools that don't have responsibilities or jobs.

America is fucked. Not bc of the black, not bc of mexicans and not bc of some homeless or welfare people. It's bc you guys just are too dumb and media biased to give the smaller parties some power. What the hell of a democracy is this? Having only 2 parties is like chosing from one dictator to another. Look at germany, france, all other european countries... they have the green party, liberal, socialists, right wing christians and sweden even has a "pirate party" that stands up for the right of people downloading copyrighted stuff.. american people need to fucking stop pushing for a party and just consider their own opinions.

all I see when i put on american news shows is either: "Democrats are going to... it's insane! That'll make everything worse" or the exact same sentence targetted to Republicans.

Plus, spending and borrowing your way out of a crisis caused by too cheap money is not really smart either. Obama is no Jesus.

 

[guerilla]

guerilla: I could quote empirical double blind studies about altruism, conducted by people such as J Trivers or WD Hamilton or a dozen others over the last 60 years

Do it.

but you've decided to follow the outdated philosophy of an (admittedly well written) fiction writer who had a grudge against Commies for fucking up her childhood nostalgia.

Ad Hominem. If you can refute Rand, do it.

I can throw as much empirical evidence as I like at you, and you won't budge from your position because you think you're right. We've been down this path before.

You have never provided evidence. You rely on conjecture and assertion.

I don't think I am right. I know I am right. You have yet to prove I am not. Hell, you have yet to question even one of the premises I have advanced.

Oh, and your hero Rand, she says that charity isn't the sole domain of Christianity (and implicitly, religion)... So take your logical (lack of) objectivism, and shove it.

This makes no sense. And it's more Ad Hominem.

Do progressives actually have anything to say besides character assassination?

FYI, Rand is not my hero. Mises is. And I'm not an Objectivist. Their rational thinking isn't taken to its logical conclusion. They quit before the race is done.

For crissakes Harvey, you can't even insult me effectively.

Running a society like that logically ends up in people getting shivved.

Assertion. Conjecture.

Prove the logical steps of peaceful voluntary relationships leading to the massive suffering and starvation similar to that of the Warsaw Pact, Chinese, Cuban and Soviet models. You can't I reckon, because they are two different models, and the modern social democracy is trending towards communism more so than capitalism.

But try it. Back up your statements. Make a logical proof.

Or keep name calling. But get better at it. I'm not supposed to be laughing at your insults.

 

[Fatbat]

The tea parties are absolutely pathetic. Half the people don't even know what they're arguing for, other than "urrrrrrggggggg TERRIST OBAMA" and "MAH TAX MONIES!!!"

What hannah said. These people can't even coherently express themselves and their views. If there was ever a poster child for the ignorant American stereotype, this is it...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJk52ylI3wU"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1yI_QWL-oc"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[ricdes]

What hannah said. These people can't even coherently express themselves and their views. If there was ever a poster child for the ignorant American stereotype, this is it...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

ok, this vid makes me go crazy. so a bitch complains about how there's too much government involvement.. but they also complain about too many capitalism and rewarding failure? WTF.

 

[LogicFlux]

What hannah said. These people can't even coherently express themselves and their views. If there was ever a poster child for the ignorant American stereotype, this is it...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I don't have a big problem believing that a lot, maybe even most people in those crowds weren't particularly well educated or smart about why they were there in the first place, but I'm sure there probably were a few people who were able to give coherent opinions/views on the subject and never made it into the video.
The guy from blogger interrupted has a clear political agenda, and those people all too often are not honest and would rather play gotcha games than talk about the issues seriously.
I personally am for the government spending(although I'm not sure it's all being allocated wisely) but there is a logical, coherent argument against what the administration is doing, even if some are not able to express it.

 

[guerilla]

This is a decent Tea Party.

Campaign For Liberty — Ron Paul @ Clear Lake Tea Party

Ron Paul, rockstar grandpa.

 

[Rusky]

How government spending will help is a mystery to me. Prime example wells fargo and just today I read about citi group reporting the smallest loss since 2007. Things will get better if you let them. Government running a business is joke. Look at what they did to social security and the school system - you think they can handle anything else better.

The reason were in this mess is because of reckless spending in the first place. How is more spending the solution. Thats like waking up from a hard night of parting and drinking another case of beer to remedy your handover. Nonsense.
Its about time the people are doing something about it. Its not about right or left. Its about common sense.