Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'
 

The Associated Press: Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'

So let me get this straight--
The Tea Party, the jokers who are constantly rambling on about "personal responsibility" and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps;" who oppose national healthcare because "I got mine; if you don't, tough titties;" who oppose the regulation of Wall Street because they see it as a threat to the free market, even though the reckless practices of Wall Street led us down the path to a recession; who see nothing wrong with racial profiling and violating civil rights to keep those "brown people" in check--THESE SAME MOTHERFUCKERS are perfectly okay with giving a multi-billion industry a get out of jail free card and chalking up a global ecological disaster as "oops, accidents happen"?!

Two things should be completely obvious to even the most obtuse observer. First, the Tea Party platform is nothing but blatant hypocrisy. Second, the Tea Party is a populist tool of big business, who care nothing about your rights as an individual and everything about big business' pursuit of the almighty fucking dollar. So go right ahead, Baggers, and march lock step in time with the corporate drummer boy; eventually, all lemmings end up falling off the cliff.

You know, I think I'm going to start referring to leftists with whom I disagree as "goatfuckers."

You might have something resembling a point here -if-, and -only- if, Dr. Paul (or anyone else) was suggesting that BP be allowed to -not- pay for the cleanup and associated costs, which they have repeatedly said they would do. Until and unless they refuse to do so, or have the laws changed to -actually- let them off the hook, your point is moot. It's not a "get out of jail free" card if it doesn't get you out of jail, costs something, or both.

*facepalm*

God, Rand Paul is such a fucking joke.

The true free market approach in this circumstance is something I totally support: absolutely no caps whatsoever on what BP and other companies must pay to clean up their mess. This is one example where a true free market could potentially due its job: actually paying for damages would have a serious impact on the bottom line of BP and related companies. It'd go a long way toward ensuring other companies don't make these same "mistakes," because it would be understood that such a disaster would likely mean the end of the company. That is how the libertarian free market is supposed to work: you take risks, and you accept the costs if things don't go as planned. I have a very good friend who is a free marketer to the extreme - thinks everything, including air and water, should be privatized. BP should be very happy that his vision isn't reality, because it would be even easier to demand damages from them if that were the case. Even so, just because the environment is part of the public trust doesn't mean the government - acting on behalf of the public - should not be able to demand reimbursement for all damages. That's not even counting all the people who have lost their livelihood from the mistakes these companies have made.

Dunedan: The companies are saying they will pay for the cleanup while conveniently working to ensure those costs are not representative of reality. They know full well that there is a phony legislative cap on the costs they can be required to pay, and they're already working very hard to limit the damages they have to pay out to the many, many individual lawsuits that are being brought against them from families of the dead and people who have had their livelihood (such as fishing) destroyed by this disaster.

You do that, Bagger Vance; but it was your own clan that initially adopted the "Teabagger" moniker.

And you don't find anything at all unusual that the Prince of Populist Town is rushing to the defense of poor helpless BP to protect them from that mean old president?

Here's what I know, to be a FACT: if Obama did not weigh in on this issue and adopted a laissez faire stance, Baggers would be whining "where's the outrage that Bush was subjected to after Katrina?"

As I said, hypocrites.

And one more thing--I will bitch slap any fucking Bagger I meet up with in real life who feels justified in applying the "unAmerican" tag to anyone who doesn't agree with their fucking point of view.

Wait, it's un-American to point out that a company was ignoring it OWN safety protocols?

I deal in liability all day every day for a living. I'm pretty fucking good at understanding it. There's a huge difference between an "accident", like when a car strikes an animal or downed tree, or an "avoidable mishap", like when a trucker is speeding and plows into the back of stopped traffic.

I wrote an account a long, long time ago that had manufactured dry cleaning equipment for decades (like 70 years). They constantly paid claims because the old machinery didn't have basic safety guards. We tried and tried to get them to do something to address the owners of the old equipment, but they just didn't see it as a problem. That's probably why their premium increased 500% in 2 years.

BP, Transoceanic, Haliburton and the still-unnamed manufacturer of the blowout preventer are all on the hook for this. Actually, their insurance companies are. And you better expect that those folks are going to pay. This was no accident. They were speeding at night in the rain with a big load behind them. It wasn't pre-ordained that this would happen, but they didn't take the basic steps to make sure that it didn't. Therefore, they're fucked.

The declaration of un-Americanism is a symptom of a kind of Godwin's law in politics.

I'm shocked that some members of a political movement made a poor rhetorical decision. That never happens.

Your choice to continue using that term doesn't magically become respectful or okay. And it pretty much kills the credibility of your OP.

Actually no, goatfucker. The term was coined by Anderson Cooper of CNN after TEA Party members got into the brief habit of mailing tea bags (as in Boston Tea Party) to representatives as a pun voicing their frustrations with Mr. Bush's bailout. Mr. Cooper, at least, had the decency to retract his sexually offensive pun the next day on AC360.

I'll remember that the next time some goatfucker labels TEA Party members as Seditious or un-American. Physician, heal thyself.

This is my view as well, as well as being that of most right-libertarians I'm aware of....oddly enough, the Drs Paul included. They want BP to suffer (as suffer they should) but at the hands of the market and the courts, not the State.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Keep it above the belt, fellows. That means that using the terms "teabagger", "goatfucker" or any diminutions of either will earn you a private chat with yours truely. And we all know how that is going to go. I'm withdrawing from this thread but will continue to monitor it closely. Please post with that in mind.

Rand Paul also thinks that liberals, Canadians, and Mexicans are conspiring to create a unified North American currency called the Amero, and that they are also trying to create something called the NAFTA Superhighway. Like his old man and his namesake, he's a total loon, I don't particularly feel the need to take anything he says seriously.

According to the conservative National Review, it was the tea baggers themselves who coined the term:

Then, Anderson Cooper and others ran with it.

But whats in a name.

Rand Paul is now the new voice of the movement. Is that a step up from Sarah Palin?

Probably not....but the fact remains, extemists like these two will turn off the independent voters before you can say tea baggers are nuts.

They may have coined the prototype of the term, but not for themselves and not used in its' current parlance. From your source:

Right.

It was ok for them to use the term to attack the White House, but then the tea baggers get all pissy when its thrown back at them.

And I guess its ok for the tea baggers to wave pictures with Obama/Hitler comparisons.

My only point is that the extremists within the movement, including de facto leaders like Paul and Palin, are what defines the movement....right or wrong. The movement has legitimate concerns, they just dont have a legitimate voice.

Oh, and Newt Gingrich with his latest Obama/Nazi rants

Update....Rand Paul just backed out of his Sunday interview on Meet the Press. Will we see future TV appearances limited to FOX News now?

Back to Rand Paul. Anyone notice that he wants to repeal many parts of the civil rights act? IE he doesn't think the civil rights act should apply to private entities....

The problem here is this. The TEA Party (everyone keeps telling me) is mostly made up of old white people who are completely out of touch with popular culture and norms. People like that aren't exactly going to be "hip" to the meaning of the term, especially since they were very obviously applying it to the act of mailing a tea-bag to a legislator. The folks who've since applied the term -to- them, such as Mr. Cooper, are -very- much aware of the word's meaning and have used it as such. One was a malapropism, the other is an insult, and a fairly obscene one at that.

Of course it is, just like it was ok for anti-Bush folks to wave the same signs with Bush's face.

You are being disingenuous here. The sign said "Teabag the white house before they teabag you." So the person who wrote that sign was under the impression that the white house was going to mail bags of tea to people, and that offended him enough to make a sign? The person who made that sign clearly knew the definition, which is why they chose that verbiage. They were trying to be cleaver and offensive.

I think what you are forgetting here is just how insanely funny it is to have an opponent who kept shouting that they were teabaggers. It was hilarious. I miss that.

The funniest comment I've seen on the topic is that the these conservatives should come up with a new, anti-Democratic Party name: Donkey Punchers!

Ah, 2009. Those were good times.

I digress, in respect to the moderators of this board.

the New American Tea Bag Party: Tax Protest for Busy People

I’m sure this guy really enjoyed being compared to “testicles dangled in ones mouth” when he was rightfully protesting taxes.

It was the TEA BAG PARTY Movement. The term “tea bagger” was offensive to begin with and was initially used as a double entendre by some of the immature conservatives as a crude attack on the white house which backfired. It was never the intent for the TEA BAG PARTY Movement participants to be called “tea baggers”, bunch of immature name callers thinking they were smart up in front of the white house being crude, bought their own party the label. But some liberals had no problem affixing the term to those who were merely making a statement about taxation policy based in the historical concepts of the “Boston Tea Party” it’s a real shame when even history is dirtied to appease one parties interest of degrading another.

A few self serving immature protesters carried signs that said tea bag the white house, as to say protest the white house, send tea bags as a sign of your protest and/or I guess we will dangle our balls over the mouth of the government until they take notice of spending. They weren’t calling the persons inside the white house nut sacks, which was apparently being saved for the conservative to do, what a nice way to view fellow Americans merely because of their political allegiance, it really only makes individuals, regardless of their party, look just as classless as any other “far” winged persons who perpetuate derogatory labeling of Americans, or any persons, based on their party line involvement.

Moderate conservatives don’t have a respected voice anymore because everything “hard core righties” have to say is pounced upon, taken and twisted into an opportunity to degrade them personally, they all do it to each other. Liberals blame conservatives blame liberals, call names, intimidate, degrade……. like a bunch of elementary kids on a playground whose parents, being the American public, then defend their “kids” by saying well such and such started it, so it’s o.k.

It’s not o.k., for as much as conservatives try to be responsible, and American in their own right, in their own way, many liberals will happily take every opportunity to destroy the party based on the immature remarks of a few, it’s not like the liberal party is without fault. It has almost become un-American to be conservative in our nation, at least that is the way liberals make you feel if you appear to have even remotely traditional values, you are antiquated and homophobic, the problem is, that just isn’t true.

Great Post Idyllic

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Final warning. If any of my friends on the left want to continue to use the term "tea bagger" or any diminutions, they'll be dealing with me via official channels. My friends on the right have somehow managed to have a modicum of decorum. I expect my leftist friends to do the same. If that is not 100% perfectly crystal clear, please PM me for more clarification. And for the record, I'm in a good mood, otherwise I'd have hit 2 of you already since you must think that you're somehow special and above the rules. You're not.

Aren't the courts and the state the same entity? Who would enforce court decrees punishing BP? How would the market make BP suffer?

There are some things about libertarianism that don't add up to me.

With the current status of futures trading, it would never be punished. Other oil companies would buy BP Oil and repackage it as their own. BP would lose maybe $.00001/gal, but it's far from punishing.

Arbitration of civil disputes is one of the very few functions most libertarians, left or right, assign as legitimate duties of the State itself. However, there is no certain need even for this. Anarcho-libertarian theorists have argued for the feasibility of private arbitration, the outcomes enforced by social pressure and shunning for those found liable for damages.

The crucial difference is that beyond certain easily-controlled and enumerated court costs, the Government has no financial stake in a dispute, and has a markedly lessened ability to utilise the coercive power of the State in order to further the ideology in power at the time. With the State itself, with all its' corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, sluggish larcenous tendancies in charge of the fines, the amounts demanded, and most importantly the -recipient- of the fines, the power and temptation for abuse are tremendous.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the courts are the place where disputes between BP and, say, fisherman should take place. I still don't see why the Obama administration can't make its opinion known on the matter. Furthermore, since the environment is part of the public trust, the government is the damaged entity in that matter. To top it off, if the government sees that current laws don't adequately deal with the situation, I see nothing wrong with them working to fix that.

So we'd be left to just hope that BP changes it's ways because otherwise people will be mean to them? What happens when large organizations that control resources vital to the operation of the economy figure out that they are impervious to social pressure and shunning?

Judges are just people who think silly outfits are a crucial part of sharing their opinions. Their opinions don't mean shit if no one is going to make sure their opinions are followed. This is where the coercive power of the state comes in. Even if the state just concerns itself with upholding court rulings, courts are filled with judges who are either elected by the people or appointed by the politicians. Wouldn't these judges, in a sense, be dictated by the ideologies in power? Isn't coercive state power, the kind that is at least partly defined by the ideology du jour, unavoidable?

1. The Republicans didn't want to regulate the mortgage guys or the derivatives. And most of the mid-2000s home flippers would probably be in the GOP.
2. Are they talking about taking away SS from the wealthy? Raising the retirement age to 70? Reducing the military? Or just social programs that they don't agree with?
3. How much have taxes gone up? And not the health insurance taxes vs insurance premium issue...
4. It's not right, but there wasn't very much support for raising taxes to pay for programs in the 80s or the last 10 years when the deficit actually was going up.
5. Without the banks, we would have had big problems. It would take years to recover from a major bank collapse. The same people in the financial industry would still be in it in the future.
6. So, now that the average middle age person has been able to write off their mortgage interest, they don't want to let others have that benefit? I think the charity thing should be limited to charities that they are not a part of.
7. Even if they could read them, do you think that they would change their mind?
8. We only breathe a small amount of CO2 compared to the amount industry releases... And the real cost of carbon based energy isn't being paid right now. Maybe if we had to pay to clean up oil spills, military operations to secure oil and stop the switch to the euro, and just cleaning up the air.
9. The amount of wealth being transfered is pretty much the opposite of what they are claiming.
10. I think the stock market has recovered. People who rode out the dip are doing ok. The 'government' shouldn't interfere in one breathe, yet they want them to protect their investments.

And criticizing companies and banks that do stupid things is perfectly fine. It's un-American if we were prevented from criticizing.

Being the lackey of Big Oil probably isnt a very popular calling right now. I'd keep my head down if I was Rand Raul.

I dont really understand how "the tea party" is a rallying call of any American political movement. Is there really a part of the American government who wants to celebrate and glorify tax evasion??

Completely false. Fannie May/Freddie Mac were Democrat initiatives. Bill Clinton helped forge the idea that everyone should own a home, even those who can't necessarily afford it.

They claim they haven't been properly represented in Washington for a decade or so, that the people they put in power ignored what they wanted and did something completely different. So in essence it's not tax evasion, it's taxation without representation.

But the "Boston Tea Party" was in fact - as well as an act of criminal theft and vandalism - a tax protest and an act of tax evasion. I think its interesting that mainstream Republicans would use this action as a symbol for their movement. I wonder if theyll be so keen on freeing people from the burden of taxation when they get back in power!

Which explains why you are a Subject and we are Citizens.

Yes, a large part. And considering what those taxes they wish to evade frequently end up paying for, I'd think you would too. Less money in taxes means less money to bomb brown people, after all.

The Republicans associating themselves with the TEA Party are hardly "Mainstream" within the republican party. The Drs. Paul, for instance, are staunchly anti-war, anti-Gitmo, and anti-bailout: all three of which began as "mainstream" Republican programmes and all three of which they've opposed from the start.


Nobody is impervious to shunning; in commercial terms it's called a boycott. Ask Fuji, Smith & Wesson, Exxon, and the Montgomery Transport Authority how those work. There are no more monopolies anymore (aside from the State monopoly on Force), so no one company is -that- important to any one market, and with todays rapid flow of information none ever will be again, not until Shipstones are invented and probably not even then.

You miss the point. Civil disputes are best handled by the Courts because in such a case the Government has no stake, they stand to gain nothing. When the Gov't itself is the recipient of the penalty (fine, as opposed to judgment), there is a distinct incentive for accusation to become guilt, for hearsay to become evidence, and for justice to become "just us." My primary concern is removing the incentive for the State to enrich and aggrandize itself in the name of "justice."

oh well, if he is "anti-bailout" (ie - he advocated allowing the world banking system to fail) then he has to be pretty much on the margins of the political world.

I know there are some people who have the view "we are angry with the banks and we want to punish them for forcing us to bail them out", but not many people in the mainstream or even close to it would advocate not saving the banks.

I think the main problem was that a small group of people bought 5 or 6 homes they had no intention of ever living in. They just wanted to ride the wave up, but were able to walk away if things went south. It was these people who were qualified financially to buy these homes with zero down, yet they were never planning on making the payments. That is why Miami, Phoenix, & Vegas were hit hard.

Fannie & Freddie I am guessing were ways to prevent banks from charging 14% interest because there was no incentive for private banks to really 'compete' against each other.

Exactly. They thought they were real estate moguls, bought houses they never intended to make payments on because they were going to turn them over quickly, but caused real estate prices to shoot through the roof so they couldn't unload them, and then defaulted on the loans when the interest rates went up.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the main culprits for this mess, the second they were bailed out this mess would have gone away.

In fact, it has been more than established by now that whatever role those companies, the CRA, or low income home buyers played in the crisis, it was very far from being the main or one of the main causes for this mess.

There is a reason why the heaviest hit areas in terms of foreclosures are Vegas, South Florida, and southern California, and not Queens, Oakland and so on.

That's pretty much exactly how the majority of liberals felt during the eight years of the Bush Jr. Admin. Anything you said that didn't line up with Bush Admin. made you a terrorist loving, America hating liberal bastard. Funny thing is a lot of those liberal bastards were complaining about, among other things, the cost of the war(s) and the fact Bush simply removed their costs from the budget. Bush never vetoed one budget item that I know. His Admin. spent money like drunken sailor in a whore house. Now the tea party is all about limiting government spending... where were these good conservatives for the Bush years?

So how would one go about boycotting BP? When you're filling your car, how can you tell whether the gas you're pumping was drilled by BP? I know BP has a chain of gas stations, but I'm also pretty sure that they sell gas to independent gas stations too. How do you tell which of the plastic products you use were created using BP oil? What would stop BP from simply selling their oil to folks in less boycott-prone markets? I don't think an actual boycott of BP would ever work.

In a more general situation, what happens when companies commit unethical activities which aren't of sufficient scale to inspire enough public ire to bring about a boycott?

Both the state and the market tend toward inefficiency and graft. What I don't understand is why a person would ideologically commit to one over the other. I think that it makes more sense to evaluate the usefulness of each with respect to a given situation.

A sidenote on civil disputes: In Minneapolis, there is a rich tradition among some landlords to keep the damage deposits of outgoing tenants regardless of the condition of the apartment. They do this because it forces the tenant to sue to get the deposit back, a task which deters many of the economically distressed folks who these landlords typically rent to. The tenants who do sue frequently win, and often get punitive damages awarded on top of the original deposit amount. It doesn't matter though, because the city has no mechanism in place to make the landlords actually pay. Oddly enough, the landlords don't seem too inclined to police themselves either. So they don't pay their former tenants a dime, even when court ordered to do so. This is an example of the potential worthlessness of courts to bring about change in the behavior of misbehaving businesspeople.

as an aside, the minneapolis tradition amongst landlords of treating security deposits as tips is like bp's cavalier attitude toward environmental regulation in general. they preferred to blow off as much routine proactive work as possible and address problems when they emerged by paying the fines. that's how bp amassed the appalling record that it has. finally, the epa is considering barring bp from govt contracts, which could include leases on the drilling platforms bp already has going in the gulf of mexico, where they're the largest driller. i posted information about this to the other gulf thread.

in the material world it is obvious that capitalist firms require regulation at the very least as a feedback loop with reference to which they can gauge something of their actions relative to "raw materials" (in quotes because if you're extracting oil it's obvious that you are putting an entire environment at risk which involves a wide range of stakeholders who are not represented, who have no say, over the disposition of that resource thanks to the stupidity which follows from private property)....and because bidness interests are simply too narrow a basis for managing interactions with contexts/environments. bidness interests are not responsible enough to be left to their own devices.

i think regulatory frames are required so long as capitalist rationality shapes how firms operate. the only way in which anything like a libertarian viewpoint makes sense to me is in a post-revolutionary context, which one could speculate about but which isn't really tied to a political movement at this point.

as for the op...i am pleased that the teapartiers are talking more than they're being talked about these days. they are their own worst enemy. i quite like that it's obvious to more people that even if there are some who are sympathetic with the tea bags who are articulate and relatively sane, there are also ALOT of people within that poujadiste hodgepodge who are nuts. rand paul is nuts. if he wasn't, he would be aware of how his rhetoric looks taken out of context. at the level of content, he's a joke in my view, but as a public figure incapable of figuring out how his language can work against him, he's nutty.

I'm trying to figure out how the Ron Paul movement got taken over by the Rush, Hannity, Beck & Palin groups. Auditing the Fed, individual rights (that don't hurt others), more peaceful foreign policy, and balancing the budget while fixing problems are things that would have been positive to try and work on. But they seem to have turned into a group that doesn't want the Democrats to do anything.

Ron Paul made some sense and I think the country would have been good if he was President. I wouldn't even want to think what the result of a large number of Tea Party members winning would be though.

Ron Paul would be a terrible president (especially if you support him, because none of his initiatives would ever make it out of congress)

Exactly, he'd be a lame duck President on inauguration day forward. Getting rid of the Fed, eliminating Federal Education $, etc. are horrible ideas and would garner no support regardless of party affiliation.

I have a severe problem with Anarchists pretending to be Libertarians.

Libertarians are NOT against regulations to create a fair marketplace and to limit one's impediment on another. One of the first cases by the Supreme Court (appointed by Washington himself), was the rule on water usage. One is allowed to damn a river on his property (for milling and textile use) ONLY when it does not prevent the free flow of water to the people who own property down river. It set in the earliest (purest) precedents the right of the local, state, and federal governments to regulate industry to prevent damage to another individual's property, industry, etc.

A relatively inactive president sounds pretty damned good right about now.

why?

It's too bad that the the Conservatives don't have their own cable news network to voice their opinions, or own all the talk radio in the country, or run hundreds of think tanks and thousands of blogs for the Conservatives to express their voices. Oh wait, they do.

For the second part, welcome to being the minority party. Maybe you remember how the left's character was assassinated for 8 years. The attacks from the left are nothing compared to what the right gave out during the Bush years. It's a classic case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it.

They were "unaware" of the scope of the spending and deficit during the Bush years. If they had "known" they would have been "protesting" just as much as they are now.

/At least I think that is the line I've heard a few times. :)

Well, you know, governance is a lot like the market: if you let it do its thing, it will correct itself. Because, you know, they'd be rational and efficient if only you'd let things be as they may.

Ah, yes, bitch when nothing is being done, then bitch when it is.

You don't have it right. The Tea Party is about fiscal conservatism. You are mixing many different splintered points of view held by different groups. But, like most people I feel strongly about some things i.e., I support Tea Party principles, NRA principles, some libertarian principles, Constitutionalists principles, etc., but some come to the Tea Party with a different mix, some of which I don't support - but what we all have in common is the understanding that governmental spending and taxation is out of control. Certainly you have some who want to use the power of the Tea Party to promote their agenda on issues outside of the core of the Tea Party, but that is a given in any new populist movement. This is not complicated, why you, others and the media make the Tea Party things it is not is beyond my understanding.

it's because the "core principals" of the movement have long been pushed aside by the various talking heads who have consumed the party

What could one (or a few) people do about that, truly? I agree with Ace's summation of the movement and his assessment of the actions of those who dislike the movement. I also completely agree with Derwood.

I ABHOR the fact that Sarah Palin has become some sort of figurehead for the Tea Party Movement. There is NO WAY (sorry ,for the caps) that Sarah Palin could be the vice presidential nominee for John McCain and could endorse his 753rd run for Senator AND ALSO embody the principles of the Tea Party Movement. Yet, every TEA event I see on TV now has her speaking. Why?

What could have been a true grassroots movement has been hijacked and rebranded by politicians and the media.

The Tea Party only stands for one thing--run the negro out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Once primaries are done, and the November election cycle gets into full swing, the Tea Party is going to have to run on what they stand FOR, and not what they stand AGAINST. And the truth is, they don't have a platform, other than being opposed to whatever the White House has to say. Rand Paul is just the first to be called out; come election time, the Tea Party house of cards will topple over when it's shown it has no substance, just a lot of huffing and puffing.

From the very start is was astroturf sponsered by FreedomWorks. Later on Fox News became involved.

Palin is just an opportunist. She's in it for the money and anyone who doesn't see it is blinded by her populism. I think her support for McCain might be sincere because she owes him for her appearance on the scene. They pick her to speak at events because she appeals to populists and doesn't say a lot of things they are hard to understand. Talking about real problems and real solutions to those problems doesn't go over well on a podium.

At it's core, there may be sincere people in the tea party who are smart and really want to change things in a way that they think would be good for the country. But like most political movements most of it is made up of people who are just mad at the other party and want to wharrgarbl. I'm sure the vast majority of them think we could just balance the budget if we stopped the 'pork' which is why so many of them pounded on earmarks, despite them being such an insignificant part of the budget.

If people really want to be deficit hawks there are only two things we can do, cut services or raise taxes. Pick one or combine them but either way we need to do a LOT of it.

This sums it up very well.

The problem with the fiscal conservative ideology, and one they, through the Tea Party, refuse to acknowledge is simple.

You simply cant cut taxes AND cut spending AND reduce the deficit or debt AND have a vibrant, growing economy AND ensure some degree of regulatory oversight.

Those on the far right, including the tea party supporters, need to accept tax increases, and those on the far left need to accept spending cuts in discretionary programs (and the hard line neo-cons needs to accept that cutting defense does not make one UnAmerican or a supporter of terrorists)....and all sides need to step up and address entitlements with reform that will more than likely require limiting benefits AND increasing taxes.

Rigid ideologues offer great talking points....they cannot govern.....governing is the art of compromise and consensus building. I dont sense that many Tea Party followers are interested in compromise or building consensus...ideologues rarely are.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Oh and I agree the Tea Party movement has become an astroturf, faux populist movement....the original intent may have been noble, but, because it was a movement w/o a leader, it has been co-opted.

This is getting old. There are racists in the Tea Party, Libertarian Party and Republican Party, and even in whatever party you belong to, but generally the US is not a nation of racists - nor is the memberships of the Tea Party, Libertarian Party and Republican Party. Today most people are focused on issues other than race. It is 2010, just because someone disagrees with Obama does not make them a racist.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

I think you can have all of the above. First, the concept of "cut taxes" has more to do with the establishment of a fair tax code consistent with a clearly defined role for the federal government and then on down the line to all taxing entities. Reasonable people can disagree on this point - but I don't know of anyone who is not willing to pay their fair share of taxes. The few on the extreme end are rare.

Reduction of the deficit or debt comes from first having a vibrant and growing economy. A vibrant and growing economy can easily be achieved through government maintaining an environment consistent with economic growth and innovation. Reasonable regulation is not at odds with economic growth and innovation, in fact our economy requires regulation. However, it is important the regulation adds security and stability to markets. In many cases regulation favors some over others and this restricts competition and actually hurts the economy. An example is financial reform that will consolidate the banking industry at the expense of small and regional institutions - this is why many big firms are not really in the fight against what Congress is doing.

Show me 100 people and I'll show you 100 definitions of what "fair share of taxes" means

Correct. I would start by saying taxation should be correlated to the actual costs to society for activities that can not be assigned to specific people or groups. Hence, in my view taxes should not support things like PBS, or perhaps that the HS grad making $80,000 a year busting his a$$ spending weeks away from home driving a truck should not have his tax dollars used to support folks going to a university so they can graduate, get high paying white collar jobs and then look down on blue collar workers. Things like that is where I would start.

I'm sorry, ace, but that's not a very convincing argument against public support for universities. Then again, I'm not one to be won over by such emotional appeals (especially considering I know of several white-collar workers who bust their asses for well under $80,000 a year).

Are you saying, generally, that taxation should be à la carte?

But if it weren't for people going to university and getting high paying white collar jobs (a scenario that was probably more apt a few years ago) that truck driver wouldn't have a job.

And if taxation were correlated to actual costs to society, that truck driver might end up paying a bit more in taxes due to the pollution associated with a diesel truck for several house a day for weeks at a time.

Rand Paul reminds me of Ralph Wiggum.

It is interesting to note how Rand Paul is now complaining that the media is distorting his message whilst purposefully avoiding any situation where he might be obligated to clarify his message.

He'd deserve more respect if he were to just come out and say "Yes, I think businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone they choose and that includes white owned busineesses refusing to serve minorities." He knows that the more familiar people get with his actual positions the less likely it is that he gets elected. This kind of sums up the libertarian position in general: the less you know about the specifics, the better it seems.

This would be a more believable position if the Tea Party weren't willing to get in bed with anyone and everyone, as long as they oppose Obama. Or are all the racist signs that are so popular at Tea Party rallies plants by the left? I don't see the Tea Party trying very hard to purge the racists from their ranks, so I have to assume that a little racism is okay by them, so long as Obama fails.

Democrats found it extremely difficult to purge their ranks of 9/11 Truthers who swore Bush planned and executed the attacks to forge a phony war just a couple of years ago....

I'm no friend of the Tea Partiers... but kettle/pot.

i'm really confused by that seaver. who are these people you are talking about? i've spent most of my adult life involved with left politics well beyond what you think exists and i know no-one credible who ran that particular conspiracy theory line about 9/11. it sounds to me like a bit of ultra-right relativism the sort of thing that limbaugh's made a career of.

so what are you talking about?

Ron (as opposed to Rand) Paul and many of his supporters when he ran for president in 08?

Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones?

Look people look at the Tea Party movement as a large group of the Right... . Throughout most of Bush's years, poll after poll put out that while only 1/4 of all Americans believed there was a 9/11 conspiracy, upwards of 40-60% of Democrats believed there was.

That's not saying that Democrat leaders believed there was any truth in this bunk... but many of their supporters did. Maybe it is relativism to point out there's batshit insane people on both sides... the best we can do is keep them penned.

Unfortunately after the resounding defeat the Dems got in 02 and 04 their party fractured and the loonies took over. Right now we're seeing the same on the Right.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. That, or you quoted the wrong post.

It's quite simple: inaction can be better than foolish action.

Or... he doesn't believe that the action is foolish.

I'm sure he doesn't, but that quote is still presumptuous and clumsy.

The problem is that the batshit crazy people are the ones the press loves to show us, it appeals to emotion and drags politics down to its lowest common denominator which bumps up the ratings. Sarah Palin is money, Birthers, Tea Partiers are money, 9/11 truthers are money, controversy, conspiracies and so forth. Level headed debate over tax policies, foreign affairs and education is "boring", relegated to the back pages and used as filler between the real stories. The sad thing is neither party seems to make any real attempt at purging themselves of the lunatic fringe which only assists in making them that much more valid in the publics eye and the vicious circle continues.

But what does that really mean? Has "crazy" politics become the norm because its the only way to stay visible as a politician once you've lost power and in turn all the public finds interesting? I suppose the real question is why we find it so interesting and why we aren't simply dismissing the loons en masse for more important and relevant issues. It is a troubling trend to say the least.

The truly dangerous people are those who are planning and scheming in the shadows while the public is being distracted by the non-stories (Karl Rove being the prime example)

seaver: i dont dispute that there were people who thought that way about the trade center. but that stuff was not used by the democratic party or any other political organization that i'm aware of to mobilize people, nor was it an aspect of anything like the tea party movement. i was pretty active in the anti-war movement, went to a ton of demos and it's not the case, no matter what you'd prefer to believe, that the conspiracy-theory set had anything like a public face within it. so there's no parallel. the right has gotten in bed with the lunatic fringe. personally, so long as they do not get into power i think it's funny.

but i worry about these lunatics getting power.

think early 30s germany.

I have to agree with Roachboy here, it doesn't seem like the Dems crawl into bed with the crazy, lunatic fringe quite as often or at least if they do it doesn't seem to garner as much press.

I do think we are heading in the general direction of putting the lunatic fringe in power though (Bush was pretty cozy with it in my opinion). As long as we as a nation continue validating "crazy" politics it will stay visible and relevant. How much of a step is that from the white house or a majority of congress?

Perhaps we should start another thread. It is not the best argument, I simply have a bias against "intellectual" types, and those who leach off of hard working people and then say stuff about how they cling to their guns and religion in a condescending manner.

No, I think people who use goods and services (even those provided by government) should pay for them. When costs to society can not be allocated to specific individuals or groups each tax payer should pay their fair share, for example national defense or on a local level police and fire. On the other-hand people who use universities for their betterment or national parks for enjoyment should pay for it to the degree that the benefit to the individual is greater than the benefit to society.

how very pol pot of you ace.

I can be honest, how about you?

{added} And, why did you copy only a portion of my statement, the entire statement was not very long?

All of this is still not a very good argument. (Not even close to the best.) It assumes that all university graduates are intellectuals and that all intellectuals suck the marrow out of the working class and spit them out like remnants, when it is such the case that university is the new high school.

Please do start a thread about it, as I think we've wandered off topic here.

because, ace, in a series of absurd statements that stood out.
if you want to play start another thread please.

I don't think it makes sense to divide up economic roles like that. Society can benefit collectively from a well educated workforce in many ways.

Ace, I just want to reiterate what Baraka said here - $80k is a considerable income. Median personal income in the US was under $32k in 2007. Most white-collar jobs in the US don't pay more than $80k.

Can you answer this question? What role should tax policy play in our nation?

I have libertarian and strict Constitutional leanings as I address the question. I think many are afraid to address the question honestly for some reason. If I supported the use of tax policy for the redistribution of wealth among other things, I would say that. I think Obama hold the view that among other things tax policy should be used for wealth redistribution, but he runs from that position. Why?

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

In the example I gave (long haul truck driver) there are basically two type, those that are self-employed and those who drive for others as an employee. A self employed truck driver can make $80k gross, however the net would be less. This is a guy who work his a$$ off to put himself in a position to own his own rig, and he works his a$$ off to keep things going. He is away from home weeks at a time, he is generally going to be an NRA member, beer drinking, NASCAR fan, average Joe who spends a lot of time listening to talk radio and being insulted by latte drinking, highly educated, liberals. He is the guy who is the backbone of this country, he is the guy who wants a piece of the American dream. But he is also the target of liberals in the areas of tax policy, regulation, gun rights, he is often called racist, etc. He is very interested in the Tea Party. He simply want to keep more of what he works for, without people who he supports in many ways being condescending.

Well, if I were to try, it wouldn't be something you could sum up with facile folksy parables about the noble blue collar worker's suffering at the hands of the college educated.

Because Obama is a politician, and politicians are typically more concerned with maintaining and consolidating their own power than being honest.


I think it's awesome that you dismiss those "latte drinking, highly educated, liberals" for stereotyping long haul truck drivers in a paragraph where you very extensively stereotype long haul truck drivers. While you're entitled to your opinion here, I don't think it fits in a serious discussion- it's pointless to argue with you about things that only exist in your head.

Here's a little secret for you: conservatives go to college and drink lattes too. They also are frequently intellectual. Sometimes (read a lot of the time) they even create self serving narratives about people to bolster their own opinions (see: aceventura).

ace, start another thread already. What does any of that have to do with Rand, Barack, and our friends at BP?

Who is Rand Paul?
Why did he win the primary?
Who supports him?
Why do the people who support Rand Paul, dislike Obama?
Why do people who support Rand Paul believe he more closely reflects American values and Barack Obama does not?
What statements does Barack Obama make that puts him at odds with those who support people like Rand Paual and those in the Tea Party?

I have given thought to those questions and I think the answers are very relevant to the topic.

It seems to me that when someone has a question that may shift the discussion, perhaps the questioner should ask that question in a new thread. And as usual, everyone has the ability to ignore a post, and the moderators can step in anytime they feel things are getting too far afield.

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

Why not answer the question? Don't you think your response supports my point? Some have the courage (agree or not) to state what they stand for, like Rand Paul.

I don't support politicians that I don't think are honest, do you?

I have a bias against people who subtly or not so subtly say that I don't have a clue. I also find it interesting how some of those people have an attitude that they deserv to be thanked for telling me I don't have a clue and gracing me with their condensation all while not being able or willing to address simple and direct questions.

The issue is not intellect, the issue is condescension. There have been many instances that clearly define what I describe available for everyone to see who reads this forum regularly. It is in the media. It is in Washington. And, it comes direct from the President - exemplified by his bitter people who cling to their guns and religion remark. And some wonder why there is a Tea Party movement or a Rand Paul.

Oh, and what is the difference between a latte and a cup of coffee?:orly:

Your question: What role should tax policy play in our nation?

Answer: Taxes should be used to pay the operating costs of our government and should be distributed and collected sensibly.

As for Rand Paul, he doesn't really have the courage to state what he stands for, because he knows that the more he does, the fewer people are going to vote for him.

Says the Palin fan. I typically don't support politicians at all (aside from voting occasionally).

Dude, you have a bias against anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of one of these mythical narratives you've created to help yourself make sense of the world. Like latte sipping liberals. I suspect you may be biased towards noble long haul truckers. In either case, the source of your bias is an intellectual approximation which, in my experience, doesn't necessarily accurately reflect reality.

Do you realize how condescending your little scribe about the typical long haul trucker was? Really, you don't have to be peddling negative stereotypes to be condescending. Your ostensible concern about the condescension of liberal elites on behalf of long haul truckers is condescending.

Lattes are used as rhetorical cudgels by intellectual elitists to motivate emotionally insecure members of the political underclass. Coffee is delicious.

I make my own lattes at home, which costs less than a regular cup of coffee from a coffee shop.

I think there is something quite American about DIY, no?

So, tell me, what's so un-American about Obama's criticism? Have we answered that?

The GOP has the copyright on "True American", so they get to determine what is and isn't American (duh)

Well, the right seems to have a monopoly on the use of the term un-American. I'll reiterate: I think it's the political equivalent of Godwin's law.

This is my view.

Obama is the President of this nation and has a responsibility to serve the nation first. Obama, in this case, has failed to act responsibly as President, and the initial reactions from his administration was to pass blame, and to grandstand rather than address the catastrophe. The problem is bigger than BP, his focus on BP is untimely. To they degree that BP did or did not do what they should have done, there is "government" that allowed it to happen. At the end of the day I think we will find that regulations were in place that could have prevented this. So, is the problem lack of regulation? Is the problem BP? Certainly, more regulation may help and BP failed, but the issue today is to get the leak stopped and the oil cleaned up. We should expect more from the President than what Obama has delivered.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

I was being condescending. I know what I did. I know why I did it. I will admit it. If I am ever condescending when I don't do it to make a point or on purpose, and it is pointed out to me, I will apologize and try to explain what I did if it would be helpful to the person I offended. However, some don't either realize when/why they do it or they can not be honest about it. The biggest kicker to this is when a guy like Obama gets offended when he gets called on it as do some here. It is like they insult you and then get pissed at you for not sitting silently and taking it. I used to fight it, now I can not begin to explain how entertaining it is - and I actually think I am now the only one left who gets it.

Ace,

what specifically could obama have done different? Don't reply with "he needs to lead". what specifically do u want done that isn't?

It's clearly Obama's fault, not the laundry list of Senators and Congressmen (on both sides of the aisle) who took money from big oil to lessen regulations (or avert their gaze at the obvious breaking of said regulations)

I have stated many times (to be fair, perhaps in another thread) that I would have "fired" BP, and assigned responsibility for stopping the leak to a "team" or another company. Second, I would have used the power of the government to get all available equipment (tankers, skimmers, boom, etc.) in the Gulf in the first week. I would have clearly assigned operational control to a government entity, perhaps even the Navy. I would have flown in every expert in the world to the Gulf to review and give input. I would have told Congress to hold off on hearings until after the situation was resolved. I would have made sure the relief well drilling started within the first 2 or 3 days. I would have made sure that Gov. Jendal and I were on the same page, and that our communication was not via his news conference, etc, etc,etc.

your 20/20 hindsight vision is remarkable

Seconded, Derwood..

ace: How do you know that Navy engineers know any better than BP (you know, the company who has been drilling for decades) in well management and containment? BP owns (as employees) the experts. How do you know that BP (you know, the company that has been transporting oil for decades) doesn't own all of the supertankers necessary to cart the stuff way? How is the Navy equipped to deal with an oil disaster, at all?

Sure, they screwed up, but throwing BP out is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Not only that, but I doubt that legally the government would be able to take over that infrastructure.

If you consider the origin of that phrase, it's sickeningly appropriate in this usage.:sad:

Done nearly a month ago. On April 30, Coast Guard Admiral and Commandant Thad Allen was made the National Incident Commander for the federal government's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The reason I would fire "BP" has nothing to do with what they know or don't know...as we have seen BP's interests are not consistent in all cases with what is in Our interests. I would resolve that from day one. I would also eliminate any false perceptions of who may be in charge. We did not need the CEO of BP saying things inconsistent with what the administration was saying, it causes confusion. I have already been mocked regarding my attitude in these matters - what I would do has no value. If you are satisfied with what the administration has done, I think you are in the minority at this point.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Perception is often reality. BP is still acting like they are in charge.

So you knew you were being condescending in a post where you were complaining about how you were being condescended to, but the fact that you knew you were being condescending makes your condescension somehow different and less complaint-worthy than the condescension you perceived from others, whose condescension you have assumed was unintentional, and therefore more complaint-worthy, for no apparent rational reason?

It's no wonder you find it entertaining. You're completely insane, but you've convinced yourself that your particular delusions are proof that you're the only sane person.

So even though your suggestion was done almost a month ago, it still isn't what you percieve to be so, I mean ace you seem to have no idea what you want them to do, you say you have an idea, but when shown something you suggest has already been done, you still don't buy it because BP is 'acting like they're in charge'? How does one act like they're in charge anyways? I suspect you'll complain no matter what happens, you just like to complain for complainings sake.
A smart person would have had it drilled at the same time, it's purpose is to relieve pressure if there is a blowout is it not? Even starting it 2-3 days afterwards, it would still take 2-3 months to finish, so the damage is already done, that's a concept you can't seem to grasp, or are just I don't know, that is if the platform could be brought to the location and prepared to start drilling within this '2-3 days'.

reality is not the most important element here for ace. i learned that in the thread i made in which i was trying to assemble an idea of how this fiasco was possible and why it's played out the way it has. ace was of course entirely opposed to this reality business and instead quite insisted that things excluded a priori by the regulatory apparatus should happen and straight away and that it was some failure of leadership or some other conservative-specific Bad Thing which explained why this or that uninteresting thing that was entirely excluded by reality in any event hadn't happened yet. like firing bp when the regulatory system presupposes that bp would be the source of contingency plans and technologies fitted to deal with them. unless of course they're exempted from having to produce the plans. which minerals management did. but it's unamerican to point that out apparently. and it's obviously the fault of the government that they do not now have the plan and technologies that their regulatory system prevented them from having. so what we should do is assemble a dream team of really smart people who will figure everything out and then call a superhero to put it into motion.

it's really a joke.

meanwhile, lots of aspects of the gulf ecosystem die.

call superman now.

I honestly stated a bias that I have and I was compared to Pol Pot. I have been told that I am clueless. I have been told that what I describe as real is just in my imagination - just in the past week - just in this thread. I have tried to give an example of why a Tea Party conservative like me and other average Joe's finds the movement attractive to have that dismissed out of hand. So, then I start to have some fun - I think condescension, as of form of arrogance is counter-productive - but at this point in these interactions no one has an open mind.

I don't think that is what I wrote, but I can admit I am wrong, I can tell you when I have an agenda and what it is, I can respond to direct questions, I can enjoy responding to posts even when they make personal attacks, I can proudly say what I am - a free market capitalist pig, I try to understand myself and others, I understand my biases and can admit them openly. Not many here can say the same.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

So, why did Obma spend the majority of his news conference yesterday needing to explain the he was in charge?

Of course as usual totally ignore this question, give it no though and please tell me about how clueless I am - that just never gets old.

You take the position that there are no "smart" people involved in the decisions to drill in the Gulf including those in government who allow it? You may be 100% correct, I don't know for certain at this point, I just find it hard to accept - that is my point.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Please tell us what is important to you and why?

Please direct me to the posts where you describe what you would have done to first, prevent this accident, second, respond to it?