Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?

by **phdave** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 19:40:20

jerseyhoya wrote:phdave is EastFallowfield

http://philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php_f=1&t=42202&start=2325.html

I'm sure we are not the only ones who felt the need to point out that quote. It's begging to be underlined, highlighted, copied and pasted, retweeted, etc.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 19:47:22

It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 19:52:03

But I wonder how many of those teapartiers would have saved enough for their retirement had social security not been mandatory. Lots of people aren't saving enough now as it is. And what if they need to spend the last few years of their lives in a nursing home--do they have 200k or so in addition to their retirement savings for that?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 19:59:57

phdave wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:phdave is EastFallowfield

http://philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php_f=1&t=42202&start=2325.html

I'm sure we are not the only ones who felt the need to point out that quote. It's begging to be underlined, highlighted, copied and pasted, retweeted, etc.

No plan for reducing federal spending would include cutting a 62 year old person's Social Security. It's a stupid question because it has no basis in reality.

Anyhow liberals are happy to raise taxes on other people. Conservatives want to cut spending that doesn't effect them.

Holy shit people are selfish hypocrites! Retweet it!

by **phdave** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 20:17:20

jerseyhoya wrote:
phdave wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:phdave is EastFallowfield

http://philliesphans.com/viewtopic.php_f=1&t=42202&start=2325.html

I'm sure we are not the only ones who felt the need to point out that quote. It's begging to be underlined, highlighted, copied and pasted, retweeted, etc.

No plan for reducing federal spending would include cutting a 62 year old person's Social Security. It's a stupid question because it has no basis in reality.

Anyhow liberals are happy to raise taxes on other people. Conservatives want to cut spending that doesn't effect them.

Holy $#@! people are hypocrites! Retweet it!

Other people? I don't know what you mean by other people. I happy to have my taxes go up if it fixes problems. I'm all for particular changes to the tax code that make sense even if they hurt me personally.

The money part of the quote isn't about hypocrisy. It's about the meaningless of the term small government.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 20:26:07

The concept of small government is meaningless because a 62 year old woman in California doesn't want her Social Security cut. The concept of liberalism is on solid ground because a message board poster from California is willing to pay higher taxes if it fixes problems.

by **phdave** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 20:33:43

jerseyhoya wrote:The concept of small government is meaningless because a 62 year old woman in California doesn't want her Social Security cut. The concept of liberalism is on solid ground because a message board poster from California is willing to pay higher taxes if it fixes problems.

The concept of small government is meaningless because people who use the term don't know what it means.

The concept of "other people" is also meaningless if it includes myself.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:00:01

If people misusing political terminology meant the terms were meaningless, then we wouldn't have any words left.

Congratulations on your second point. Your anecdotal, hypothetical willingness to pay more to the state is just wonderful.

In real life the only income taxes likely to be raised federally next year are on the top 1%, which is perfectly OK with middle and lower class voters who make up the majority of voters that elected our current government, and most wouldn't be so keen on their own marginal rates increasing. In real life the New Jersey teacher's union is currently arguing that the way to partially bridge the budget is hiking taxes on people who make more than $400k a year, which is a bit above the average teacher's pay grade.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:05:34

It's funnier when pacino and I fight.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:30:43

phdave wrote:
....She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Her husband later explained to her that programs that are good for them aren't big government.

Then he told her to fix him a steak & a beer, to finish vaccuuming the floor of his den, and to change her mind back.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:33:29

VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

it's only NOT silly when you wear suspenders and the numbers representing the amounts you squander have like a gazillion zeroes after them, and you buy congresspersons, cabinet members, and fed chairpersons by the bushel basket.

Then, it's serious business.

by **cshort** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:35:42

TenuredVulture wrote:But I wonder how many of those teapartiers would have saved enough for their retirement had social security not been mandatory. Lots of people aren't saving enough now as it is. And what if they need to spend the last few years of their lives in a nursing home--do they have 200k or so in addition to their retirement savings for that?

I think there may be more than you think. Part of it's origination was based on the premise that too many people (and institutions) were irresponsible, and people that did save and act prudently were getting screwed.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:47:03

drsmooth wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as silly a position as spending money you don't even have. Almost.

it's only NOT silly when you wear suspenders and the numbers representing the amounts you squander have like a gazillion zeroes after them, and you buy congresspersons, cabinet members, and fed chairpersons by the bushel basket.

Then, it's serious business.

Well, lets face it: when you get to numbers that big we can't really relate to what we're dealing with anyway so it's very easy. Now, if they made a point of saying:

To 18 year olds: That's the cost of 40,000,000,000 iPhones, or 133 iPhones per person in the US.
To 40 year olds: That's the cost of 40,000,000 Toyota Camrys, or 13 Camry's per person in the US.
To 65 year olds: That's the cost of 480,000,000,000 subscriptions to Reader's Digest, or 1,600 subscriptions of Reader's Digest per person in the US.

Then people would get it.

Sike.

by **Woody** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 21:48:58

Teabagger rally in downtown Phoenixville tonight! Teabaggers have the best signage

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 22:03:35

VoxOrion wrote:
Well, lets face it: when you get to numbers that big we can't really relate to what we're dealing with anyway so it's very easy. Now, if they made a point of saying:

To 18 year olds: That's the cost of 40,000,000,000 iPhones, or 133 iPhones per person in the US.
To 40 year olds: That's the cost of 40,000,000 Toyota Camrys, or 13 Camry's per person in the US.
To 65 year olds: That's the cost of 480,000,000,000 subscriptions to Reader's Digest, or 1,600 subscriptions of Reader's Digest per person in the US.

Then people would get it.

Sike.

They'd get something, but whether "it" is it, is more complicated.

Your model for example, allows the wandering mind (the typical mind) to imagine, "oh, fine then, you're right, I'm with you, cause maybe then I'll get me onea them neato iphoneapadodoodles"

and of course they'll only be disappointed then.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 22:36:40

That's the answer!

If it weren't for the government, you could buy 40,000,000,000 iPhones for you and your friends!

You'd be the most popular guy on Earth. Particularly in China.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 23:19:58

Tea Partiers in Cape Canaveral protesting spending cuts to NASA. It's really just about getting mine. (Lots of folks on Redstate also appear to be upset by NASA cuts. Which strikes me as pretty weird.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 15, 2010 23:21:28

VoxOrion wrote:That's the answer!

If it weren't for the government, you could buy 40,000,000,000 iPhones for you and your friends!

You'd be the most popular guy on Earth. Particularly in China.

But, um, there's be no interweb. So, you'd um, like only have a a big ol' phone that had few other uses. I suppose there are some games on it though. So, it's like a big ol' phone+Nintendo DS or something.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 02:22:35

Everything's better with charts...

Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.

They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).

More than one in three (36 percent) hails from the South, far more than any other region. Twenty-five percent come from the West, 22 percent from the Midwest, and 18 percent from the northeast.

Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as "angry" about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19 percent of Americans overall who say they are angry.

Asked what they are most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who identify as angry were the health care reform bill (16 percent), the government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending (11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).

Eighty-eight percent disapprove of President Obama's performance on the job, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. While half of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, just seven percent of Tea Party supporters say he is doing a good job.

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration.

Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government.

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel

Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country

Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people

A majority of Tea Party suppers believe the Obama administration treats both blacks and whites the same way. But one in four believe the administration favors blacks over whites

(bolded one = :shock:

)

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 04:47:32

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Everything's better with charts...

Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.....

Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as "angry" about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19 percent of Americans overall who say they are angry....

....Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him....

....Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration.

Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government.

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel....

....Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country

....Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing black people

(bolded one = )

so vis the "God, guns, & guts" triumvirate, the group is decidedly "guns", and given the gender/age skew, they most certainly have more than a few worn-out belts worth of "guts". God, not so much.

I like to think that that 24% who are good with violence "sometimes", are keeping the 1700's flame alive.

I'd also wager that the southern contingent of this group throws a serious skew into the overall group's results.

Archived

Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?