Questions I’d like ‘Teabaggers’ to answer
So as could be expected I was deluged with mail this weekend, most of it from outraged Michelle Malkin readers, and nearly all of whom sounded the same basic theme: that I was a bad, bad person for issuing ad hominem attacks and should be discredited for “not having my facts straight” and for being too much of a coward to “debate the real issues.”
Which is interesting, except that no one actually found an incorrect fact in anything I wrote, and no one seemed very interesting in debating any issues. Instead, about 99% of the mail I got focused on the name-calling and the “childish” sexual innuendoes. I would say that is my fault, that I should have known that once you start dropping sack onto another columnist’s face in public you can pretty much forgo any expectation of being taken seriously — except that when dealing with teabagger types, you know in advance you’re not going to be taken seriously anyway. So the incentive to be restrained in one’s response (particularly when the people you’re arguing with are running around screaming about the fascist threat with tea bags dangling absurdly from their hat-brims) is not particularly strong.
But the real reason nobody takes the teabaggers seriously is that they have no answers to several enormous holes in the parody of a protest argument they tried to make last week. I got nearly two hundred letters this weekend and not one of them had an answer for any of the following:
1. If you’re so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?
2. If you’re so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?
3. If you’re so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?
A number of people wrote in to me and complained that the only reason I’m not seeing eye to eye with them is that I have no children and therefore don’t care about the debt burden in the future. Oh, please. There’s only one reason we’re talking about “the children” in this debate at all: because 95% of the people protesting the tax outrage will actually be getting a tax break. Until you can plausibly answer the question of why future government debt burdens didn’t bother you during the last eight years or massive deficit spending, that whole “O the children!” bullshit has to be put back on the shelf.
Anyway, I’d really be curious to hear some answers to these questions. Because if the spending argument is moot, if the bailout argument is moot, if the pork argument is moot, and the tax argument is moot, then what you’re left with is arguing that it’s not waste when we spend billions handing out soccer balls in the Anbar province, but it is waste when we build bridges in Peoria and Tulsa.
The only thing even remotely resembling a logical justification for any of this was the argument, made by several letter-writers, that the fact that the teabaggers are hypocrites doesn’t necessarily make them wrong about the Obama budget. If that point is conceded at the top, I think most Americans would be willing to discuss the rest of it, because that’s a discussion worth having. The problem is that once you admit that you sat on your hands during a period of unprecedented waste for eight years, it makes it very hard to take when you start calling yourselves victims of fascism and tyranny and threatening to secede in year nine, which just happens to be the first year of a new regime you oppose politically. In other words if you concede the hypocrisy, the hysteria automatically becomes obnoxious and wrong. So I don’t think the “My hypocrisy is irrelevant” line holds water, not unless you can answer one more question:
4. Would you be protesting any of this bullshit if this had been George W. Bush’s budget?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The reason you are having such a problem understanding what this is all about is because you believe in your partyline regardless of when they step out of bounds.
To answer your questions we were against the spending then too, even with GWB, at the wheel. We were screaming then too! You see when one of our own steps out of bounds we call them on it.
It has now become a fever pitch where we’re not going to stand for it any more. This is about out of control spending and enough is enough.
Even when you try to marginalize the movement by changing the words to tea bagging—Big Brother and Saul Alinsky would be proud!
I’m tired of looking at the tax that comes out of my paycheck, and sales receipts, various registrations and fees, tolls, taxes on services, etc. What isn’t taxed?
Tax, tax, tax, it’s never enough—feed the beast and the beast never gets full.
I’m for the system taking care of some of it’s own problems—when businesses have models that don’t work, they go out of business. When people can’t pay their mortgage, in some cases mortgages they couldn’t afford in the first place, they go back to renting.
People and businesses screwing the system belong in jail.
Government officials screwing the people for their own power and greed belong in the same place—behind bars.
Don’t willfully be confused, this transcends party.
Nobody said life was fair. Why don’t you try to paint a perfect world and realize the problems you run into—avoiding the reality doesn’t make it possible.
By the way, it’s a Tea party—it wasn’t the Boston Teabag. But you know that…
—iChef Politikos
Sidenote: all your questions refer to George Bush, (you need to let him go or maybe you can’t because then you’ll have nothing) you realize we didn’t re-elect a Republican—maybe that will help you understand, maybe that’s the answer you seem too obtuse to get. It wasn’t okay then and the quadruple spending is not okay now!
Okay, I’m sorry, but BULLSHIT.
Let me get this straight. You were so upset about the spending during the Bush years that you re-elected him in 2004, and re-elected the Republican congressional majority twice during his presidency. You were so mad, in fact, that 93% of you (registered Republicans) voted to re-elect Bush in 2004. And now suddenly, a few months into the Obama presidency, it’s just too much. You’ve suddenly reached the breaking point. And that’s why you’re protesting all of the sudden, after not protesting all these years.
Give us a fucking break. The notion that you all went from being okay enough with the spending to vote for the spender to being so mad that you’re ready to secede in just a few months is absurd even by the stratospheric political absurdity levels you folks all set during the last eight years.
And don’t tell me this is all Bush, that without Bush we “have nothing.” You can’t just wash your hands of him, call him an aberration, and move on like he was some kind of gruesome anomaly who hijacked the party and didn’t really represent you. First of all, you voted for him and voted for him again — overwhelmingly. You ate four straight years of soaring deficits and cheered like schoolgirls in love at his rallies. I was there. I remember. I went undercover in 2004 and worked in a Bush campaign office in Florida — in fact I managed a campaign office for a time. In two months on the job I never once heard ANYONE complaining about Bush’s spending. It was all liberals this, liberals that, gay marriage this, Kerry’s a commie that. Not word one about the deficit. So I call bullshit on that. If you complained, where were your protests? Show me one Republican-led protest over a Republican budget in the last eight years. Just one. And Ron Paul, who spent most of those years teaming up with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich to fight Republican party leaders on spending, doesn’t count
And besides, it wasn’t just Bush. We’re talking about a Republican congressional leadership re-elected to a majority five times in a row. They passed astounding boondoggles like the Prescription Drug Benefit Bill and racked up massive deficits year after year and none of you assholes flinched.
So this “we only just now reached the breaking point” bullshit is simply too silly for words. You’re going to have to do better than that.
In response to another comment. See in context »>>>all your questions refer to George Bush, (you need to let him go or maybe you can’t because then you’ll have nothing)
irasciblechef, that’s extremely dumb. (you guys never disappoint with the unintentional comedy though) if you know for a fact a child broke a lamp do you blame the dog because it’s currently standing next to it? i love how conservatives are, within three months, losing their collective minds and finally just now (read: sarcasm) reached the breaking point on spending. how fucking ironic is that?!
you state “we didn’t re-elect a republican”. ummmm…did you vote for obama? i highly doubt it. don’t worry about clarifying your vote either. i wouldn’t admit to placing a vote for palin to lick a window properly much less for her to have all that “shapin’ up washington, vice presidenty power such as also”! face it, you guys were out numbered. the “heartland values” that many conservatives stand behind are being exposed for what they are. they were built on prejudices and ignorance and seem to be dying with the same. but i guess for you guys when the going gets tough the tough go teabagging! (adding…ewwwww)
In response to another comment. See in context »“irasciblechef, that’s extremely dumb. (you guys never disappoint with the unintentional comedy though)
”
Oh, Gypsy that’s so cute… and in the same comment you say, “but i guess for you guys when the going gets tough the tough go teabagging!”
—Wow, check the mirror!
This appears to be an ANGRY attack site. Your inability to listen to anything someone who might think different than you will be all your undoing. Ah, the intolerant tolerance…
I never once attacked this administration here all I did was try to answer Taibbi’s questions.
I said there was a problem with spending and taxing and it needs to stop and the only thing you all want to do is blame it all away…
Is it that you believe your side is perfect and unable to handle criticism? Or is it that you can never say anything against the party because Big Brother will have to reprogram you?
You all think that anyone with an opposing view is radical—well, you’re wrong.
In response to another comment. See in context »I believe this is what is known as “blithering”.
In response to another comment. See in context »>>>Oh, Gypsy that’s so cute…
thanks. i know that was cute. kinda my thing!
>>>—Wow, check the mirror!
the girl in the mirror high fived me for making her giggle with an intentional teabagging joke.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I’m tired of looking at the tax that comes out of my paycheck, and sales receipts, various registrations and fees, tolls, taxes on services, etc. What isn’t taxed?”
Then maybe you should ask for higher taxes on the wealthy who can more than afford it? Honestly, if you guys have another solution, let us know. I talked to one guy at a tea party who basically wanted to privatize medicare and social security. Why? What’s the point? Because “taxation is theft”? Get over how much money comes out of your paycheck, it pays for IMPORTANT STUFF a lot of the time. If you are upset about waste, then agitate about that. Go out and find wasteful spending and propose an alternative. Enough with the carte blanche complaining about taxes and spending in general. It’s a neanderthal mentality.
In response to another comment. See in context »Reached the breaking point now?
I’m sorry, but hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. I like how everyone can be outraged when shit hits the fan, but when, you know, the thrower is holding that massive turd and reeling back in preparation to let it rocket on towards the fan? Well he’s bluffing, there’s no problem there.
The teabaggers are like people who stop exercising and eating sensibly for 10 years, go to the gym for one month, continue to eat nothing but fried food, and flip the hell out when the scale won’t magically show a lower number.
In response to another comment. See in context »The reason you are having such a problem understanding what this is all about is because you believe in your partyline regardless of when they step out of bounds.
To answer your questions we were against the spending then too, even with GWB, at the wheel. We were screaming then too! You see when one of our own steps out of bounds we call them on it.
It has now become a fever pitch where we’re not going to stand for it any more. This is about out of control spending and enough is enough.
Even when you try to marginalize the movement by changing the words to tea bagging—Big Brother and Saul Alinsky would be proud!
I’m tired of looking at the tax that comes out of my paycheck, and sales receipts, various registrations and fees, tolls, taxes on services, etc. What isn’t taxed?
Tax, tax, tax, it’s never enough—feed the beast and the beast never gets full.
I’m for the system taking care of some of it’s own problems—when businesses have models that don’t work, they go out of business. When people can’t pay their mortgage, in some cases mortgages they couldn’t afford in the first place, they go back to renting.
People and businesses screwing the system belong in jail.
Government officials screwing the people for their own power and greed belong in the same place—behind bars.
Don’t willfully be confused, this transcends party.
Nobody said life was fair. Why don’t you try to paint a perfect world and realize the problems you run into—avoiding the reality doesn’t make it possible.
By the way, it’s a Tea party—it wasn’t the Boston Teabag. But you know that…
—iChef Politikos
Sidenote: Interesting, all your questions refer to George Bush, (you need to let him go or maybe you can’t because then you’ll have nothing) you realize we didn’t re-elect a Republican—maybe that will help you understand, maybe that’s the answer you seem too obtuse to get. It wasn’t okay then and the quadruple spending is not okay now!
Sorry about the repeat comment. I’m new here and I was too obtuse to figure it out or delete it…
In response to another comment. See in context »“To answer your questions we were against the spending then too, even with GWB, at the wheel. We were screaming then too! You see when one of our own steps out of bounds we call them on it.”
Bullshit. If you were screaming about it, you were screaming into a paper bag, or in your quite room. What I recall right wingers saying about deficit spending over the last 8 years was that it didn’t matter. I got in several arguments with right wingers on the editorial pages of my local paper. They claimed that a reduction in taxes would cause a massive shitstorm of revenue for the govt.
The part they forgot was that the tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the top 5%. The bottom 95% got 30% of the benefit. Now we have the bottom 95% getting a tax cut, and Obama raising the tax on the top 5%, and wanting to tax companies that offshore American jobs, and that has right wingers screaming “socialist.”
There seem to be so many right wingers at this point claiming that they opposed George Bush, that it has become their Woodstock.
Someone tell me who the 28% of America that supported Bush on his last day in office were, if not the tea bag set? Who?
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t be confused, GWB did plenty of things I can commend and I feel fine about my votes for Bush each time. When I disagree with my leaders even ones that I vote for I let them know about it—whether it’s letters, my blog, phone calls, speaking out, and public discourse.
Why do all you people have such a hard time believing that’s possible? —to vote for and speak out against the same person? It’s true, no matter how many times you say it’s bullshit or lies…
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »“Why do all you people have such a hard time believing that’s possible? —to vote for and speak out against the same person?”
A) Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment”. Look it up.
B) It’s possible that for the last 8 years we have NEVER heard a right winger oppose Bush.
So you protested Bush at some point in the last 8 years then? That seems to be your MO now, so certainly you were hitting the streets between 2001 and 2009 protesting Bush, right?
We’d all just like to know when, and where.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I’m tired of looking at the tax that comes out of my paycheck, and sales receipts, various registrations and fees, tolls, taxes on services, etc. What isn’t taxed?”
Whoa there! Aren’t you the people that opposed Obama’s tax cut on 95% of Americans, because- drumroll please – you said 40% of Americans don’t pay any tax at all???
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
In response to another comment. See in context »This doesn’t even make sense:
“Whoa there! Aren’t you the people that opposed Obama’s tax cut on 95% of Americans, because- drumroll please – you said 40% of Americans don’t pay any tax at all???
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.”
***
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m tired of paying so much in taxes, $13 a week that 95% will get doesn’t cover the taxes I’m tired of paying. Stay on topic, your confusing me with someone else.
Doesn’t make sense? What planet are you posting from?
Let me get this straight, you were unhappy with your Bush tax cuts for 8 years. Obama gives you an ADDITIONAL tax cut, and that is when you hit the streets to protest taxes on tax day?
Umm, OK.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why don’t we cut the crap and say what’s really going on here Matt. It’s all about one thing, and that thing is, because it’s the black guy in the White House doing the spending. Hell most of these children of first cousins probably don’t even know what the Boston Tea Party was, if they had they would realized their protest had nothing to do with what was going on 12/16/1773. One only has to look at the pictures of what was going on at those so called tea bag protest to know the truth. The mood and tone of those crowd was exactly the same as we saw at so many McCain – Palin campaign events, flat out racism, and it’s damn time we started, if you’ll pardon the pun, calling a spade a spade!
Ahh, I see you’ve received and memorized your Jeneane Garofalo talking points. Well done!
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Read the rest of the article here. [...]
Dude, I gave you an answer. Just because you don’t like/believe it doesn’t make bullshit.
I could answer why Bush was elected in 2004, but you’re not really interested in the why. (your response makes that quite clear) You do NOT have anything else and that’s why you keep bringing up Bush. (again, quite clear) The tax and spend insanity must stop—why don’t you think so?
Why do you believe we should keep up spending? Don’t you pay enough in taxes and if not what is your percentage limit?
To respond to your reckless comments I never said or inferred:
“…you all went from being okay enough with the spending to vote for the spender to being so mad that you’re ready to secede in just a few months is absurd even by the stratospheric political absurdity levels you folks all set during the last eight years.”
Never said, we were okay with spending NOR seceding—I never mentioned that because it’s ridiculous. So, you mis-characterize what I said and then pile 8years of Bush on top of it. Dude, your arguments are so transparent. —Do you have a copy of Rules for Radicals by your computer or did you have the manifesto brainwashed?
I also never said I washed my hands of Bush, I don’t. But you won’t listen to anything because you can’t get passed Bush.
“…Show me one Republican-led protest over a Republican budget in the last eight years.”
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and all the rest were leading the charge against Bush spending, where were you? my guess is you don’t listen to anything they say, except for out of context sound clips sent down by the the Soros paid clowns.
And as I said there is plenty of blame to go around Democrats AND Republicans.
Also, what is your point about protesting during the Bush years (number one the Liberals had that covered and number two what difference does it make?)
I said enough is enough with spending NOW regardless of the party—THROW THEM ALL OUT! ALL THE SPENDERS, CHEATERS, CROOKS! ALL! Are you listening? Because from your response it doesn’t seem so.
Can’t you admit the spending is out of control? Where is the money going to come from? Your inability to argue the point or have any clear answers other than throwing Bush at us, is in your own words BULLSHIT, because taxes are the only answer…
Your conclusion that because there weren’t protests about spending back in the Bush days there can never be a protest from people sick of reckless spending and high taxes is SILLY!
Why don’t you join in against higher taxes and spending.
By the way, you can’t argue with someone who misrepresents what the other is saying and then think that you have won the argument because you label what they say as “bullshit!”
By the way whether you like it or not the protests will continue and gain momentum. Whether you believe they are SILLY or not.
My advice to you if you are not going to join us is: Work on being less transparent and less ANGRY and you might get people to believe that higher taxes, bigger government, and socialism are the answer. Based on the poll numbers you were practically there.
Biden: “paying more taxes is Patriotic.”
RasmussenReports.com: “Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.”
—iChef Politikos
PS
Please, leave the “school girls,” out of it, they’re innocent in all of this mess…
More right wing bullshit, and totally off Matt’s point. Spending is not out of control. And at the heart of this entire debate is the fact that when money was being spent to kill people who had done nothing to us you all basically kept your traps shut! Nothing wrong with a little post 9/11 blood lust, we’ll show em! But as soon as the Democratic black president starts spending money on things like schools, medical care, and rebuilding our much neglected infrastructure you right wingers start acting like monkeys ripping into a birthday cake. It don’t wash, and the nation aint buying it! You spent 8 years with your head up Bush’s colon and now that you pulled it out you think we’re all supposed to get bent out of shape cause your not happy with the course we’re taking. Spare us born again fiscal preaching.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just ask these mother fuckers if there’s any price – $1 trillion, $10 trillion – where they’d start to consider the Iraq war too expensive. There’s no amount. They’ve given that war a blank check, worth it no matter the cost. Listening to them bitch about wasteful spending while repeatedly justifying every sweetheart deal Dick Cheney gave to his war-profiteering buddies at Halliburton makes me want to start punching my cat.
In response to another comment. See in context »Take a time out before you punch out the cat dude! LOL
In response to another comment. See in context »“What about the spending and taxing—right now?”
I don’t like the “spending and taxing” right now, but I recognize that it is necessary because you “folks” have spent the last decade taking a monkey wrench to our economy. With the noteworthy assistance of several so called liberals.
As to your ridiculous claims about the bipartisan nature of the teabag events, forgive our confusion. It must have been all the signs that read “Obama=Hitler”, and “The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s Oven’s” that through us off.
In response to another comment. See in context »”
By the way whether you like it or not the protests will continue and gain momentum. ”
No they won’t. They’re echo chambers for people hold fringe views. I’m a veteran of those kinds of protests, being in the anti-war movement, and I have to say — you won’t get anywhere.
In response to another comment. See in context »I have no idea how old you are, but your compliant comes down to taxes and taxes. I tend to agree with the trillions of dollars in spending on banks. But your issue seems to be taxes. Taxes as a percentage of wages have never been as low as they are now. Reagan tried to get them lower and had to raise them numerous times along with Bush 1.
If your bitching about taxes now, just wait, you haven’t seen anything yet. Wait till they look at the marginal rates people were taxed in the Reagan years and you know that’s exactly where you are going to get your nose pushed into; Saint Ronnie. It will be interesting to see how you skirt around that one.
The fact is wages haven’t kept pace with the cost of living which is why taxes take a harder bite. Who do we want to call out for that? It’s just not Bush, the GOP is pushing the same toxic policies that have led to wages that have flatlined for over a decade.
Wages died a death of a thousand cuts. From staffing the labor department with people who must have spent their days masturbating to prep for the release of the monthly job numbers, to the enablers in Washington that helped major companies abuse H1Bs to tax breaks for outsourcing to the rise of Health Care insurance to such a nose bleed level, employers were able to use it as a club to keep wage demands down to the employers who were allowed to bring in illegals to keep downward pressure on wages.
Yeah, but GOpers calimed the trickle down theory. Snort. Publicly held corproations in 2007 , when th ebull hit it’s heighth, spent 480 billion buying their onw stock back to increase earnings per share so their bonues would go up as they laid off millions. No R & D. No new factories. They used shareholders money to buy stock at it’s all time high. You can’t make this shit up.
Lehman brothers , you do remember them right? They bought 20% of their stock back in 2007. When they made the announcement the shares got obligatory pop. They just forgot one detail. The 8-9 billion they spent was on shares at $80 each that was owned by management. That’s right, they all cashed out. Fuld is laughing his ass off when people bitch about his 150 million.
It ain’t your taxes pal. It’s the shitty paycheck that it’s coming out of. Percentage wise, you never had it so good. So instead of bitching about taxes, why don’t you spend time on where the real problem is?
No one ever accused you people of thinking much past the next few hours much less worrying about what your children will be facing. Guess what? This is happening right now. You don’t need to worry about the children. You need to worry about yourself. Can you run a business? If so, how’s that going? Know anyone that has been laid off? Yes? How are people reacting? See? You long range thinkers thought that wage reduction along with low taxes would somehow make America great.
You forgot that jobs and low wages are no longer a lagging indicator. They are a leading indicator with a GDP that is 70% dependent on middle class people blowing checks and going deep into debt.
It doesn’t occur to large companies when they announce lay offs of 50,000 workers that it ripples out as other companies lay off too to get a little pop on the stock market too consumers who stop spending becuase they absolutely beleive they are next.
It would be some major deep thinking if just one of you dumb fucks would say; “Hey those are customers. It may not be to my business but it might be customers of a business I supply. Never thought of that did ya? Always taxes.
Finally lets get to the taxes bullshit. In the greatest irony of them all, Exxon Mobile had 45 Billion in profits for FY 2008 and the same year taxpayers bailed out Citibank for 45 Billion. Here we had Wall Street trading oil to nose bleed levels so what wasn’t taxed went directly to the financial sector, the energy sector and health care.
So here is the middle class at the end of 08 broken with our pockets turned out, kicked and bleeding in the ditch from those three hour commutes to affordable housing which made Exxon so rich they were earning 5 years of profit in one. The taxe money? It went to save the very same banks who dicked their customer and are still dicking their customers and now have really hit the mother lode.
They don’t have to have customers to dick when they had the keys to the treasury handed to them by a fricking investment banker who was able to sell his GS shares at a high and had the 75 million in capital gains tax buried becuase of the “sacrifice” he was making for two years of mass destruction in public office. 37.5 Million a year to kill a country.
All in 2008. By the end of the year, when the consumer was busted , broke turned around and inside out , bleeding from all orifices from multiple dicks being stuck in them from every red cheeked white American who could have starred in Deliverance you know the woods scene. Heh heh
They had lobbyists in Washington, who were paid huge bucks making certain their clients profits were protected while spreading the losses to the walking wounded previously referred to as America’s middle class.
But that just wasn’t enough: Then came massive lay-offs. They aren’t run of the mill lay offs either. No one is safe except bankruptcy attorneys and nurses. Bankruptcies just went back to 2004 levels despite the toxic reform that was bought and paid for and written by the banks for the banks.
Hell Citibank was so fricking happy about it, they bragged on their 2006 annual report that they were able to add 1.8 Billion to earnings thanks to the purchased legislation from a congress who saw no limit to the money could be made in jobs where the public served them and a president who never saw a spending bill he didn’t like as long as he could call himself the war president.
2006 was a banner year: Bankruptcies fell from 2 million to 600,000 in one year. The GOP was so proud. In 2008 they hit 1.4 Million and should take out 2 Million in 2009 and that’s conservative. They have been going up 50% a year.
If you wanted one example of the hubris of the GOP, and it’s benefactors , it was that reform bill they had the gall to name in part “the consumer protection act”. Fucking hysterical huh?
They really outsmarted themselves. It was predicated on their own bullshit of rising home prices and full employment even at dirt wages. When the housing market fell along with the jobs, so did that reform.
Bush? He wasn’t that he was ass numbing stupid, he just didn’t give a fuck. A rich ivy league trust fund baby whose dad got him a cool job. . He just turned his back becuase he really didn’t give a shit. Funny stuff to him.
“You hold three jobs? That’s uniquely American”.
Bush’s legacy will be how he took the middle man out of taxes and let his friends dick us in every direction until there wasn’t anything left to make the payments on the debts people had run up trying to stay alive.
I wouldn’t throw those tea bags around. Your gonna need em for your tents n shit.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s a sad picture you’re painting there dburn. Unfortunately. it’s absolutely true not some left-wing talking point.
The only thing I’d like to add to your comments is: While the likes of Exxon-Mobil, Microsoft, Cisco Systems were racking up record profits in the billions of dollars, none of these three (and scores more) paid not one dollar in federal income tax. What is wrong with this picture?
Teabaggers have their knickers in knots over taxes? Why aren’t they protesting that these corporations aren’t paying a dime? All the while sending American jobs overseas and not paying taxes. Where is the outrage here?
In response to another comment. See in context »Doesn’t all this fear, dread and johnny-come-lately outrage kind of makes Swiss cheese out of the whole “Conservatives think – Liberals feel” argument?
[...] If you have two minutes, read Taibbi demolish the National Tea Party participants. [...]
The capacity of these guys to pretend that they were huge Bush critics all along is utterly fucking dumbfounding. How are you supposed to talk to people like this? They can’t even be trusted to correctly describe what happened ten minutes ago.
Because it’s not about the money, it’s about who’s spending the money and what it’s being spent on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Levi, Jesse, Gypsy, Brian, Dangerpest, Matt
All all these people commenting actually Matt Taibbi?
Each person is more obtuse than the next one and all parroting the same idea…
Doesn’t anyone here have any original or different thoughts or is that against the rules?
“The capacity of these guys to pretend that they were huge Bush critics all along is utterly fucking dumbfounding.”
Considering you don’t believe anyone anyway—what difference does it make?
What about the spending and taxing—right now?
Can you put toothpaste back into the tube? Can you pretend Iraq didn’t happen? Can you deal with right now? Make a decision. Decide if something is a good thing or not based on reality right now?
Don’t you see all the spending and taxing is unfair, not okay, crazy? And if not what percentage are you willing to pay? (where is you limit?)
*crickets*
My guess is that another brilliant comment not addressing or dealing with anything that has been said by me—is coming. Wait on it…
In response to another comment. See in context »irasciblechef,
Look, the tea parties are absurd for a variety of reasons.
1) Everything that Matt has said already. What most of the tea partiers are bitching about now has been going on for a long time, and while some conservatives had the intellectual honesty to at least bitch about it, ordinary citizens never thought to organize a nation-wide protest. Why not?
2) The tea party phenomenon would not have taken root as quickly as it did – if at all – were it not for sketchy “astroturfing” getting the ball rolling. You can read more about that at Exiledonline.com, but basically a bunch of conservative think tanks and PACs seized on Rick Sanitelli’s tantrum and set up a series of fake grassroots websites calling for tea parties. This is not crazy; moneyed political interests co-opt protest movements all the time. Just look at how the Democrats whipped the anti-war movement into submission.
Why was the astroturfing so successful? Because people like you actually wear their irascibility on their sleeves. You twat.
3) The tea party phenomenon, even after being seeded by manipulative conservative instigators like the CATO Institute and the Koch Foundation, would not have exploded like it did if FOX News hadn’t pimped it like the whore it is. All FOX personalities’ political agendas aside, the FOX executives saw this as a ratings power grab. They fanned the flames for profits and market share, because they are first and foremost a profit-seeking corporation.
Do you still believe that this is a legitimate grassroots movement?
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow, did you actually call me a “twat?”
It doesn’t matter what opposition says it believes in on this site. Nobody believes what you say anyway, they misrepresent what’s being debated, and the issues of too much taxing and spending in the past, present, and future continue to be ignored.
I pay too much taxes and based on the spending in the PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE (read: GWB, CONGRESS-republicans AND democrats, and Obama)
I will be paying more…
That’s the point. I don’t want to and YOU ALL do.
And you will even diminish the word racist to accomplish your goals…
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »As many people have pointed out already, and you and others have failed to address, the new tax policy only represents a hike for incomes over $250,000, and a tiny 3% one at that. I don’t view that as unfair, no. I’m not sure why you do. Do you make more than $250,000? Do you think those people will suffer substantially as a result of this policy?
Regarding the spending, I do take issue with some of it, mostly with the bank bailouts. But if that were your main beef, you should probably be equally vociferous about TARP, which is still being handed out. Were you complaining about TARP? If not, what spending do you have a problem with, exactly? Be more specific than just saying “the spending”, please.
In response to another comment. See in context »Perhaps some people were so focused on their hatred of Bush and/or were too busy gushing over Obama they failed to note some developments that laid the groundwork for the Tea Parties.
One, the GOP lost control of Congress in 2006, if you recall. One of the understood causes of this was some voters shunning some of the GOP candidiates due to their weakness on spending. It was fairly common knowledge. Google it if you don’t believe me.
Two, as I’m sure you would agree, there was an incredible amount of backlash over the bailouts last fall, from every corner, directed to everyone in the federal government. You couldn’t go anywhere or read anything without hearing people talking about “greedy bankers” getting bailed out. This was also mere weeks before the election, so most people probably figured there would be a change soon enough — one way or another — and they would then evaluate what the new guy would say about all this. (Not to mention the logistical hurdle of whipping up opposition, planning and holding a “Tea Party” on weeks notice).
Three, perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the so-called Porkbusters effort to spotlight egregious spending and earmarks, promoted by — among others perhaps — Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. This has been going on for far longer than since January 2009.
So, there was a foundation building, whether you were aware of it or not. Then — wham! The new guy comes in and proposes to quadruple — QUADRUPLE!! — the deficit on a so-called “stimulus package.” And Congress rams it through, with nobody having the chance to read the bill. And, to boot, it’s got even pork in it, when its sole purpose supposedly is to “stimulate the economy!” Hello, “breaking point,” whether you like it or not. You’re just going to have to accept that.
I think you’re mainly just upset that the breaking point occurred on O’s watch and now threatens to spoil the lovefest. Instead of denying that the breaking point has been reached, why don’t you examine what Obama did to push people over that breaking point, instead of obsessing over whether the Tea Party attendees are hypocrites?
By the way, perhaps you noticed that at some Tea Parties some Republicans who are viewed as soft on spending (e.g., voted for the stimulus package) were booed?
Oh, and if I must indulge you, yes, I would be protesting as loudly if it was Bush’s budget. But I’m willing to bet you won’t believe that; it wouldn’t fit your narrative.
Finally, let me get this straight: you’re claiming as evidence that there was no opposition to the deficit during Bush’s administration the fact that you didn’t hear of any in the campaign office where you were “undercover.” So, you’re saying you would have expected to hear a groundswell of opposition from the closest supporters?
Sorry, that doesn’t pass MY bullshit test.
“I think you’re mainly just upset that the breaking point occurred on O’s watch”
No the breaking point came because of it happening on President Obama’s watch. This so called “teabag movement” is nothing more than free floating hatred that found a “cause” to latch onto. Nothing you can site in regards to fiscal policy justifies the hatred we see coming from your movement. In all honesty I don’t know if it’s the color of his skin, or the fact you know he has the smarts and the charisma to finally bring the Reagan era to an end that is fueling such hatred, but it’s out there, the tone of your rallies is that of a lynching mob more than it is of citizens voicing their dismay at public policy. And if you think you’re not going to get called out on it you got another thing coming!
In response to another comment. See in context »“Oh, and if I must indulge you, yes, I would be protesting as loudly if it was Bush’s budget. But I’m willing to bet you won’t believe that; it wouldn’t fit your narrative.”
Dumbass, you had eight fucking years to protest Bush’s budget. You’re hiding behind the fact that the dude couldn’t have run for a third term. That ship has sailed, and the Republicans WERE NOT ON IT. We’d have to be retarded to buy that line of obvious bullshit.
“So, you’re saying you would have expected to hear a groundswell of opposition from the closest supporters?”
Nobody expects that of Republicans, that isn’t how you guys operate. Republicans identify a leader and voluntarily follow him off the cliff, only muttering qualified criticisms after they’ve become an extreme political liability for your party.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you’re so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?
I was just wondering…this $4 trillion, was that in one year, or the cumulative total of an eight year presidency?
For the love of christ irasciblechef, answer the question. Where were the republican protests during the last 8 years? Is George W Bush also a fascist?
I already answered that “for love of Christ.”
“Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and all the rest were leading the charge against Bush spending, where were you? my guess is you don’t listen to anything they say, except for out of context sound clips sent down by the the Soros paid clowns.”
And I never called anyone a fascist. Where are you getting you information? Oh, right—Matt Taibbi…
Tylercake, are you able to read? If not I apologize, but really, try it…
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »Brian, why are you so ANGRY?
Also, you talk a lot about hatred, you know a lot about hate—don’t you.
Labeling these “Tea party” protesters racists sounds a little hate filled to me.
As far as the “so called” ‘teabag movement’ that YOU keep repeating—you are the one so-calling it that.
This has nothing to do with racism and you know it. You and Janeane Garafolo are labeling it that to marginalize it: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
— Saul Alinsky
As I said earlier—TRANSPARENT!
Question:
Are you pointing out, in your first sentence, that it’s proper to say “President Obama” because “O’s watch” is improper? Really? Because I agree with you, and to be consistent (which I’m sure you want to be…) you should probably say President Reagan’s era…
Just trying to help.
—iChef Politikos
“You and Janeane Garafolo” Damn you just made my night, luv her! And I only address president as “President” when I hold them in high regard, so yeah, it’s the Reagan era as far as I’m concerned. Looks I struck a cord there, and seriously as Bill Maher is so fond of pointing out, damn you right wingers are gay for Ronnie. What’s up with that?
In response to another comment. See in context »Well considering you are an Island unto yourself and you apply rules to others that you don’t abide to yourself there isn’t a lot that can be expected.
If I was to tell you I wasn’t gay for “Ronnie” (again breaking your own standards) are you then going to label me a homophobe?
I am neither a homophobe nor racist…
Actually, I’m glad I could make your night by aligning you and Janeane side by side—if it makes you glad—I’m glad. I’m going to leave on that note.
Brian in NYC —Have a good night.
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] SeekScore.com added an interesting post on Questions Iâ [...]
This appears to be an ANGRY attack site. Your inability to listen to anything someone who might think…
It’s refreshing to see the ‘blar-har, you liberals sure are angry’ thing again. Those were some times, back in the the roaring 2007s and most-of-2008s! The only thing these kids care about today is blasting the titanic anger of America Under Siege through the righteous iron windpipe of the eagle-crying-a-single-tear that is the lone patriot united as one into Liberty’s Hammer.
But to address a practical question, right-wingers didn’t care about the deficits under Bush or the squanderings of Congress prior to ‘06 both for the obvious reason and a somewhat more defensible one: They believed the economy would grow its way out of anything the Republicans could throw at it.
More than that, they had managed as free-market fans to be convinced that the bubble economy was normal. They created in themselves a cognitive block against the fact that the housing and stock markets were fueled by money borrowed, in effect, from a future that is now impossible — that the losses reflect money that is actually gone, that literally no longer exists and can’t be bought back by some further combination of tax cuts, deregulation, and the dismantlement of protections against the powers of wealth.
So if it looks to them as though the world has gone mad, they only know of a few remedies with which to try to cure it. And anger has worked so well for them in the past, it must itself seem like a panacea.
1. You’re right aboout GWB…we should have been screaming. To pile on that amount of debt is inexcusible and very harmful to future generations just as it is when an individual grossly overspends and uses debt to cover it.
2. The GWB/Paulson solution was the wrong approach. More debt does not cure a problem of excesses caused by too much debt.
3. The pork added by Republicans (of which I am one) is every bit as bad as the pork being added now. Both parties are to blame for this very bad practice and the mess that we have and are creating. We should all be screaming and should have been all along. We were in a pretty good position as a country in terms of our debt at the end of the Clinton administration, but we blew it! Where we are now is very bad and is getting worse fast. We’ll all pay the price downstream (as if we aren’t already).
We probably should always have a President from one party and a Congress from the other. And, we need to all join the Tea Parties regardless of party. The Federal Government doesn’t have the knowledge and skill to ‘engineer’ this very complex economy. With all of its faults, we’re better off eliminating the Fed (Bernake) and letting the market itself drive us.
Your questions are really good ones. Too bad we can’t seem to focus on the best answers. We have politics instead of reasoned thought running the show.
It’s refreshing to see some honesty. A few more questions to answer honestly.
Would these protests have taken place if Bush were still in office and passed a bailout package?
Why all the Obama hate and insane rhetoric at the rallies if they weren’t about bi-partisan nonsense? Some of those signs and hate talk was disgusting.
The republican propaganda machine (there’s a democratic propaganda machine too) created this tea party nonsense so how can you claim it’s bi-partisan?
I also love that most of these people are protesting tax increases when their taxes will actually DECREASE.
And finally, if none of you protested during the last eight years why should you be taken seriously now that you’re protesting after 3 months of the new administration?
In response to another comment. See in context »We can stand back and throw bricks at each other and play the blame game all we want, but, in reality, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
If Bush had done all this, there would undoubetedly been Tea Parties supported primarily by liberals.
But standing in our respective corners and yelling at each other doesn’t get us very far. Can’t we focus on the issues and discuss, in a calm manner, best solutions?
Is massive spending really the best answer? Read ‘Meltdown’ by Thomas Wood for one informed person’s answer.
What can we expect to see in the future from the actions that have been and are currently being taken? Read ‘The Great Depression Ahead’ by Harry S. Dent.
These are times for becoming better infomrmed, closely examining complex alternatives and being honest about history. These are not, in my opinion, times for uninformed, childlike arguing.
In response to another comment. See in context »“2. The GWB/Paulson solution was the wrong approach. More debt does not cure a problem of excesses caused by too much debt.”
The problem was private sector debt though, not public sector debt. Most governments can run pretty healthy with some debt, not so much with the private sector and these banks leveraged 30-to-1.
As for what the federal government can and can’t do, I think during the 50’s and 60’s we had a much larger federal government than now as far as taxation and spending on infrastructure and it created an extremely prosperous economy, didn’t it?
In response to another comment. See in context »What baffles me is how Republicans are still able (maybe a bit less now) to don the mantle of fiscal responsibility, even though the last three Republican presidents (Reagan and both Bushes) have done anything BUT be fiscally responsible.
This is the same thing as a drug addict who, every time you talk to him, vows he is going to change his wicked ways. Except in the case of the Repubs, they deny ever having done anything that goes against the gospel they are preaching. How long can this go on before people stop believing them to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
As far as the topic of Obama’s spending goes: I am no economist but as I understand it, there really isn’t a viable alternative to jump starting the economy again, besides spending alot of money. If there was such an alternative, why was it not in the Republicans ‘budget’ proposal?
I’m still waiting for someone to actually address Taibbi’s four questions with real honesty and candor. All I’ve heard so far is some nonsense about this being the “breaking point”. Three months into a new administration trying to fix the problems of the previous administration and that’s the “breaking point”?
I’d love to hear a little honesty. Why can’t you just admit that this is about a Democratic Administration? Another thing completely ignored by the sheeple that attended those rallies is the fact that the vast majority of them will actually see their taxes DECREASE.
So to sum things up, not a peep of a protest during the last eight years. Not a peep of a protest when a budget surplus turned into a $4 Trillion deficit. Not peep of a protest when pork sky rocketed under a Republican controlled Congress. Now, 3 months into the new Democratic Presidential Administration attempt to fix what the previous Republican Administration broke it’s time to flip out?
And you tea baggers expect to be taken seriously why exactly?
Irascible, I’m not paying attention to your claim of being against the spending back then for the simple reason that it’s a lie. Were there a few conservative politicians who railed against spending in the last eight years? Sure. And do you know why they didn’t succeed in getting anything done? Because the party leaders knew that Republican voters by and large were comfortable ignoring the issue, focusing instead on such urgently important societal problems as gay marriage, Terri Schiavo’s brain-lump and John Kerry’s medals. The reason Tom Delay and Denny Hastert could ram through their pork-filled budgets year after year was because all of you assholes so dependably voted in such massive numbers to re-elect the spend-first Republican party leadership.
Let me put this another way. If I were to poll all of the teabaggers, what percentage of them would admit to having voted for Bush twice and the Delay-led congressional majority three times? Would it be 95%? 97%? It is certainly a very high number. Which means that all of you repeatedly endorsed Bush’s policies. Which means this isn’t just about Bush. This is about you.
As for “the spending right now,” I’m glad you asked that, because this is an important question. In a vacuum, would I be pissed about this spending? Absolutely. And I was very publicly against the bailouts, and covered the deficiencies in the bailout programs quite extensively. But virtually every economist I talked to of late told me that a massive government stimulus is the classic prescription for this kind of economic emergency. In fact there was near-unanimity on the point that the Obama stimulus was too small, by about half.
So if we hadn’t been in a crisis, would I be freaking out about this budget? Absolutely. I’ve been harsher on the Democrats in the area of pork and spending than almost anybody in the media over the years.
But this stimulus is in response to an emergency, an emergency that was caused in part precisely by people like you, who endorsed the last eight years of Bush economic policies. You endorsed all the deregulation. You endorsed the deficit spending. You endorsed his unsustainable high-dollar policy, which led to the mass export of American jobs (to be fair, this was also true under Clinton). You endorsed his laissez-faire approach to the housing bubble. You voted for all this stuff and now you want to revolt over the rescue package.
Massive deficits are bad policy in a normal time. But this is not a normal time. These are emergency measures and have to be evaluated as such. The bailouts may be a continuation of Bush policy, but the stimulus package is not. This is what nearly every reputable economist agrees has to be done. And because we’re in this mess partially because of you and people like you, I think it behooves all of you to shut the fuck up and give it a chance to work.
As for my tax burdens, I pay a positively enormous amount of taxes every year. I was broke for most of my life but now I am not and I’m paying taxes in amounts I would never have imagined before. Do I like it? No. I don’t like it any more than I liked it when I went to Iraq and saw that my tax dollars were paying brain-dead ex-cops from rural Georgia $11K a month to teach ju-jitsu to Iraqi policemen who couldn’t understand what the hell they were saying. I didn’t like it when one of those same ex-cops, idiot that he was, accidentally discharged his firearm two feet from me and nearly shot my foot off. Governments are crazy and inefficient and it’s always a painful experience to see how they spend our money.
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is your credibility and the credibility of these protests. If you want your voice to be heard on this issue, you all have to start with a big fat mea culpa before you move on to the Obama=Hitler stuff. You are acting like victims when in fact you are responsible. And that makes you ridiculous.
I never said Obama=Hitler, that is positively ridiculous! (but it’s easier to demonize someone in front of all your friends if you get them to believe I did. TRANSPARENT.)
Matt how is it that you can call me a liar without even knowing what I do or say. You’re also talking to me as if I represent the ONLY ONE set of beliefs on the conservative side (extreme radical. ie. If your a conservative you are an extreme evangelical, racist)—is that how it works over there in Liberal-ville? Does everybody believe exactly the same thing with no variance or nuance? Sorry about that…
Should I just dismiss you as a liar who makes claims of what you did or didn’t do in the past, present, and future? I just heard about you this weekend so get over yourself! —This weekend is when you most likely heard of me… Why do you pretend to know who I am or what I’m about? My guess is that it’s just easier to have followers attack and pile onto something or somebody (”the enemy”) who has been labeled with inflammatory words.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
— Saul Alinsky
Very effective, I know…
Your need for submission before dialog is curious. WHY?
Why aren’t you following OUR President’s lead? Open the dialog, stop focusing on the blame—which goes in many directions, start having debate. And please spare us with you don’t have to be open minded because the other side wasn’t open minded with you—cry me a river! Walk the walk for Pete’s-sake!
I understand that it might lead to you disagreeing here and there with your own side, which by the way is okay, there is no rule that you need to blindfully follow or believe every last thing the person you vote for is about.
You can call me a liar (you already have,) but I do hope Obama is right. It’s what would be good for the country. That is what is what everyone wants right?
This is what I had to say on Inauguration day, you might be surprised. (but no I didn’t vote for Obama and I disagree with tax and spend, big government and a a more socialist society—we can disagree and believe in different directions and be on the same team or citizens in the same country, without going to war over it…)
You reference economists, do you have a list of names? They are all in agreement? You should be looking for all perspectives not just the ones you already have.
If I did just dismiss you as a liar I wouldn’t have heard that you believe taxes are too high, that Clinton might also have a hand in the mortgage debacle, that you don’t like pork spending. You see, the dialog needs to stop being about one party against the other and more about what’s good for the country.
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »-irasciblechef
if you still consider yourself a conservative republican after the right’s display of crazy during the ‘08 election, these silly tea parties, and people such as limbaugh, o’reilly, beck, hannity, etc. becoming the leaders of your party…you ARE “an extreme evangelical, racist”! i would also add sexist, homophobic, and dumb.
also, why does the conversation always come down to shit like this?
>>>Does everybody believe exactly the same thing with no variance or nuance?
how about you and your party “check that mirror” irascible. at least there’s intelligence, logic, and non-hypocritical morals found within the issues that are broadly cohesive for the left.
matt taibbi calls bullshit on all bullshit. left and right. he and bob cesca are the only liberal bloggers i would kinda jump off a bridge with because of their ability to see the truth politically, socially, and ethically.
In response to another comment. See in context »Gypsy,
Keep up the legitimate work, observations, and commentary.
>>”…if you still consider yourself a conservative republican… you ARE “an extreme evangelical, racist”! i would also add sexist, homophobic, and dumb.”
***
Intelligent and logical.
***
>>”…at least there’s intelligence, logic, and non-hypocritical morals found within the issues that are broadly cohesive for the left.”
***
Are you the example of the cohesive left?
***
>>”he (Taibbi) and bob cesca are the only liberal bloggers i would kinda jump off a bridge with…”
***
Have a good trip…
Wow! What world did I step inside?
Keep talking (let the world hear you) it’s priceless…
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »thanks…
yes….
in all fairness i said “kinda”… (hehe)
matt and others have exposed your thoughts for what they are, the same bullshit that people stapling tea bags to signs possess. no need to repeat the obvious in my comments.
In response to another comment. See in context »“But virtually every economist I talked to of late told me that a massive government stimulus is the classic prescription for this kind of economic emergency. In fact there was near-unanimity on the point that the Obama stimulus was too small, by about half.”
I hear/read this a lot–”every economist I talked to…”–and I wonder why it’s never specified WHAT KIND of economist has been talked to. Are you talking to followers of Keynes? It’s akin to, were we obligated to make an important philosophical decision, saying you’d “talked to a lot of philosophers and they all say we have to do _____” without specifying whether you’re talking to Hegelians, Nietzscheans, pragmatists (of whatever kind).
(Note: I am not a supporter of the teabag “protests”.)
In response to another comment. See in context »So, not to respond to a question with another question, but I’ll do it anyway:
Now that Obama’s in power, where are the Gitmo protesters? Gitmo’s still open. Where are the Iraq protesters? Obama’s broken that promise as well. Where’s the change? His cabinet is all Clinton retreads and hacks. Where’s the bipartisanship? Where is the media outrage so evident and profuse during the reign of Dubya? You may claim (even rightfully) that turnabout is fair play, but so can Republicans… If you follow any of Glenn Reynolds’ coverage of the protests, you’ll find that it’s not just angry white male plutocrats taking an extended lunch hour, and that the “PorkBusters” (fiscally-responsible and -concerned folks of all parties) have been complaining loudly since the Medicare prescription drug plan and NCLB.
I just think it’s funny that the mainstream media has decided to ignore the protests from the end of 2008 up until 15 Apr, and then all of a sudden they turned their venom on them.. It’s as if there were a vast left-wing journalism mailing list on which orders to the army of Gramscian organs went out with the goal of ridiculing and denigrating average Americans with day jobs…
Don’t forget sir, that dissent is patriotic! NPR told me so, at least before 1/20/2009…
(I wonder if I can find a “Dissent is Patriotic” T-Shirt used.. There must be a ton of ‘em, but they probably reek of patchouli, lentil farts and reefer…)
Matthew;
I’ll answer the rest of your questions when you answer mine.
But in brief: you can’t point the finger at the Porkbusters and say there, see, there was Republican dissent during the Bush years. That would be like Democrats pointing to Naderites to beg off responsibility for Clinton’s policies. Because again, what percentage of Republican voters didn’t vote for Bush and the Republican majority? Only a tiny, tiny percentage. The rest of you all voted for this stuff year after year. I ask again: what percentage of the teabaggers voted for Bush and the Republican majority? Was it 95%? More? Until you can explain that, the teabagger protests will seem to be what they are: hypocritical and foolish.
With all these comments, I really haven’t learned a whole lot about anything I didn’t already know.What possible value is there to fighting over who was screaming for what and when? You’re getting sucked into the same of crap that gets nobody anywhere.
How ’bout thinking about this as it actually matters – in order to pull off the stimulus package (which, I will go on record as supporting), we’ve had to print a pretty health amount of money. Most reports have the printing adding some 25% more money into the system. At some point down the road, when the economy has recovered, there is gong to need to be a mechanism to “sop up” all this cash. So far, the only one I can see (along with many economist), is inflation. So, while I think the government is doing what is required right now, I think we have to start developing some ideas on how we are going to take all this excess cash out of the system before we get the whiplash effect of nasty inflation. Any ideas on this?
Rick…good thinking and good questioning.
One might say that strong economic growth could sop up much of the huge capital infustion in years to come EXCEPT that the primary spending years are age 46-50 with saving happening after that AND the height of the baby boom is just now moving past that 50ish age. Thus, the inflation scenario appears the most likely.
Given the pain of runaway inflation, perhaps a better path is for us to stop throwing money at this and a whole host of other problems.
In response to another comment. See in context »Well Rick I think we all know what the answer to the “sopping” up the excess cash issue will be, and that will be higher taxes. The trick IMO is to make sure those higher taxes are placed on those who can afford them most, getting rid of the tax based corporate welfare policies in place at the moment would make a great start.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, IMO, it’s much worse than that. Not quite sure who it’s worse for though, perhaps it’s worse for everybody.
China has been ’sopping up’ US inflation for over a decade, and they’re most likely going to be unable to continue pretty soon, especially with more and more money dropped from helicopters.
Reading coverage (particularly Mr. Taibbi’s, which I enjoy even as I am a bit peeved at some of the snark in recent posts, comes off as a bit condescending) of the events leading up to this global fustercluck, it seems to me that basically everyone short of a few PhDs was a rube, including Alan Greenspan. And the Super Rube? China.
In the immortal words of a great American philosopher: “You f–ked up!! You trusted us!! Hey, make the best of it!” The balance of trade scam with China makes Rockefeller Center look like a cake raffle. Question is, will China be able to shift to a local consumer economy able to hire its rural poor into factories without taking American monopoly money, or will they have to continue the charade in order to prevent domestic unrest?
Or not.
In response to another comment. See in context »But they’re not acting any differently now than they had since 9/11, when this Goldwater-style paranoia began to inhabit the right — or not to play the oldies too often, but this willing urge toward paranoia, this paranoid style.
A fundamental change since the Clinton years was the loss of consistency, in the sense that they could have things one way and be taken seriously, and have them the other way and be taken seriously — and in fact, for one odd example, could stand on an inverted trash barrel shrieking about an International Semitic Death Conspiracy (Ishmaeli version), and for years have practically no one in the mainstream criticize such a position as extreme.
Anyway, that’s how the boar got his tusks.
And besides Iracible..
Where was that “liberal” media (you know, MSNBC/NY Times) during your screams of maddness about the Bush/Cheney spending spree? You would think they would have pounced all over a chance to bash Dubya. Truth is, you were snowed by your own party. They spent ENORMOUS amounts of our money (and also made themselves richer), stripped down the constitution and created backdoor policies to allow torture, all under the guise that really bad people in turbins and robes were hiding in your yards waiting to blow away you and your children. They mastered the art of distraction through Fox “news”, and you fell for it. Or worse, as you say, you were aware of this, and apparently held your tea bagging parties in the privacy of your own basements. Dems are equally as responsible for letting it happen too. They sat for years in the corner with dunce caps on, allowing themselves to be shamed by the right into questioning their patriotism if they disagreed with Bush. Remember that, remember when folks who disagreed with Bush were told to leave the country if we didn’t like it, and to sit down and shut up? Now, there is a giant mess on many levels to clean up, and there is a man in office who has to make some very hard decisions about the direction we need to take to clean it up.
So you guys can keep tea-bagging each other all you want, bitching about spending, keep scaring folks about the nasty socialist/communist/facist/hitleresque guy in power. But keep in mind, those two proud votes you cast for George W. Bush and klan provided the hot water for your brew.
The deficit created by Republicans is the primary feature of their scheme to create a “good” reason why social programs like universal health care have to be delayed another generation. It’s Politix 101. Spend on things your party wants in such a way that there will be as few resources as possible left available for your successors in the other party.
By the way, how many MSM interviews of Obama in the transition did you hear where the question posed just flatly assumed the impossibility of financing all (or any!) social service programs he’d campaigned for? Hell, I heard Jim Lehrer take that line and he’s one of the fairest, smartest guys in the news.
Matt, I was serving my country during this time period where were you. While many of us in the military did not support the Iraq war we follow orders given by the civilan government. I wrote my representatives in Congress complaining about the excessive spending and nonending deployments. Now that I am no longer on active duty I can make my voice heard a little louder. One primary difference between the Bush spending and Obama spending is the purpose. Most of the Bush spending was to support the war effort. Obama;s primary goal is to give more funds to the “less fortunate”. I object to the administration’s rapid spending and will contiue to write to my congressional representatives. However, since most of them are from the Democratic Party I don’t see them objecting to Obama’s spending spree. My recommendation to you is take some classes in economics, research past finanical crisis and then write and tell me that Obama’s increase in spending is the correct path to recovery. My major is economics and I know for certain that unless we change course financially our country will soon be bankrupt.
“Most of the Bush spending was to support the war effort.”
Nope, not true. Even if you exempt the military and homeland security, Bush still spent more than most of his predecessors. We didn’t get much from it, because it was largely nonsense corporate welfare, but…
In response to another comment. See in context »Sam–
You couldn’t be more wrong. Under Bush spending increased across the board, especially in the areas of non-defense discretionary spending. Federal subsidies increased 30 percent between 2000 and 2008, with the most dramatic increases coming in the area of agricultural subsidies (Bush added nearly 70 new subsidy programs, going from 133 in 2000 to 206 in 2008) and Dept. of the Interior programs (Bush added 89 new programs). You want to know the one federal agency that saw a net decline in subsidy programs during the Bush years? Veterans Affairs.
How about pork programs? In 2000, the last year of Clinton’s term, congress passed $17.8 billion worth of pork projects. By 2006, the last year of the Republican majority, that number was $27.3 billion. During this time, Bush never once vetoed a spending bill — making him the first president in recent history to have that distinction.
Defense spending did go up under Bush, and was a major factor in the deficits. But there were three other huge programs that sent deficits skyrocketing — actually four, if you count the tax cuts. The first was No Child Left Behind, a program you would probably call aiding the “less fortunate.” Thanks to that program, education spending when adjusted for inflation went up about 18% a year from 2001 through 2008.
The second was the Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, the biggest single expansion of the Medicare Program in the program’s history. I suppose you would call that aiding the “less fortunate” too, although in reality it was a handout to pharmaceutical firms. Its ten-year cost will be about $700 billion, if not more.
The third was Bush’s agricultural policies. In addition to the subsidies outlined above, Bush’s Farm Bills massively increased agricultural spending. The 2002 Farm bill left DOA spending at twice 1990 levels.
So unless you count agricultural, pharmaceutical, and educational spending as spending on the war, you’re wrong. Moreover, if you were against the war, how do you not consider the spending on the war “waste”? It’s not waste when we invade and occupy an entire country for five years with a force of 140,000 men or more to respond to a nonexistent WMD threat? Are you really going to argue that it is MORE wasteful to increase the budget for special needs education in the United States than it is to spend $40 million building a non-functional prison in Khan Bani Saad, or $72 million to build a non-functional police academy in Baghdad? All in support of a war that should never have happened? That was “good” spending?
Meanwhile, with regard to the Obama budget — I’m assuming you’re against the 4% increase in military spending? As for most of his budget going to aid the “less fortunate,” I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I looked at the budget and found just a few programs that might be construed as outright aid to the poor: one is a $20 billion increase in the Food Stamp program, the other a temporary increase in Social Security and a $25 billion bump to the VA (which I’m sure you’re against). The rest of it, overwhelmingly, is public-works stuff: money for a high speed rail program, a grid modernization program, a drinking water program, a revamping of federal buildings to make them more energy efficient, broadband access programs, and so on. There’s no welfare, no AFDC, nothing like that. Or maybe you call Pell Grant increases aid to the less fortunate? I can see maybe the child health care plan (CHIP) falling under your bad list — except that this was a Bush program that Obama is just reauthorizing. So where exactly is your gripe? Is it the 2.9 percent pay increase for soldiers?
In response to another comment. See in context »“Under Bush spending increased across the board” And a lot less got done! Unless of course you consider killing 10s of thousands arabs an accomplishment.
In response to another comment. See in context »There you go, getting all factual again – good luck with that. Facts are useless when the coin of the realm is hyperbolic opinion.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, picturing you with salty balls in your mouth is not longer working! Help!
No matter how big or small, harry or shaven, regular or misshapen, there is no variety of testicles that by virtue of imagining them encased in your lips makes your writing intelligible or entertaining. Am I doing something wrong?
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, picturing you with salty balls in your mouth is no longer working! Help!
No matter how big or small, harry or shaven, regular or misshapen, there is no variety of testicles that by virtue of imagining them encased in your lips makes your writing intelligible or entertaining. Am I doing something wrong?
In response to another comment. See in context »“am I doing something wrong?”
setting the standard for yourself even lower?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Taibbi has three: But the real reason nobody takes the teabaggers seriously is that they have no answers to several [...]
Matt, one thing I would be wary of is that a few of these people really are of the Ron Paul/anarchocapitalist camp. At the tea party I snooped in on, most were of the rural/suburban “REAL AMERICA” heartland set that did run to the ballot box to vote for Bush for 8 years, but there are also some real anarchocapitalist wingers out there, too.
Matt,
Bravo! You hit it on the head!
As my late colleague Ed Hart, of Financial New Network used to joke, “Republican deficits good. Democrat deficits bad!”
Let me make a point, however, about the spending increases, or ballooning deficits, from Bush 43 to Obama 1.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the bursting of the stock market bubble (2000-2001) urgent stimulus was needed to prevent a full-blown recession and potentially deflationary decline. (Then, as now.) The $1.4 trillion tax cut and the then historic reduction in official interest rates was necessary and effective in restoring the economy to full potential. While reasonable people can argue about the propriety of Gulf War II (and remember we were still dazed and confused by 9/11), the explosion in defense spending added fuel to the economic fire in what was not only an economic crisis, but a geo-political one as well. The unintended consequences of the massive surge in stimulus (tax cuts, rate cuts and spending surges)were real estate, credit, commodity and emerging market bubbles of historic proportions.
In the wake of these bubbles bursting anew, we are back where we were in 2002 … staring at a deflationary recession, or worse. As a consequence, deficits and debt don’t matter … for now. It’s a no win situation. If we don’t spend and stimulate the economy collapses and deficits explode for want of tax revenues. If we do throw open the fiscal spigot, debt and deficits ecplode, but at least we might grow out of it. Indeed, once the economy stabilizes, we can then move to withdraw the stimulus and restore some fiscal sanity, not just through tax hikes, which could be dangerous with a recovery as fragile as this one. But with other forms of fiscal discipline, as well. An ill-timed tax hike here could simply deal a devastating blow to the economy.
As for our children, we, the children of “The Greatest Generation” did not inherit the deficit and debt burdens that followed World WarII. We grew out of those fiscal burdens and our economy, as well as the world economy, eventually, normalized.
As for tea parties, they are juvenile reactions to political change, not economic reality.
It should have been withdrawn at the point at which it became clear the economy was in recovery.
Similarly today, massive stimulus is required and deficits and debts
sorry about the previous typos!!!ignore the last two lines … still learning how to re-edit after posting!!!
Ron Insana
In response to another comment. See in context »Ron,
I would like you to debate with Neil Cavuto on this claim that you make:
“As for tea parties, they are juvenile reactions to political change, not economic reality.”
There are few people on TV I hold in higher regard than Neil C. —He has mega Integrity in my book.
—iChef Politikos
(I’ve also admired your work.)
In response to another comment. See in context »Teaparties AREN’T juvenile reactions?
How else would you characterize a group of angry people who just got slaughtered in two consecutive elections protesting taxes, on tax day, when 95% of Americans got a tax cut?
Now let’s throw in the fact that these people are carrying signs questioning where the President they opposed, was born, while the guy they supported was admittedly born in Panama.
Add to that the fact that the President whose policies they alternately call “fascism” and “socialism” has been in office for 3 months, and has to face the greatest US economic collapse since the Great Depression….
Juvenile? Aw shucks. Who would say that?
In response to another comment. See in context »So this is your angle? Get trounced in your argument time and time again and then say, “Well, I bet you wouldn’t make (insert Fox News anchor here) look as wrong and ignorant as you made me!”
You also realize that Neil Cavuto is a complete and total douche, yes?
In response to another comment. See in context »Russ for someone who has ZERO sense of humor you are pretty funny.
My arguments trounced? When and where did this happen? Because you said so?
Actually, you might have a reading comprehension issue that shouldn’t be made fun of.
I was asking Ron Insana to debate with Neil Cavuto on an interesting topic. I get it, You’ve made up your mind about everything and everybody so debate wouldn’t interest you.
So I didn’t make any angle statement that you accuse me of redirecting.
By the way you appear to be very ANGRY as a lot of people in Matt Taibbi’s world seem to be—most clowns do, that’s why they wear the makeup. It’s a little sad…
—iChef Politioks
In response to another comment. See in context »“By the way you appear to be very ANGRY as a lot of people in Matt Taibbi’s world seem to be”
Um, dude, I hate to shatter your “worldview”, but we aren’t the ones having tea parties.
Should I be angry? I am currently laid off indefinitely from my job, because when the economy collapsed, through no fault of my own, so did my company’s business. My famliy’s current sole source of income is my wife’s relatively low paying job, and my Unemployment Compensation (read “socialism”).
In response to another comment. See in context »I couldnt agree more! why americans havent protested these crooks (ALLL of them) republicans and democrats is beyond me! when americans wake up and STOP standing up for them and stand up AGAINST them all, then and only then will we get rid of these crooks! good question though! take care
[...] Worst Tgirsch echoes Matt Taibbi and asks three reasonable questions. Being one who likes to “take the bait”, I’ll [...]
Ron
“If we do throw open the fiscal spigot, debt and deficits explode, but at least we might grow out of it. ”
Grow our way out? With what? We have seen the end-game with debt stimulated consumer based GDP growth and it’s not working out to well right now.
As the large swaths of the country goes through a period of forcible de-leveraging (bankruptcy) what is the restructuring going to be comprised of? We managed to take down the entire world with us, so our export capability is limited unless we plan on competing with China.
So when you envision growth in GDP, what do you see?
[...] Matt Taibbi takes a bat to the Tea Baggers’ arguments (and as one of the best investigative journalists around, he’s generally worth reading). The comments are also worth reading, if a little maddening. [...]
Dear Mister Matt,
Oh you have three questions, do you? Well I can also paste them right here, and then answer them, READ THE CONSTITUTION:
1. If you’re so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?
Tea parties have been held for centuries, every afternoon at tea time, long before your George Bush Jr. was president. English kings loved their tea parties. Queens, too.
2. If you’re so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?
That was when Republicans were the president. Please get some beer goggles!
3. If you’re so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?
You know who else doesn’t eat pork? The terrorists who blew up New York on September the 11th. Think about that next time you so casually use the word “pork.”
Ken… Have you ever tried reading what you post out loud? Do you even realize that you are borderline incoherent? Seriously, let’s take a look at what you just wrote:
You started off by saying READ THE CONSTITUTION, but then mentioned nothing else about it. What part of the Constitution? Read it for what? Nothing you said after that points to what you would have him read it for. This is only the beginning of your incoherent babbling.
Next example:
“1. If you’re so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?
Tea parties have been held for centuries, every afternoon at tea time, long before your George Bush Jr. was president. English kings loved their tea parties. Queens, too.”
Clearly he wasn’t referring to people drinking tea at any place, at any time. For you to even respond like this makes me wonder you’re 1) fucking with us intentionally by making retarded jokes that make zero sense or 2) you have some deficit in your thinking and processing abilities. In an effort to defend what is apparently your position, that the tea parties are relevant and that you actually were protesting the Bush era spending, all you did was make yourself look absurd. A second grader could have mounted a more coherent, mature, and plausible response than what you posted.
Next point:
“2. If you’re so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?
That was when Republicans were the president. Please get some beer goggles!”
Wow, yes, that was when “REPUBLICANS WERE THE PRESIDENT”, as you put it. Do I even need to go into the grammatical and tense issues here? Do you talk like this? If so then how do you hold down a job if people can never understand what the fuck it is you’re saying? He asked what your response to the first bailout was, but your answer was “that was when republicans were in office”. Yeah, that is a statement of what the situation was at the time, but it doesn’t even come remotely close to addressing what the question was. Yes, Bush was a Republican, he was in office. We know. Now tell us what your reaction to his initial massive bailout was. Or are you going to tell me “the sky are blue”?
And finally:
“3. If you’re so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?
You know who else doesn’t eat pork? The terrorists who blew up New York on September the 11th. Think about that next time you so casually use the word “pork.””
Do you even know what pork is in this context? It’s the extemporaneous spending that’s tacked onto bills for pet projects of lawmakers. He didn’t mention eating pork and he didn’t mention terrorism. This has zero to do with terrorism. In fact, if 9/11 and terrorism never existed, then you guys could still be having this exact conversation, since there is zero overlapping issues between the two things that need to be factored in. Then you go on to claim that he is casually throwing around the word “Pork”. This is what you are saying: that since some Muslims flew planes into buildings and killed people 8 years ago, and Muslims also don’t eat pig meat, that we shouldn’t use the word Pork and that we can’t even discuss congressional spending because the term “pork” is used differently in that context? Not only did you once again show that any capacity for logic and rational thought are far and beyond your means, but you blatantly disrespected the people who died on that day and their families by trying to somehow tie Matt’s use of the word “pork” to describe spending into alluding to the 9/11 attacks and thus shaming him for doing it.
This is all too common in conservative rhetoric, from what I’ve seen. So often their commentators don’t even make a damn lick of sense. They don’t stay on topic and they don’t even know what they are saying. Yeah a rational discussion of issues would be nice, but when I can get a more gratifying and enlightening discussion out of a rock than an ignorant asshole like this Ken guy, it makes it awfully hard to hold their positions, and the movement as a whole, in any esteem whatsoever.
In response to another comment. See in context »Russ- I can’t tell if your post is funnier if your tongue is in your cheek, or if you’re serious.
In response to another comment. See in context »iiandyiiii,
I think Russ is quite serious, which, as I keep pointing out, is why there is a huge disconnect in communications. Very scary…
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »Russ,
Ken’s comments were meant to be funny!
Can you explain what you mean by ignorant in this paragraph below that you wrote?
“Yeah a rational discussion of issues would be nice, but when I can get a more gratifying and enlightening discussion out of a rock than an ignorant asshole like this Ken guy, it makes it awfully hard to hold their positions, and the movement as a whole, in any esteem whatsoever.”
Oh, before you write a ten page derogatory essay about me—I don’t really want you to tell me what you mean.
—It’s called a rhetorical question (a question asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.)
I’m making fun of how you tell someone, obviously joking, that they are borderline incoherent.
Thanks for playing!
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »1. He was trying to be funny? Either he isn’t funny or else you guys think that bringing up the deaths of 9/11 to prove some nonsensical point is humor. Either way his statement sucks, and I could go as far as saying that anyone who likes his humor also sucks.
2. By ignorant I meant not knowing anything. Did you read his post? Did it make sense? No. Even if it was an attempt at humor, it made almost zero sense. There weren’t coherent thoughts or complete sentence structure. There was no relevance. Nothing. I imagine a person would have to know next to nothing to be able to accomplish that.
I’m not trying to be mean, but if you want to be taken seriously then don’t do what Ken, and now you, are doing.
In response to another comment. See in context »All you people keep talking about is admitting your mistake as the way to Nirvana and then you will be taken seriously.
So. Russ, just admit your mistake—you didn’t realize that Ken was joking, but don’t keep defending your point. (it’s your anger talking…)
PS
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t say I thought what Ken wrote was funny, but I was able to realize he was trying to be—which makes you funny.
Yikes. I’m about 100% sure Ken was making a parody post.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know who else discovered lines that I was planning to use, and would do them up halfway in comment sections in the manner of a man eating half a pickle and returning it to the jar?
Hitler, that’s who.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dear Ken Layne,
An Internet publication is no place for your brand of offbeat vulgar sex comedy. Please write 10,000 words about why (1) Russ G. is correct and (2) you should be in prison.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt:
This is meant as a personal communication – off blog, if you will treat it as such. If not … well it is your blog!
I’ve read your books, your work in R.S., seen your videos, follow your blog …
I am (the word is ) fascinated by the way your brain works. The BIG thing about you — is your work is extraordinarily (and refreshingly) different from all the left/right, democrat/republican, knee jerk slants everywhere else. Your bullshit detector seems to be an equal opportunity excoriator!
Thanks for the drink!
And for reducing my own knee jerk reactions by ( oh, at least) 90%.
Jim
p.s. On the current topic – I’d think that most Teabaggers would readily admit to being asleep at the wheel of Bush II – it’s more like they’ve been startled awake by the reach of what’s going on. Not “hypocrites” so much as just very late to the party. But, if they don’t admit this – you’re bullshit detector is right on.
Matt, your true color is blue, as in blue state. And, you need to brush up on your econo-terminology. To answer your posted questions:
First of all, “tea-baggers” is a sophomoric epithet, not worthy of a writer who is supposed to be a legitimate journalist. Second, why don’t you learn the difference between the deficit and national debt. Even under the great borrower Obama, the deficit is not $4 trillion. Under Bush, the maximum deficit was around $450 billion, so even if the deficit were that large all 8 years–and it was not–the national debt would have been increased by less than $4 trillion. Obama is already way past the $4 trillion mark, and he has been president for less than 100 days. Third, we WERE outraged by the Bush/Paulson bailouts; you can ask Sen. Charles U. Schumer and Cong. John Hall about the emails I sent to them back then if you do not believe me. Fourth, we WERE and ARE outraged by republican pork. Why do you think they lost the Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008?
However, Matt, when it comes to deficits and pork (and power grabs and prostration before petty potentates), the republicans are pikers. Put that in your pipe and puff it.
P.s. The tea parties were not just about bailouts, pork and taxes. The tea parties, and the movement they represent, are about the ongoing massive expansion of the federal government, and erosion of individual freedom that used to be guaranteed by the Constitution.
The first words of the Constitution are “We, the People of the United States of America,” not “We, the Congress,” or “We, the President.”
deskates, you haven’t answered Matt’s questions.
Saying you were angry and fired off a few e-mails doesn’t get to the point: where were the tea parties? The 8 years of the Bush administration included the biggest expansion of the federal government since the Great Society (between the creation of Homeland Security and the prescription drug benefit alone) and abrogation of individual rights since I can’t even think of how far back, probably the McCarthy era. Where were the tea parties? Shouldn’t they have spontaneously sprung up after every pork- and entitlement-laden budget? Perhaps their absence can be attributed to the fact that these are simply anti-Obama protests launched by an increasingly marginalized minority group that can’t stand the fact that they no longer get to choose the pork and entitlements.
In response to another comment. See in context »Irascible –
I would love to have a coherent conversation with a rational individual holding opposing viewpoints to my own. My current problem, what really scares me, is the failure of many right-wing mouthpieces to demonstrably and firmly distance themselves from the “crackpots.” When someone calls in to a local conservative radio show and expresses very similar views to the “Tea Party” arguments I’m hearing, and in the same breath refers to Obama as a “crack-smoking mack-daddy,” I expect other conservatives to slap that person down. Instead, there’s muffled laughter. As long as more moderate conservatives allow the extremists to shout louder than they do, it’s pretty hard to find the sane one in the bunch.
Mcmc,
You would probably also agree that this happens on the other side—would you not?
This Column is a perfect example, Air America is even a more perfect example.
I came in here not even realizing where I was and I was getting attacked here (and even on other sites for being bullshit.) My perspective is that nobody even gave me a chance here and your perspective is that’s what happens on the conservative republican side. (it happens both ways)
I just commented on Rick Unger’s column and was expecting the same treatment as here and after Rick responded I realized I wasn’t in the same forum and that I need to tone down my rhetoric there. I didn’t need to repel attacks, counter-attack, be obnoxious or condescending, AND THEN go to my points.
I can probably have dialog there, where we might not agree, we can at least here the point of the other person and maybe come to a better understanding.
Here, you have to repel the attack, counter attack, be obnoxious or condescending, and eventually try to get your points in.
However, after you do all the first things I mention nobody with an opposing view is listening—they’re just repelling, and loading up their next salvo, with the same results. (goes both ways)
I also get it being irascible is catchy Simon Cowell is loved for his irascibility. Howard Cosell the same thing.
Make sense?
—iChef Politikos
In response to another comment. See in context »Irasciblechef.com
You complain about being attacked here? Let’s examine the first statement you made, in your first post on this blog:
“The reason you are having such a problem understanding what this is all about is because you believe in your partyline regardless of when they step out of bounds.”
Now tell me why you are being attacked.
You right wingers call foul anytime you are called on the ridiculous statements you make. Somehow you equate that to being “silenced.”
Run over to rightwing uber website freerepublic, and make a comment that doesn’t fit with the volks-speak, and you know what will happen?
Your comment will be pulled in minutes, and you will be banned for life.
Here you are allowed to make whatever statement you like, and that statement will be responded to.
So tell me again what your complaint is?
In response to another comment. See in context »Just wanted to add some black and white figures to this tax and spend, or borrow and spend BS.
The net borrowings at the end of the Fiscal Year 2007 was 450 billion.
At the end of fiscal year 2008 ( 9/30/2008) the net borrowings exploded to 1.13 Trillion dollars.
When the Teabaggers are challenged on this, they immediately point to a D congress despite the fact that budgets originate from the Office of the President. Yes the House could have shut the Govt down but look how well that worked for Gingrich.
I don’t particularly dislike conservatives. I just hate the hypocrisy the merry band of brothers in hate seem to spout off without a hint of shame.
Lets face it, The D’s were frightened by the GOP. If the budgets weren’t approved they would be accused of killing the troops and variety of other transgressions.
One note: I don’t bother with the stated deficit from the politicians. I go straight for the net borrowings as the accounting system the US is on has remarkable similarities to your basic lemonade stand accounting the difference being the lemonade stand system would pass muster with a CPA, the US system wouldn’t.
It’s kind of a hybrid cash/accrual system. Accrual only when it makes the politicians look good. The only relationship it has with GAAP accounting is the large gAAAAHp between BS and reality.
If an accountant were to render an opinion,like they do for public companies, it would be a classic “going concern” letter. The kind that makes investors in public companies flee in panic to the exits and makes the short sellers who warned about it, sometimes for years, look like they know something investors probably should have known before putting their hard dollars down. Lets not forget that it wasn’t Bethany McClain at Fortune who turned Enron down on her own analysis. Her sources were those evil short sellers.
The idea that the nuts who are putting on this tea bag crap and blaming Obama for a a country that jumped into the third world shark before he was elected, is nothing short of a bunch of small minded people being stirred up by the wealthy conservatives who thought having the keys to the treasury was the Cat’s pajamas.
Now they are trying anything and everything to get them back. The Teabag followers are willing and able to do their bidding. They gain nothing personally or for the country if they are successful. It is , however, guaranteed that they will be seen as cause and effect for the demise of the country.
Want proof? Who wouldn’t I’m not sure about links here . I’ll try one. If the post looks like crap..well maybe preview will come in version 2.0.
As far as Republican responsibility for the Bush years goes, you have to look beyond even votes and financial support for Republican campaigns. What makes me most frustrated about right-wing attempts to disavow Bush’s policies is that right up until the end – as in, the final few months of his presidency – the right-wing would aggressively and vocally attack anyone who dared to question or criticize Bush’s actions as “un-American.” They didn’t just support Bush, they attempted to suppress any alternative views or input that may have helped correct the excesses of his disastrous presidency. Any Republican who admits that Bush was a terrible president has to admit that the right-wing made him so by demonizing the left (broadly-speaking, meaning anyone from Lincoln Chaffee to the Dixie Chicks and beyond) and the media and all the other checks and balances put into place to mitigate such a horrendous performance from the Executive branch.
Further note to point 1: if you’re so horrified by debt and spending, why aren’t more/any/at least one of you writing Congress to cancel your tax cut? Roll that back, and you save a quick $300B.
I think a great question is who paid for the million teabags?
If this is a “grassroots” “nonpartisan” movement, then who wrote the check for 1 million teabags, and a truck to deliver them?
[...] Good questions for the teabaggers — who, of course, are utterly unable to provide any answers…. « Saturday Super Special: Out of My Mind for 25 April 2009 [...]
Matt,
This isn’t productive nor helpful. You are complaining about the same double standard that teabaggers are also complaining about. Your complaint is: Why weren’t we protesting Bush when he was contributing to the debt and spending the same way Obama is now, but all of a sudden when the D’s are in power we are having tea party protests and such. Our complaint is the same: Why have you stopped complaining all of a sudden when the D’s are in power and Obama is now contributing to the debt and spending in the same way that Bush did?
Do you see the conundrum? We are being more loyal to our parties than to the country. When did the party become more important than the country? Do we pledge allegiance to the party or to the republic? Arguing over the double standard doesn’t help. So drop the double standard whine because both sides can find an equal amount of what the other side is doing that they should’ve been doing before or what they were doing before that they should still be doing now. The bottom line is that the buck stops with us. The people are the only true defenders of the constitution. If we don’t get over our partisan bickering and focus on the nation together we will all sink with this ship of debt.
BTW- I don’t understand why the term teabagger is considered to be degrading. It’s actually quite appropriate. The reason for the coining of the label was because everyone was going to send a teabag to D.C. on tax day. So what’s the big deal? Are we back in 3rd grade again snickering anytime the teacher says “Uranus”?
Yes, I am a teabagger.
Go ahead……. *snicker*
(ok that is kind of funny)