Republicans on Government Cheese
On balance, Brown described himself as a “fiscal conservative” and a social moderate — talking about how his mother was “on welfare for a time” and what it was like “getting the blocks of cheese and worrying about how we’re going to pay the bills.”
Very funny bit in the news today — Scott Brown giving some interviews, turns out he’s pro-choice and that his mother was actually on welfare once. It took Mitch McConnell about nine seconds to apologize for him. Emphasis here is mine:
He’s gonna be an independent voice for Massachusetts. We expect that. Republicans from the northeast are not exactly like Republicans from the south or the west, we understand that. We have a big tent party. And we’re thrilled to have him.
Freaking hilarious. BTW, can’t wait for the big teabagger hoedown in Nashville this weekend. Wouldn’t it be great if they had carnival-style “Purity test” booths around the conference halls?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The cheese stops here:
Come to Ventura County California where police and firemen put in over 500,000 hours of overtime per year…well over 1000 hours of overtime per day…..the public sector eceonmy is booming while private sector lose jobs, homes, families, lives, healthcare
I live in L.A. and while I’ll agree with you on the police and firefighters…us teachers are hurting bad. REAL bad.
In response to another comment. See in context »Speaking of the “Teabagger” party In Nashville, I know how much the South enjoys their face painting booths at their gatherings so expect and Ann coulter face painting booth and perhaps a Sarah Palin one too.
Mr. Taibbi,
I am sure once he gets to Senate, his Republican mentors will get him straightened out. There is no room of any independent thinking the Republican Party. They have voted as a block with great success and they are not going to let some upstart ruin it.
Does your use of the term ‘teabagger’ mean that you do not view the ‘tea party’ protest movement as a credible effort to slow the taxing and spending binge of the government in Washington?
When they fuss about the pointless occupations in Japan and places like that, situations where our people receive no ROI whatsoever other than a few servicemen raping 12-year-old girls, they’d be on the right track and I’d be like, all the power to ‘em.
But they’d immediately be bullshitted by Fox that Okinawa and crap like that is all about “security.”
“Security.” Know what, I’m totally fucking sick of that word. They should change that one line in the national anthem to “land of the total pussies.”
In response to another comment. See in context »The only thing big about the G.O.P. tent is how many viewpoints it excludes. If you’re narrowminded, punitive, irrational, fact challenged and imbecilic — you’re in.
If you take your historical instruction from Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or the Texas Board of Education — you can be the Ringmaster.
So step right up, folks! Get your popcorn, your peanuts, your propaganda. But before entering, make sure your white sheets are appropriately hemmed as you’ll be thigh high in elephant dung.
And the Democratic tribe is so much more inclusive of divergent views?
Last time I checked, the “Blue Dog” Democrats are just as hated by their own tribe as the “RINOs” are hated by the Republican tribe.
Say what you will about the teabaggers, but watching the news lately, it seems they’re making the incompetent Democrat tribe their teabagees..
BTW, there are lots of libertarians and conservatives who decried what Bush was doing (whether it be wars, spending, fatcat cuts, etc). However, nobody was (or is) listening, they only care about the battles between the tribes, blood and circuses, because working in that system is where the money is.
In response to another comment. See in context »But consider the alternative. More and more government encroachment on every aspect of life, and, alas, massively incompetent, heavy-handed busy bodies of a government at that. The only way to vote against big government anymore is to vote Republican. Blame it on the Democrats. The only way left to oppose socialism in this country is to vote with the nut jobs.
In response to another comment. See in context »The funny thing that no one seems to mention is that he supported the Massachusetts’ Universal Health Care Bill. So maybe he’s planning to filibuster the national health care bill on progressive grounds…or he’s just an opportunistic political hack. Either or.
Brown stands for the same thing that most D’s and R’s stand for – GETTING ELECTED. They really don’t have many goals beyond that.
[...] You still don’t realize how loathe the Repugs are to give up their latest shiny new toy [via True/Slant]: “He’s gonna be an independent voice for Massachusetts. We expect that. Republicans from [...]
This is why the two parties are obsolete. If you’re a fiscal-conservative/social moderate, you could be in either party. So what the fuck is the difference?!? I think both parties could use a little more purity.
Think about it he has to start running now for 2012 it’s just around the corner. He ran a slick campaign. Pro choice? It will take more than that to get re-elected in ‘12. It will be interesting to see how much he really is “his own man”
Nobody knows why this man (Brown) won the election in Massachusetts. Not even Taibbi understands it. One thing for sure is this: Martha Coakley was a smarmy bought-and-paid-for shill. The one question that remains is: Will Brown become a bought-and-paid-for shill too? All of you clowns making predictions should join the the circus. Matt’s use of the vulgar expression “teabagger’ is reminiscent of a fair-weather black friend turning all radical ‘n shit when his black pals are around. Matt can try to come off as a new thinker, but he has pledge allegiance to the same ‘ol, same ‘ol tired-ass democratic party BS by singing that part of their childish anthem. Sometimes Matt sounds no more intelligent than the neanderthal name-caller Keith Olbermann. Fuck Government!
leon,
I here you. It really irritates me to see Matt write so many intelligent and thoughtful pieces only to see him then try to marginalize the Tea Party movement. The tea party people are mad at government, so are you Matt. Why don’t you try to find agreement instead of trying to divide people.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m waiting for Matt’s response to my query regarding his use of the term ‘teabagger’ which, to me, aligns his attitude with the Olbermanns of the world. I read his critical response to David Brooks’ piece comparing ‘populism’ and ‘racism’ and thought it contained some interesting viewpoints. I don’t necessarily categorize the tea party activists as falling into either of these ‘isms’, although the progressives will invariably try to attribute these characteristics to their conservative political opponents along with a full measure of ‘hate’. I also liked what I have read so far of Matt’s article regarding the behaviors of Goldman Sachs over the decades. So I want to know why his views are so malignant toward those who have the most logically consistent views on who is doing the most damage to our great country, namely, government, wall street financial types, corporatists, and politicians, both elitists and populists.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m sure part of Matt’s problems with the “teabaggers” stem from the fact that they’re utter morons. My favorite moment recently was outside my local post office when two of them were yelling that Obama is a Muslim terrorst and “controlled by the Queen of England.” I wish I was making that up.
In response to another comment. See in context »Vulgar name-calling is just that: Vulgar name-calling. Your attempt to justify it is pathetic. Every political movement has an element that struggles to think clearly. Tarring the whole group with the thoughts and words of a few is disingenuous hyperbole. Those of you that believe in the Democratic or Republican parties and want to quibble about where we need to be on a continuum established by these whores don’t see the need for an alternative and are just singing the song of serfdom these elitists have been handing us through the media. The Tea Party movement has some wack participants, but the same ‘ol R, D, MSM line of BS is far more reprehensible.
In response to another comment. See in context »Leon,
I wonder where the teabaggers were over the last 8 years, when Bush was driving this country over the ledge? I don’t know why the taxation and spending protests happen only during democratic administrations, when it is known that its the republicans who drive up the deficits. Why didn’t the teabaggers protest during the Bush era? Also, if the government doesn’t spend in the time of a recession, who else will?
In response to another comment. See in context »Republicans are reprehensible whores. So are the democrats. Your point is well taken.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are fucking horrible human beings. But so is Rahm, and so is worthless parroting shill Harry Reid. So I agree with this post, and I hope it doesn’t get too ugly in here for the Tea Partiers. It’s either join with them (and remember, whether a few or several of them aren’t particularly well-read, at least they DO shit) or wait for populist rage to reach the point where the corporatists are forced to run the old psy-ops tactic of getting red and blue proles to war against each other (hint: Glenn Beck would want this too, and he’s part of the problem).
So welcome, Tea Partiers. Add http://www.dictionary.com to your Favorites and everything’ll be fine.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh yeah, McConell’s got it all figured out. All the Democrats up here in the NE are baby killers who hand out money to lazy people who can’t afford to buy food.
It was bound to start rubbing off on the Republicans.
All right, people. Before you freak out over the term teabagger, define exactly what is meant by “tea party movement.” It must have some set of core concepts beyond “fuck government” and “taxed enough already.” I think Taibbi’s point is that even Republicans can have once received welfare benefits or had abortions; perhaps Scott Brown’s mother had to terminate a pregnancy? But for sure it is NONE OF ANYBODY’S BUSINESS.
Bottom line: WTF does “tea party movement” mean other than “purifying” Republicans? That is why Scott Brown is “different” in Mitch McConnell’s words. So will they really let him in or not? Time will tell
Why don’t you tell us why the term is appropriate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Because you call yourselves that. I live in the DC area, and I saw it on more than a few signs. I’m sorry you chose something that comes with a sexual connotation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Because HE thinks it is….let it go.
In response to another comment. See in context »I thought it was funny!
Yeah, you can’t just go all Norquist on the concept of government, and expect rational people to get behind that. If that’s as nuanced as your political thinking gets, you’re just playing right into the Greedhead’s wheelhouse, and your “club” is gonna have pretty limited membership.
On government: everybody’s against shitty, wasteful government, and everybody’s against against lying, self-serving politicians. There’s no debate there. But many of us also know that we want good, smart government, partly to help balance the outsized money power that exists in this country right now. It’s called regulation, and we’ve just seen (once again) what happens when you turn that down too low. (A little history goes a long way in political thinking, and helps avoid making the mistakes of the past, over and over again.)
On taxes: nobody likes paying taxes (another non-debate), but, you know, I’d honestly be happy to pay my fair share if it was handled well, for important collective services like education, postal service, libraries, public transit, national parks, healthcare, social security, defense (a reasonable amount, mind you, not this empire building shit we have now), etc. All this stuff costs money, and the money’s got to come from somewhere. I willing to pay my fair share if it’s handled correctly. That takes good government, not no government. You gotta be real about this stuff. Your plan’s got to make some sense. You can’t just say you’re pissed and expect everyone to jump on that bandwagon.
I don’t see any real deep, sensible, rational thinking coming out of the Republican camp, or the Teabag camp, or the FoxNews camp right now. All of those groups are just carrying water for the Rich Boys Club. Definitely not for me!
One issue Matt has not taken up is campaign finance reform (CFR), which I believe is the root of many of the problems in Washington. The Supreme Court ruling the other week to eliminate restrictions of campaign contributions was a wimper in the media, and called out correctly by the President during the State of the Union speech. McCain declared CFR “dead” after the ruling. The Republican party has disgusted me to no end with their hypocritical positions of the last decade. This incestuous and corrupt relationship between politicians, the media, and lobbyists is why I read Matt’s blog. It is nice to get honest, genuine, and colorful assessment for a portion of the issues of the day, even if I don’t agree with him some of the time. So much else we read and see is contrived, meant more to manipulate than to inform, like Beck. The discretionary part of taxes are spent appeasing lobbyists/special interests and not to solve a given problem with a set of principles. The Democrats demonstrated this having the presidency and congressional majorities and still failing to enact significant legislation when they had the chance. I believe our taxes mostly go to money sponges who have bought (pennies on the dollar) access to the government with a few dollars trickling down ineffciently to areas of need. Take defense spending… last time I looked we spent 5 times as much than the next country on the list, nearly half a trillion a year. Why doesn’t anyone question that? Hell, I used to be pro-defense. Also, why haven’t we got Bin Laden? Are we really that inept or is there a reason we don’t want to get him? Forgive me for the Glenn Beck insinuation style of manipulation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not to do Matt’s dirty work for him, but there’s a pretty succinct answer to why he disdains the Teabagger movement at the end of his recent “American Politics is bought and paid for by the big banks” article. That teabaggers seem to spend a lot of energy on protesting the expansion of healthcare coverage and immigration, while not giving a whit for the actual causes of the financial collapse.
You think “Taxing” got us into this mess? Taxes have never been as low as they are today. Spending? Well, we are in a recession and sometimes Government is the only actor that can unfreeze the credit markets, but what the hell. The debt’s too high anyway. Where should we start cutting? The military-industrial complex is looking a bit fat these days…
And now that I think of it, just where were these noble, teabagging watchdogs when the last president signed the biggest Medicare expansion? And when he started not one, but two virtually aimless wars in the middle east? It seems that these guardians of fiscal rectitude only start piping up when there’s a democrat in office.
So the Tea-party group is going to have their confab over Super Bowl weekend? Will they have big screens showing the game?
Brown looked uncomfortable with Barbara Walter’s softball questions today. ……. and surprised she brought up the Cosmo photo. WAIT until they dig up up whatever else lies under all those Mass. rocks, does he actually think they are not going to go after him?
i think the tea party is ridiculous.
but it’s partially obama’s fault for not getting out there and explaining his policy initiatives, that a “grassroots” movement like this is getting coopted by republicans and dropouts from the neocon revolution.
these are genuinely good and sincere people who don’t understand how the economics of this country have been tilted out of the favor.
thus any progressive effort to push back against things like bush tax cuts for the rich are truly seen by them as taking money from the rich and successful and being given to the poor and the fuckups.
i do not agree with the tea party, and i despise people like the insane glenn beck getting paid millions of dollars to appeal to these people by arguing against everything obama does. (i firmly believe obama could enact into policy anything and everything glenn beck says should be, and he would not win a single vote from this movement or beck)
but it’s obama’s fault for not trying to reach out and explain how the upper 1% has 90% of the wealth from 10 years of tax cuts and obscene tax-funded subsidies and deregulation, and because of it, it really seems he’s doomed to be voted out of office by movements like the tea party, the very people he campaigned to protect.
You hit the nail right on the head! Giving the poor a break is one thing (long overdue, I might add). It’s the fuck-ups getting over that pisses so many people off. Going in front of the American people and explaining that are 2 sets of rules for walking away from your debt obligations (one rule for dirty private sector borrowers, and another more lucrative rule for those in the more virtuous public sector) is just one example of how morally bankrupt this man is. If college education is too costly, defaulting on borrowing is not a cure. It is a narcotic remedy.
In response to another comment. See in context »The tea party started off with some noble intentions – primarily to end wasteful government spending. It didn’t take too long for the movement to get high-jacked by those who were anti-government and nothing more. similar to this thread…
back to concepts involving cheese:
“I am riding the bicycle and I am on Route 31 in Monument, Massachusetts, on my way to Rutterburg, Vermont, and I’m pedaling furiously because this is an old-fashioned bike…
The rat takes the cheese
The rat takes the cheese,
Heigh-ho the merry-o,
The rat takes the cheese…
The cheese stands alone,
The cheese stands alone,
Heigh-ho the merry-o,
The cheese stands alone.”
Scott Brown, you gonna be the cheese? the rat? Will you stand alone or just lonely?
That being said, Coakley was a terrible candidate; the Dems got what they deserved on this one. Since I’m not a fan of this re-forming of health care, I won’t mind if Brown’s vote kills the bill. Maybe now the embattled Democrat reps will get scrappy and develop a health care bill that will be progressive and have a positive impact on out country.
Just to be clear: I don’t wish any ill will upon
In response to another comment. See in context »Brown or anyone else. It’s not the plot of the Cormier story that I’m thinking of, but Brown’s untested term as senator.
When are Tea Baggers posting on this topic going to explain where they were over the 8 years of the Bush Administration.
It’s a legitimate question yet one they run and hide from.
You want to be taken seriously then explain how you could allow the Tea Bag movement to be taken over by Right Wing special interest groups and where you were while Bush was running our country into the ground.
Until you stand up and answer the tough questions honestly your party is nothing more than a punchline.
Where were they during Bush? Well, we need to remember that Bush wasn’t a black man. I’m usually not the one to scream “racism!”, but many of these tea parties have an abnormally large amount of people that clearly hate Obama because he’s black.
But yes, your point makes absolute sense. Tax breaks for the rich, two endless wars, financial collapse, etc etc. and the “teabaggers” sat silent because…well, I don’t know why. I want the answers just like you.
In response to another comment. See in context »There was no Tea Party against the Bushie fascists because the Fox crowd wasn’t being agitated in that direction by corporate shills like Beck. They were content to let the rot just rot because O’Reilly and Beck made them think everything was in good hands.
Now, Beck is around, fake-crying and things like this, making with the agitprop, but it’s not only against Obama and the Democrats, it’s against people like the anti-Bailout protesters. You should check the guy out some time (my record is 5 minutes before the lying bullshit has me changing the channel to something-anything-else). He’s ladling out some serious fucking fascism.
That’s what progressives are up against, but it’s also what the Tea Partiers are up against. It’s friggin sad how hopelessly doomed this country is.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Tea Party movement is simply a manifestation of anger in this country towards big government. It really isn’t and shouldn’t be anything more. Tea Party people are not all people who supported Bush. Speaking for myself, I never voted for the man and didn’t like his policies either. What happened at the end of Bush term is what ignited the fire for the Tea Party movement. It was the egregious bailouts of corporate America, had Obama reversed course on bailout nation the Tea Party flame would have burned out. Instead he doubled down and it grew into a brush fire.
What happened at the END of the Bush administration? What about before that, I wonder?
That’s why the Teabag movement has no credibility — none, zero. Bush, having inherited a budget surplus, added $5 trillion to the national debt, not only with his two idiotic wars but with massive giveaways to his campaign donors like the Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, which in spirit and in execution was basically no different from Obama’s health care plan.
Bush was a rampant spender and the only reason the Teabagger crowd didn’t perceive him as such until the end was because you always saw Tom Delay pushing for “cuts” in things like food stamps and heating oil whenever they needed to find money to pay for this or that asinine pork program.
I remember sitting in congress and watching in the months after Katrina and listening to Republican congressmen one after another patting themselves on the back for making the “tough” decision to pass the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which sliced $70 billion in food stamps, college tuition aid and Medicaid.
But of course this wasn’t a net cut overall — they passed it in order to pay for a tax cut that primarily impacted top-bracket taxpayers, a tax cut that was pushed through despite the fact that the federal government was going to take a huge bath on Katrina emergency relief and unexpectedly high Iraq expenditures.
So the entire maneuver was deficit-neutral at best, and in reality added to the deficit, because all the “cuts” did was offset a blatant giveaway in the middle of a gigantic budget disaster.
But the Teabag crowd was happy because what they saw was a cut for “entitlements” — in other words, you cut $10 billion in food stamps for Mexicans, no one cares if you add $20 billion in drug subsidies and corporate tax breaks and outmoded weapons programs and the supremely idiotic occupation of Iraq, where private companies were getting paid thousands of dollars a minute to drive phantom truckloads of gas across the desert (what Halliburton called “delivering sailboat fuel”).
In the course of covering two presidential campaigns I never once heard any of you people talking about Bush’s spending. It was always liberals this, liberals that, gay marriage, welfare and socialism, and cheering whenever someone like Ann Coulter said something daring and self-pityingly witty, like how “compassionate conservative” carries the same connotations as “articulate black.” Or that the fact that Anthony Hopkins played both Hannibal Lecter and Richard Nixon showed Hollywood’s bias (he also played C.S. Lewis, Picasso, Yitzakh Rabin, and John Quincy Adams, but whatever).
And when people like Jeremy Scahill did a pretty excellent job proving that the Bush administration was practically setting fire to billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq, you folks didn’t want to hear about it back then. All you wanted to do was cuddle up in your idiotic fantasies about how people like me were socialist traitors plotting to turn the state over to Hamas and single Dominican moms.
So forgive me if I feel like laughing whenever you complain about how you’re not taken seriously. If over the last eight years you’d spent a little more time reading and a little less time impugning the patriotism of honest Americas like me, I might be inclined to listen to you now. But your basic problem is that you only hear what you want to hear and don’t even consider learning about anything else, and all you want to hear about is how Those People are to blame for your problems.
Last time I was in DC, there was a teabagger rally on the mall and not one of the dozens of you people I interviewed even cared that there were House hearings on financial regulatory reform going on. You all had plenty of things to say about how Obama was going to steal the next election with an immigration amnesty, but not one of you even knew what a derivative is or what the proposed new laws governing them were.
And give me a break about how much it hurts your feelings when I use the word “teabagger.” You love it when slick overeducated northerners like me call you names, because it validates your amazingly overdeveloped sense of victimhood/political martyrdom, which you love to wallow in above all things. You think we don’t listen to Rush and Hannity and hear you calling in whining all day long about how you’re not being taken seriously?
In response to another comment. See in context »Not to mention the complete and udder capitulation to the ABA in 2005 with changes to the Bankruptcy laws… Hmmm Earl Grey this teabag nation… why would big business make it harder for people to file for bankruptcy during a period of unprecedented credit extension? When factoring in regulatory capture, there is only one answer —- to blame it on the very same people who are indebted or deflect it onto government as means of the gutting the institution.
In response to another comment. See in context »fingers dragged on the spelling of udder (meant utter):)
In response to another comment. See in context »nailed it..again!
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow, I haven’t seen an eagle get taken down this hard since the last Cowboys’ game.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt… Who, pray tell, does have credibility?
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt I agree with your most of what you said. I think the Tea Party movement encompasses a very diverse group of people. Unfortunately like any group there are going to be loud ignoramuses who make everyone look bad.
I for one was appalled at the reckless spending of the Bush Administration and the warrant less and wars profiteers. I have been talking about the corruption and fraud in our financial system for years. The blame lies equally on both the Dems and Repugs shoulders.
What happened was people finally broke and said we can’t take it any more. Pardon them for finally getting up and trying to get involved instead of being apathetic. It is a good start. I think part of the catalyst was when billions suddenly turned into trillions in DC, then regular people who before were apathetic to what happened in D.C. started to take notice. It is not about hating Obama. It is about opposing the D.C. establishment that he represents but campaigned against.
In response to another comment. See in context »Also, what really bugs me is that there are a lot of very intelligent people on here who agree on most of the issues, but we continue to divide ourselves over petty things. In a microcosm this is what has gone on for years in politics in this country and is the reason things are the way the are now.
In response to another comment. See in context »Understanding who the enemy is, is not a “petty thing,” and this is precisely where I disagree most with the Teabaggers. As far as I can tell, our real (and common) enemy has got you guys totally duped into doing his dirty work for him. They’ve got you railing against “big government” and “taxes” and “elites” and “socialism” and all the rest of the focus-group terms from the Luntz playbook. You’re playing right into Sauron’s hand with this gradeschool stuff. Teabaggers get stuck on the emotional reaction, and totally miss the all-important underlying truth of the matter. Do you really think Republicans are the party of the people? Fox News is fair and balanced? Joe the Plumber was the real deal? Roger Ailes is a healthy human being? If so, you’re letting the Greedy Fat Cats manipulate you against your (and our) own best interests. You need to wake up and join us, against the real enemy. You’ve got to stop hitting yourself in the face.
Also, you need to understand that most of us despise the Democrats as much as you. Most of them are complete hypocrites and sellouts, we get that, it is not news. In fact, I respect some Repubs more than some Dems, simply because they can be a little more authentic (they have the advantage of not having to try and hide the fact of who they are working for — most people understand Repubs are working for Big Money, it’s understood and expected, so they don’t have to bend over as far as Dems do).
In response to another comment. See in context »Eaglewwit: this is my final comment tonight on this but is it possible that like most people your comments reflect your own issues and not general insight? Too idealistic? OK let’s look at that. First, there is an epidemic of systemic debt, impoverished net worth and decay at every meaningful level for over a decade (individual, familial, state/local, federal and corporate). Two, we have a highly stressed, an over-solicited, under-resourced jobless population in poor health that is being told: this is your fault with a giant middle finger. Third, a country of citizens are held prisoner to a short-term mentality of me-first-you-later-hierarchy. This is just a cursory paragraph and requires a dissertation topic to do it justice. However, there is just enough there for me to suggest this isn’t idealism, but realism… This is what is happening now; pardon me if you are numb man, but your perception of idealism does not coincide with the reality of putting people, places, events into longer term contexts where light can be a disinfectant. My suggestion is to read two books: Klein’s Shock Doctrine will map out the economic backdrop and the current battle between formative schools of thought in Economics: Keynes & Freidman. You will better understand the left’s urge to reformulate a better government having read this. Second, you should read Hacker’s Great Risk Shift which chronicles the origins of the financial crisis back 35 years. This will help you connect to the larger narrative of the 30-35 year plan to gut entitlements (or how the author puts it – socialize losses and privatize gains). There are other works as well, but once you have an historical perspective, you may not be so subject to division. Also, it is possible that I suffer from an over-idealized view of how things should go: Yes, but when you consider predation, faulty accounting, off-shoring, sex-scandals, environmental disasters, famine, pharmaceuticals for tots, Ponzi schemes, CDO’s, Front-running trades, back-dating documents and bank lobbyist erections emanating from Dodd’s back office… you might consider ideal is no longer on the fucking table, I just want someone like Matt to say what the fuck the rest of know (no not the tea-baggers who when they had an opportunity to speak came up with traditional Friedman talking points fitting in the back pocket of republicans everywhere: taxes and gov’t power)
This is far from ideal, it is real!
Read Howard Zinn before commenting; for your own good!
In response to another comment. See in context »trends,
I am not disagreeing with anything you said. I have read Naomi Klein, and many others as well. I have studied the history of the financial meltdown. Why are we talking past each other, that is my point. I will look into reading some Zinn as well. May I suggest you look into reading Kevin Phillips too.
In response to another comment. See in context »Eaglewit: by large ignoramuses do mean “don’t let the government take over my medicare” type of Chai-bagging or is it more like the colonizing type of rugged individualism and pseudo social darwinian bull-shit spouted off by people bright enough to know they do not like to be taxed, but not aware enough of entrenched corporate welfare subsidies to have an informed opinion. You might make a better argument with Baumann’s liquid modernity argument than “oh gosh why can’t we get along; we are so easily divided crap; Complaining of division is like arguing over whether to leave 5 or 10% tip to a server (not getting along is endemic in this process of self interest just as 15% for tip has become the standard; dialogues like 15% tips are necessary and sufficient to keep the system working; we can bitch about it, we can keep score, but in the end that is price… The purpose is not to agree, but to challenge each other and be accountable for our thoughts period.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t consider myself a Repug or Dem, as far as I am concerned there is little difference between the two in DC. Trust me I am well aware of corporate welfare. I just think many of you are being far to idealistic. Of course nefarious groups will try to co-op the Tea Party movement for their own benefit. It happens all the time. And yes not all Americans are smart enough to realize what is going on. However by and large I feel the the Tea Party people will rally behind most of what is expressed here on this blog if they are not talked down to, and the rhetoric can be simplified for them.
Tea Party people understand deep down that they are being played and ripped off. It is just that they do not understand the mechanism by which it is occurring. Why not try to help them instead of writing them off.
In response to another comment. See in context »One of the greatest things I have seen written in a long, long time.
Kudos Tabs, pretty much sums up how a lot of us feel.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Bush, having inherited a budget surplus…”
Wow.
Yeah, that Rubin really knew how to rock an economy didn’t he?
Come to think of it, I recently read an excellent piece about the shenanigans of Bob and his boys Larry, Bill and Alan.
Perhaps you’re familiar with it?
I love a good Bush rant, Taibbi, but that’s a steaming fuckin’ pantload right there.
In response to another comment. See in context »Loren; your reply in the clinical world is called dichotomous thinking; or those thoughts constructed of a binary construction… this is very common mistake among the uniformed. Matt is not suggesting that he has sided with Clinton, Rubin, or any of the moderate republicans we call demon-crats in this country. He is referring to the disingenuous whopper that is “fiscal conservative”, tax-break for the rich during period of war (one where reams upon reams of US dollars were thrown at various Iraqi groups as means to buy relationships – its like a bad Letterman joke on pick-up lines heard used by Dan Quail: “excuse me can oh my father buy you a drink”
To suggest that by critiquing Bush’s financial miscues over the last decade that Matt is a loyal to Clinton backer is moronic. This is just the type of simplistic analysis that I imagine pisses him off and wastes valuable synapses that are meant for peckerwoods like Frank Luntz. Loren, you are better than that; think you before you speak son. For all of you who did not assume that Matt is siding with Rubin, you know one the guys he has been asking to bend over and take a deep breath for the last year, Kudos!
In response to another comment. See in context »Teabags, please read that response until you understand it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Trend,
In response to another comment. See in context »My apologies for the sarcasm which apparently failed to get through. My point was simply that Bush was handed an enormous bag of shit by Rubin et al. He subsequently handed an even larger bag of shit to Obama.
The offhand implication that Bush was handed a peachy economy and then ruined it is just a bit below the level of analysis I’ve come to expect from Matt. That’s all.
The rest of your commentary is completely off the point I specifically quoted. But congratulations on erecting an enormous strawman and then beating the stuffing out of it. Perhaps that’s how debate works in your “clinical world.”
I wouldn’t know. I don’t live there.
Incidentally, I’m not a teabagger or a republican. I’m also not your son, son.
Thanks for the reply.
Loren:
In response to another comment. See in context »What we (ha in the clinical world) call a person who doesn’t take the time to read the essence of what is being said and projects onto others a negative value might be referred to as “over-reactive” or “undifferentiated”; This I own. You make a good point, no need to belabor sarcasm either; it is useful if we have critical thinkers… However, I would beg to differ about the qualitative and quantitative transitions from Bush Sr to Clinton and Clinton-Bush Jr. There is no question they are similar in very disturbing ways, but the nature of deterioration that took place in the culture, economy and social fabric had very different lasting outcomes; ones that flew in the face of facile reason: wars-tax-breaks living in the same four years etc (I could go on, but my earlier point was meant to acknowledge yours)
Matt,
In response to another comment. See in context »You need to be careful holding back like that, it’s not healthy……..next time; let us know what you really think.
I get your drift, but these people were and are being manipulated, Matt. Given that the empire’s on the verge of collapse, it’d be nice not to end up like the Feuillants.
In response to another comment. See in context »The jist of everything you said is generally true. But if I could nitpick, it might not technically be accurate to say 100% of them weren’t angry during the Bush years. I was aware of even some generic conservatives increasingly displeased over ’spending’ during the *second* term of Bush, starting about late 2005. I think I even remember Michelle Malkin bitching about something vaguely, and a Daily Show piece on conservatives opposing the “far-left agenda of President Bush”…cut to Jon Stewart making a confused face.
But beyond that there were elements like Ron Paul(though he wasn’t nearly as well-known pre-2007/8), and his smaller following, assorted right-libertarian blogs and magazines, paleoconservative types who were increasingly uncomfortable with neoconservatism, Alex Jones types, and different more middle-class right-wing conspiracy sorts of that nature, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and so on.
Although smaller and fringier, and not as loud as they’ve become there really were disgruntled elements on the right pre-2008.
I also remember a handful of right-wing Republicans voting against the bank bailout(though most did not), not the stimulus, the original bank bailout still under Bush. I think Thaddeus McCotter gave some standard speech about it being the road to socialism, etc. I think some of the Republicans have their constituency and ideology lying more in middle-class small and medium business owner social elements, while others have their constituency and ideology lying more in the financial aristocracy directly and this accounts for the occasional rift between the “middle-class right”, and the “right-wing elite” so to speak. Of course *none* of them are based in the lower-middle class or working class, let alone the very poor.
And of course, if you added up all the above political millieus they’d probably only be 5-20% of the Tea Party. The majority seem like standard talk-radio Fox News conservatives, so your point still basically stands.
In response to another comment. See in context »Congratulations to Matt for telling it exactly how it is
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
In response to another comment. See in context »The undereducated Americans need some kind of an outlet for their voice. They’re not unintelligent, they just haven’t been trained to see the same details that the overeducated Easterners have. Marx would have called them the proletariat, and historically the socialists would have been on their side. But the socialists got fat, the proles stayed lean, and look at where we are.
Matt – A friend recently shared the following counterpoint on your statement. Comments and counterpoints welcome.
‘…you need to learn the difference between an annual budget deficit and the total Public debt. Obama’s blame game intentionally uses public confusion on this topic. To not get lost in the blame mania, one needs to understand the loose use of the word “deficits.” President Obama’s ambiguity would have you believe, that in the year 2000, the United States was sitting on a purse of money. The truth is that this was only a one-year 200 billion dollar budget surplus, administered under a Republican Congress, and amidst a chronic trend of growing public debt. In fact, the last time the United States had a no public debt was briefly in January of 1835. The 2000 one-year “budget surplus” did little to cut into the over $5 trillion in public debt we were already sitting on. Yes, George W. Bush inherited over $5 trillion in public debt.
The facts are this. During the five-year fiscal period of 9/30/2000-9/30/2005, including 9/11 and two wars, the public debt grew about $2.3 trillion. The three-year period of 9/30/2005-9/30/2008, with the purse strings firmly in the hands of the Democrats and Obama and out of the hands of the lame-duck Bush, the public debt grew almost the same, in less time, at $2.1 trillion. So the question for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid should be, “how does one catch, or ‘inherit,’ a cold from oneself?” In addition, how does that self-infected person have no accountability for the staggering cumulative public debt growth, of over $4.2 trillion, accrued during their own Congressional control? A control that started when they werre crying about Iraq and funding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If you don’t believe me here is the government website….note what has happened since 2006 when the Dems took control of the branch of government in charge of the federal debt via our ever fading Constitution.’
In response to another comment. See in context »(continued)
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
FYI, we are at about 12.3 Trillion today with a 4 Trillion “fiscally hawkish” budget offered by the guy who uses the pointed finger as a leadership style.
In response to another comment. See in context »I can almost hear the sighs of relief in the Democrats. “Whew! He’s not a Republican. That was close! Now we can go back to ignoring Main Steet and fellating Wall Steet!”
As we consider little Mitchy translating for us the latest talking point in how to discuss regional republican differences, I am distracted by an even larger cluster-fuck; seemingly awestruck by Frank Luntz’s recent 27 page stain against human existence called : The Language of Financial Reform.
My militant rejection of him, his methods, and his actions (marketing to politicians words with which to become a better liar) has always seemed an abuse of qualitative research methods. Ferreting out salient pieces of information from an unsuspecting or dependent focus group constitutes some of the most egregious forms of researcher-subject abuses; especially when you consider how debates are formed on important issues within healthcare, financial reform, taxation, and Luntz’s favorite – the inheritance tax re-framed into his famous “death tax”…
The smuggling of focus group ideas out of the public experience into the political mind has led to a jaded reality where the talking points become a platform to communicate with the public (while having no real agenda to follow through with their concerns once language has commenced); In a country where words matter, why do we let the primordial ooze who is Frank Luntz determine what words matter and what can be disregarded… Hmmm I wonder if the ABA is paying Luntz to gut reform using research methods and designing a new narrative (bad government its your fault; and if its not your fault it is individual people’s fault)…..
Matt, I love your work with David Brooks; there is a new guy on the block and he is fat white republican (no roger ailes, no rush limbaugh, no dick cheney); the power of persuasion lies with Frank Luntz…. I would make a rhyme with his name, but that is an insult to vagina’s everywhere!
@Irate Tea People:
One of the core tenets of your group seems to be, “Government is bad. It wants to control us and tax us and it should be neutered and only provide only the most minimal of functions.”
But as I read different news sources and take in all the available facts (and cable news doesn’t count, I’m talking about news reports of what’s going on in the halls of Congress), I can only reach one conclusion: Government is neutered! It’s absolutely, fundamentally had its balls chopped off by super-wealthy corporate interests whose only endgame is profit (and not mid-low level workers’ profit, mind you). I mean, seriously, Democrats own two of the three branches of our government and they can’t get anything done? If Obama’s goal was a socialist state, then what’s stopping him? Why wasn’t that socialist healthcare reform package rammed through?
Why are you still foot-stomping about the dangers of government, when in fact our government has little if no ability to function in the most fundamental capacity anyway? Could it be that you need to find a news source other than Glen Bech, Rush, et al?
@Taibbi, *swoosh* i was hoping you would crack your knuckles and re-apply the extra-strength Teabagger-off, and you did not disappoint.
A lot of people don’t have the energy to explain to Tea Party people why exactly they aren’t taken seriously. They stare at you “like a dog that’s just been shown a card trick.” They act like they just want to be heard and understood, but that isn’t true. They want you to acknowledge your inner evil, submit to their viewpoint, and vote accordingly. It is impossible to have a worthwhile dialogue with a Teddy Ruxpin. “Overdeveloped sense of victimhood/political martyrdom” is right. These are the same people who accuse Obama of stealing money donated for Haiti (who we should apparently be flipping the bird to, anyway), moaning about how insulted they feel when someone who opposes their hateful rhetoric uses their self-imposed moniker (“teabagger”) to call them out.
No, we don’t take you seriously. You are slobs, and I fart in your direction on general principle.
Im from Nashville and I take offense to these conservative stereotypes. Not all people from the south blah, blah, blah, blah. Teabaggers… Matt, you should go to Nashville and report on this one. You are truly at your best with things like this. Your previous reports, like the one in TX where you compared the rivaling protests to a real-life episode of Crossfire, are killer. In this environment, your objectivity is like that of Capote and your wit is sharper than Mencken’s. If I were still in Nashville, I would volunteer to help you out. I used to love your writings about the military(got out 2 years ago, but still at Hood). I knew that Colonel you said probably yelled at children during a BBQ. Nice observation, lol. To be more general, I would say that practically all senior officers have a pathological hatred of anything thing “fun”.
If you’re waving a sign around that says “38% marginal tax rate is too high”, that’s fine. If the sign accuses your government of “communism”, I can’t take you seriously.
If you describe taxation itself as “socialist” and don’t confine that word to “government owning the means of production”, I can’t take you seriously.
If you are protesting to help people who make much more than you save a few percent per year from tax rates you will never personally experience, I can’t take you seriously.
Oh, and I’m Canadian. My doctor is a private businessman who can dump me (or I him) at any time. I have vastly more freedom that way than somebody in an American HMO system. He does send most of his bills to an arms-length, government-backed health insurer, but if you describe THAT as “socialized medicine”, I can’t take you seriously.
Is there anybody in the ‘teabag movement’ left after those filters are applied? Write in, and tell us your troubles. I’ll take you seriously.
The government itself is anti-tax
…as 5 million state and local government
are exempt from paying social security taxes….such as all 340,000 california public school teachers, all texas, NY teachers….all 30,000 city of los angeles employees
You want to see a riot…take away the special social security exemption for 5 million public employees….and these people would raise hell like you never seen……greed in government is bottomless
I made the mistake of trying to get into a semi-intelligent (because that’s all I am)conversation with some tea-baggers in a local paper over the weekend. I had all types of riled up responses (probably because I started the conversation calling Glen Beck a Whack Job).
So I return to the paper today, and find these two commentaries; which were basically confirming my arguments over the weekend that they were vociferously denying. That they are merely an extension of the Republican Party, being manipulated by the Republican Party and Glen Beck.
http://www.ydr.com/ci_14310738?IADID=Search-www.ydr.com-www.ydr.com
http://www.ydr.com/ci_14310734?IADID=Search-www.ydr.com-www.ydr.com
Matt Taibbi writes: “You all had plenty of things to say about how Obama was going to steal the next election with an immigration amnesty, but not one of you even knew what a derivative is or what the proposed new laws governing them were.”
(I hope it’s ok to comment on this). First, I have no idea about what a derivative is, even though I’m Liberal and reasonably intelligent (I think). So, what makes conservatives believe all these stupid lies, when even Liberals have trouble understanding this financial sh*t. that’s been going down? It boils down to lack of compassion in the dark, conservative heart of fear and rage. If one doesn’t Care (and/or even Applauds) the idea of immigration, then what’s to be bothered over? There is zero need to believe some idiot like Glenn Beck, who seems to simply play on people’s innate anger, fear and greed. And racism. I’m new to trying to pay attention to politics, but I have alwyas sensed that there’s a Ton of lying going on to the American people. Those of the far right Always fall for it, time and time again, because all they worry about is that someone, somewhere is getting an abortion, having gay sex or coming into this country illegally. Or, all of the above, and Saints Preserve US! The corporations know Exactly what to to rile up these far right dimwits. Their own hatred is used against them, but the fact remains, they Are being lied to (we All are). It sucks. I don’t know what the answer is, if there even is one. Politics is complicated, to try to tease out all these details, even when one Is motivated And Liberal. Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone articles are not easy for me to read, because the amount of detail in them (particularly the one I just read on the Obama financial swindle thing) makes my head swim.
But corruption? I get that. I understand that it’s not in the corporation’s interest or even job description to give a sh*t if I die or live or have adequate health insurance.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bill, Lee Searles, greychampion, billsharedfeed, Tweets Tube and others. Tweets Tube said: Republicans on Government Cheese http://bit.ly/dwZTEC [...]