The Return of the Inflation Tax

Interesting OPINION piece

All of those twentysomethings who voted for Barack Obama last year are about to experience the change they haven't been waiting for: the return of income tax bracket creep. Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if their income gains aren't real.
In order to raise enough money to make their plan look like it won't add to the deficit, House Democrats have deliberately not indexed two main tax features of their plan: the $500,000 threshold for the 5.4-percentage-point income tax surcharge; and the payroll level at which small businesses must pay a new 8% tax penalty for not offering health insurance.

This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.

We also know what has happened with the Alternative Minimum Tax. Passed to hit only 1% of all Americans in 1969, the AMT wasn't indexed for inflation at the time and neither was Bill Clinton's AMT rate increase in 1993. The number of families hit by this shadow tax more than tripled over the next decade. Today, families with incomes as low as $75,000 a year can be hit by the AMT unless Congress passes an annual "patch."

The Pelosi-Obama health tax surcharge will have a similar effect. The tax would begin in 2011 on income above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for joint filers. Assuming a 4% annual inflation rate over the next decade, that $500,000 for an individual tax filer would hit families with the inflation-adjusted equivalent of an income of about $335,000 by 2020. After 20 years without indexing, the surcharge threshold would be roughly $250,000.

And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45% from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).

Certainly a partisan piece, but it does raise some interesting points


Link

All part of the big wealth redistribution plan.

classicman;606260 wrote:

Interesting OPINION piece

Certainly a partisan piece, but it does raise some interesting points


Link

Interesting? Perhaps to some. A partisan opinion with an agenda? Absolutely.

There is nothing unusual about NOT indexing revenue sources like this.

The surtax is on income over $500K (single) and $1 million (couple) -- personally, I would like to see it lower.

And the employer tax is on companies with payrolls over $750K -- which excludes many of the smallest businesses....and if any of those companies offer insurance through the Insurance Exchange, the companies would get a tax credit.

The notion of it being an "inflation" tax is fuzzy math at its best.

classicman;606260 wrote:

... but it does raise some interesting points
....

If the points are true.

Spexxvet;606274 wrote:

If the points are true.

Start with a highly questionable assumption of an annual inflation rate of 4% each year over the next ten years as noted in the opinion piece.
[INDENT]

Assuming a 4% annual inflation rate over the next decade.....

[/INDENT]

Then add the fact that the annual inflation rate has been at 4% (or above) only 3-4 times over the last 25 years.

The result is fuzzy math and an intellectually dishonest conclusion.

More Democratic BS talking points. People do not buy this pile of bull shit.

TheMercenary;606317 wrote:

More Democratic BS talking points. People do not buy this pile of bull shit.

Here we go again! You must be on auto-pilot.

Economic facts and statistics (Not just Democratic, but Republican as well if you look at the last 25+ years) are BS and a WSJ column based on BS is factual.

The annual inflation rate to-date for 2009 and the relatively comparable CPI are both hovering around 0% for the year.

And NEVER in our lifetime (or as long as economic stats have been recorded) have we had 10 consecutive years of a 4% annual inflation rate.

But its NOT BS for the WSJ columnist to make that assumption.

I honestly dont know if its ignorance on your part, a deep seeded and emotional hatred for anything Democratic (as expressed in Nazi comparisons), or just an inane attempt at being provocative and/or promoting fear-mongering....or perhaps a combination of all of the above.

But you're always good for a laugh.

:biglaugha

Inflation tax is real and measurable. Do your own research people.

The Pelosi-Obama health tax surcharge will have a similar effect. The tax would begin in 2011 on income above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for joint filers. Assuming a 4% annual inflation rate over the next decade, that $500,000 for an individual tax filer would hit families with the inflation-adjusted equivalent of an income of about $335,000 by 2020. After 20 years without indexing, the surcharge threshold would be roughly $250,000.

And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45% from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).

As for the business payroll penalty, it is imposed on a sliding scale beginning at a 2% rate for firms with payrolls of $500,000 and rising to 8% on firms with payrolls above $750,000. But those amounts are also not indexed for inflation, so again assuming a 4% average inflation rate in 10 years this range would hit payrolls between $335,000 and $510,000 in today's dollars. Note that in pitching this "pay or play" tax today, Democrats claim that most small businesses would be exempt. But because it isn't indexed, this tax will whack more and more businesses every year. The sales pitch is pure deception.

As for the Senate, instead of the 5.4% surcharge, the Finance Committee bill raises taxes on "high-cost" health care plans. But this too uses the inflation ruse. The Senate bill indexes its tax proposal for the inflation rate plus one percentage point. But that is only about half as high as the rate of overall health-care inflation, i.e., the rate of increase in health-care premiums. So the Joint Tax Committee has found that a Senate tax that starts in 2013 by hitting 13.8 million Americans will hit 39.1 million by 2019.

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as Saturday.

TheMercenary;606430 wrote:

Inflation tax is real and measurable. Do your own research people.

The same bullshit assumption in your article:
[INDENT]

Assuming a 4% annual inflation rate over the next decade,

[/INDENT]
There has NEVER been 10 straight years of a 4% annual inflation rate. No where close.

[INDENT]

As for the business payroll penalty, it is imposed on a sliding scale beginning at a 2% rate for firms with payrolls of $500,000 and rising to 8% on firms with payrolls above $750,000.

[/INDENT]
Nearly 90% of businesses in the country will not be subject to the "penalty" and the smallest businesses are exempt...the others will not be penalized, but in fact, will get tax credits, if they provide (and share the cost with employees) of basic coverage.

I guess you think if you repeat it, it makes it more credible.

Redux;606443 wrote:

The same bullshit assumption in your article:
[INDENT][/INDENT]
There has NEVER been 10 straight years of a 4% annual inflation rate. No where close.

[INDENT][/INDENT]
Nearly 90% of businesses in the country will not be subject to the "penalty" and the smallest businesses are exempt...the others will not be penalized, but in fact, will get tax credits, if they provide (and share the cost with employees) of basic coverage.

I guess you think if you repeat it, it makes it more credible.

You have provided no evidence that the numbers do not add up or that the facts are false about Inflation Tax. You don't have the credibility to say it is false. I agree that inflation has not been 4% for 10 straight years. The tax still exists.

TheMercenary;606451 wrote:

You have provided no evidence that the numbers do not add up or that the facts are false about Inflation Tax. You don't have the credibility to say it is false. I agree that inflation has not been 4% for 10 straight years. The tax still exists.

Over 99% of taxpayers will not face the surcharge on income....it would initially only impact the top 1/2 of one percent of taxpayers....those making over $500K.

In ten years, based on assuming more reasonable inflation rates, it may hit a very small percentage of additional taxpayers...perhaps another 1/2 percent to maybe as high as an additional two percent of all taxpayers....with at least 98% of taxpayers remaining unaffected.

Does it bother me that in 10 years, the top 2% of taxpayers (those now making approx. $300K, but who would see their income rise in 10 years), rather than just the top 1/2 of one percent (those now making over $500K), may face a small surcharge on their income?

Not in the least. I would charge those fat cats now if I had my way.

Systems that allow for bracket creep are common around the world. Treasurers love it because of the steady growth in tax revenue, other pollies love it because they can give occasional "tax breaks" by resetting the brackets a bit.
I am in favour of progressive tax rates.

I did want to respond to this from Redux:

And NEVER in our lifetime (or as long as economic stats have been recorded) have we had 10 consecutive years of a 4% annual inflation rate.

That may be right, but you've also never seen a US government debt in the 10+ trillion dollar range either. That will almost certainly cause inflation. Averaging 4% for the next decade is not an unreasonable assumption. Why do you think the price of gold is at an all time high?

ZenGum;606564 wrote:

....
That may be right, but you've also never seen a US government debt in the 10+ trillion dollar range either. That will almost certainly cause inflation. Averaging 4% for the next decade is not an unreasonable assumption. Why do you think the price of gold is at an all time high?

I agree that a $10+ trillion debt and potentially doubling the debt over the next 10 years (IMO, unlikely), as we did over the last eights years, is unsustainable in the longer term. At the same time, during the last 10 years, the price of gold has more than tripled (quadrupled?), with no inflationary impact.

But its not potentially inflationary unless the dollar is devalued much more significantly that it has been in the last few years. Could that happen? Sure, if the Fed floods the economy with "cheap" dollars. But, that is not likely.

A high rate of inflation occurs most often during a vibrant economy, at full production and with low unemployment, when demand outstrips supply. When the economy is strong, companies pay higher wages, which enables employees to spend more, which causes other companies to raise prices, etc....and you have a wage/price inflationary spiral. I know that is a little simplistic, but we are nowhere near that scenario.

While most economic measures would suggest that we are out of the recession of the last two years, the economy is hardly at full production or full employment. Wages arent rising, prices arent rising and there is no such spiral on the horizon.

Or, inflation could rise at a significantly higher rate if we were hit with a sudden, unpredictable and long-term scenario like a major oil embargo, similar to that which was primarily responsible for the inflation of the mid 70s....but I dont think it is reasonable to assume that will happen.

Studies by the Fed and others would suggest that the inflation rate will remain low (well below 4% - it is now still hovering at around 0%), at least over the next 2-5 years while the economy continues to recover and grow at modest (3-5%) GDP annual percentage increases....beyond that, it is more guesswork, but 10 years of 4% annual inflationary increases? IMO, it is disingenuous and dishonest to use that scenario to make a case against so-called inflation taxes.

I havent seen any credible study that would suggest such a scenario, but if you know of any such studies, I'll give it a look.

Redux;606464 wrote:

Does it bother me that in 10 years, the top 2% of taxpayers (those now making approx. $300K, but who would see their income rise in 10 years), rather than just the top 1/2 of one percent (those now making over $500K), may face a small surcharge on their income?

Not in the least. I would charge those fat cats now if I had my way.

That is exactly why you represent wealth redistribution programs.

Redux;606464 wrote:

Does it bother me that in 10 years, the top 2% of taxpayers (those now making approx. $300K, but who would see their income rise in 10 years), rather than just the top 1/2 of one percent (those now making over $500K), may face a small surcharge on their income?

Not in the least. I would charge those fat cats now if I had my way.

A small theft is theft nonetheless, Redux, however disguised in righteous-sounding language. Now I begin to see the core of your mentality -- that is, the thing that keeps you a Democrat when men of sense (for instance, registered independent voters) are abandoning the Donkey Party right, left, center, top, and bottom. You're fighting a class-war. This is the hobgoblin of the small and resentful mind.

So of course, I do not do what you do; I make a point of not going around fighting a class-war. It's unworthy of me, and should be unworthy of you as well -- but for some damnfool reason I can't plumb, you don't really want me to regard you as intelligent. Thing is, I'd really rather I could think of you as a smart, with-it kind of guy. Not, IOW, as a moderately dilute socialist.

Rewriting history again, UG?

Progressive income taxes, included the so-called inflation tax, are as old and as non-partisan as the income tax itself in the US.

Every president since the inception of the income tax has supported a system of progressive taxation.

And, in fact, support for progressive taxation goes back to the "father of capitalism" and the libertarians' favorite iconic "laissez fair - free market" economist - Adam Smith.

Some economists trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
[INDENT]The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[/INDENT]

Your class warfare argument, much like your incessant whining about the socalist agenda, feeds the frenzy among the self-proclaimed true patriots and freedom fighters like yourself, but cant stand up the facts.

SO my suggestion, tell it to Adam Smith, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan...all proponents of that "class warfare".

OR circle the wagons at the Tea Parties and keep shouting out together:

[INDENT]"...on the tree of liberty must spill the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... "[/INDENT]

It makes for great wing nut theater!

TheMercenary;606317 wrote:

More Democratic BS talking points. People do not buy this pile of bull shit.

Fail.

The founding fathers never saw taxation as a method to direct social behavior or enforce equality. Equality to them was equality under the law, not equality of outcome, or income. It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses. The founders sought to provide only protection of property and civil liberties such that job creation could happen naturally and peacefully in a stable, prosperous environment. They never sought to take from the rich to give to the poor, or rob Peter to pay Paul. But today, the top 5% of earners in this country pay over half of all income taxes collected, but only bring in a third of the income. One third of Americans pay nothing or receive subsidies from government.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst110407.htm

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

TheMercenary;606998 wrote:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst110407.htm

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

The founding fathers never saw taxation as a method to direct social behavior or enforce equality. Equality to them was equality under the law, not equality of outcome, or income. It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses. The founders sought to provide only protection of property and civil liberties such that job creation could happen naturally and peacefully in a stable, prosperous environment. They never sought to take from the rich to give to the poor, or rob Peter to pay Paul. But today, the top 5% of earners in this country pay over half of all income taxes collected, but only bring in a third of the income. One third of Americans pay nothing or receive subsidies from government.

So Ron Paul KNOWS what the founders were thinking? Bah!

"slavery isn't so bad" - Founding Fathers.

"Women should never have the right to vote" - Founding Fathers.

Hahahahhaah...how dare you cast aspersions at the Founding Fathers. They had to be right about everything. I mean, they were Fathers, and were Founding. :lol:

Spexxvet;607001 wrote:

So Ron Paul KNOWS what the founders were thinking? Bah!

"slavery isn't so bad" - Founding Fathers.

"Women should never have the right to vote" - Founding Fathers.

So I guess everything they said about progressive taxation should be taken in the same light. You're right it is pure bullshit! Well done :thumb:

TheMercenary;607008 wrote:

So I guess everything they said about progressive taxation should be taken in the same light. You're right it is pure bullshit! Well done :thumb:

What did the founding fathers say about progressive taxation?

Look it up.

:lol2:

:D

[sarc]Ok, here is a better plan. Let's do like the Romans and have proscriptions against a couple thousand really rich people, like Bill Gates rich including Bill Gates, the Kennedy family, Bush family, the Clinton's and all the really fat cats and then just have the state take their money to pay for all these fun things! That's the ticket![/sarc]

Spexxvet;607001 wrote:

So Ron Paul KNOWS what the founders were thinking?

Nope - Only Radar knows - just ask him :eyebrow:

I recommend Founding Mothers:The Women Who Raised Our Nation

Nothing about taxes, but a good read!

And far more interesting than Ron "Dr NO" Paul and his relentless insistence that only he know what the framers were thinking.

The Dead Zone: The Implicit Marginal Tax Rate
Mises Daily: Monday, November 09, 2009 by Clifford F. Thies

To say that antipoverty programs in the United States are perverted may be an understatement. When you take into account the loss of means-tested benefits (e.g., cash assistance, food stamps, housing subsidies, and health insurance), and the taxes that people pay on earned income, the return to working is essentially zero for those in the lower two quintiles of the income distribution.

For many of the working poor, the implicit marginal tax rate is greater than 100 percent. The long-run consequence of undermining the positive incentive to work is, of course, the creation of an underclass acclimated to not working; the supplement of cash and noncash benefits with income from crime and the underground economy; and the government resorting to negative incentives such as mandatory work programs.

Below, I show the relationship between earned income and after-tax income plus subsidies for a hypothetical Virginia family of three, consisting of one adult and two minor children. As you can see, the relationship is essentially flat from $0 to about $40,000 in earned income.

see charts

http://mises.org/daily/3822

.

Despite the "findings" of a handful of libertarian economists, nearly every westernized country in the world has some form of progressive taxation.

And an overwhelming majority of economists and public policy makers is those countries understand why.

Put simply, it is the best guarantee of maintaining a vibrant middle class....by enabling those whose income may not exceed (or only marginally exceed) the cost of basic necessities of life to keep a greater proportion of that income than the wealthiest with much greater disposal income.

And despite the cherry-picked quotes from Jefferson, he understand that as well and expressed it in numerous letters.

He also understand that the other safeguard for a middle class was to have a government role in ensuring through regulation that the wealthy merchant/industrial class never be allowed to control the economy at the expense of the common farmers and workers to the point that it could become as despotic as the governments controlled by the ruling classes from which those before him fled to this country.

There is a reason why there has never been a successful libertarian free-market-based, socio-economic system in the modern world. It represents the interests (primarily economic interests) of very few at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the citizenry.

Which also explains why it is a marginal voice on the US political scene.

But I wish you well in creating the Republic of Mercenaries and Urbane Guerrillas and other such "freedom" loving MUGs even further on the fringe waving their signs of ignorance and bigotry and calling for the spilling of blood to rid the nation of those nazis, socialists, and other anti-democratic demons that only exist in the deep recesses of your minds.

I guess the cost of living going up in the real world is only an illusion. Redux says it's 0%. I guess that's why last year social security recipients go the largest percent COLA raise since the seventies.

spudcon;607165 wrote:

I guess the cost of living going up in the real world is only an illusion. Redux says it's 0%. I guess that's why last year social security recipients go the largest percent COLA raise since the seventies.

Its not my data that reports the CPI increasing at about 0% for the last few years.

That would be the Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/CPI/#news

Redux;607155 wrote:

But I wish you well in creating the Republic of Mercenaries and Urbane Guerrillas and other such "freedom" loving MUGs even further on the fringe waving their signs of ignorance and bigotry and calling for the spilling of blood to rid the nation of those nazis, socialists, and other anti-democratic demons that only exist in the deep recesses of your minds.

I seen none of your "signs of ignorance and bigotry and calling for the spilling of blood to rid the nation of those nazis, socialists, and other anti-democratic demons", that is right out of the Pelosi talking points and it is fear mongering against anyone who dare disagree with the demoncratic congressional majority. Let me see, Redux a nameless faceless Demoncratic Shrill vs a noted well published Economist? Hmmmm.... I think I'll stick with the scholar.:D

Redux;607155 wrote:

Put simply, it is the best guarantee of maintaining a vibrant middle class....by enabling those whose income may not exceed (or only marginally exceed) the cost of basic necessities of life to keep a greater proportion of that income than the wealthiest with much greater disposal income.

Politicians love to state that their new programs paid for throught increased taxation are pro-consumer when in fact they are only protecting business and donors to their political party, both sides do it in every session. Progressive taxation pays rich dividends to politicians looking to increase the size of government and their own personal power. We passed the line of demarkation when less than half of the public pays for nearly every majority of the feds social programs, exception to SS. Which means that the majority of people who may beneift from any new program knows that they will not have to worry about paying for it. It reminds me of the commericals for the scooter chair, they have sold so many because one of the best selling points is that they tell you that you most likely will not even pay for it. The conceptual thinking is the same. When promised something new the majority of people could care less what it costs the nation or how effective a program may actually be in the long run. Because they will not pay for it in the end. They have no real investment in whether it works or not or fixes the problems with the system. Unless people are invested in something they take it for granted. It becomes a right.

We have invested our kids in their education by ensuring that they are invested. Each of our children are required to take a personal loan out for college each year. It is not much but if they fail to finish the loan becomes theirs, not our to pay. If they finish we will help them pay it off. They have become invested. The American people need to become invested in these programs and currently they are not. As long as they continue to get something for nothing they will neither understand or appreciate what they get and the fat cats in Washington will stroke and serve only themselves and their political donors in the name of a new social parachute paid for by a small minority.

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRCq7mv7HVM

Washington Times looks into it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/06/pelosis-visions-swastikas/

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Hillary Clinton, 2003.

TheMercenary;607185 wrote:

I seen none of your "signs of ignorance and bigotry and calling for the spilling of blood to rid the nation of those nazis, socialists, and other anti-democratic demons", that is right out of the Pelosi talking points and it is fear mongering against anyone who dare disagree with the demoncratic congressional majority.

I agree completely that the Tea Baggers have legitimate concerns, although I dont share those concerns.

But the reason they are not a legitimate political force is that those concerns are being drowned out by the extremists among them that will detract from more reasonable independents taking up their cause at the ballot box.

Start with the perceived leadership -- Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. and the lies and the myths they perpetuate, from the "death panels" to the "Obama is not a citizen" rhetoric...all of it contribute to the ignorant signs and shouts which drive others away.

Are these really the voices you want leading the revolution?

Or perhaps you want someone like Ron Paul leading the revolution....a guy who spurred the most recent grass roots movement in 08, but could barely get 5% of the vote in Republican primaries. Run as a third party? Works for me, it will simply divide the center-right and far right even more.

And then look in the mirror and you will see how the Cellar is a microcosm of much of what detracts from the movement....with similar ignorant posts from you and UG ( Nazi cunt, childish graphics, charges of socialism behind every Democratic program, personal attacks on the character of those with whom you disagree).

Do you really think that helps attract supporters to your cause?

Let me see, Redux a nameless faceless Demoncratic Shrill vs a noted well published Economist? Hmmmm.... I think I'll stick with the scholar.:D

It is not about me. Your scholar is on the fringe.

[INDENT]In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility. In the U.S., an overwhelming majority (81%) of economists support progressive taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
[/INDENT]
The libertarian policies and positions espoused by you and Ludwig Von Mises Institute have never achieved any meaningful level of popular support anytime in history and anywhere in the western world....because they represent a fringe ideology and the vast majority of the economic and public policy scholars, and more importantly, the citizenry, recognize that such policies are not in the "peoples" best interest.

Redux;607205 wrote:

I agree completely that the Tea Baggers have legitimate concerns, although I dont share those concerns.

They just disagree with Demoncrats and happen to be a larger force than your guys will recognize. The elections will speak to whether that truth bears out.

But the reason they are not a legitimate political force is that those concerns are being drowned out by the extremists among them that will detract from more reasonable independents taking up their cause at the ballot box.

Extremists like Pelosi and Reid represent the otherside of the same coin.

Start with the perceived leadership -- Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. and the lies and the myths they perpetuate, from the "death panels" to the "Obama is not a citizen" rhetoric...all of it contribute to the ignorant signs and shouts which drive others away.

Your first and most common error is that you describe those individuals as "perceived leadership". Those are lables of the liberal media elite whom don't like their views and would like to take away their rights to point out views which are contrary to the mainstream Demoncratic leadership. I don't support much of what they say but there is truth in all propaganda including yours.

Are these really the voices you want leading the revolution?

They don't.

And then look in the mirror and you will see how the Cellar is a microcosm of much of what detracts from the movement....with similar ignorant posts from you and UG ( Nazi cunt, childish graphics, charges of socialism behind every Democratic program, personal attacks on the character of those with whom you disagree).

Look in the mirror yourself. Pot meet kettle. And if you look at my comments I never called her a Nazi Cunt. Those things were in separate sentances. :D You gave her that lable but I really can't disagree.

Do you really think that helps attract supporters to your cause?

I am not interested in "attracting supporters". This is not a recruiting forum. I am expressing my veiws and ideas I have generally supported. Well unless I have been pointed out a better alternative, so far you haven't put much up to change that in your White House talking points.

It is not about me. Your scholar is on the fringe.

So far nothing you have provided us proves anything different.

The libertarian policies and positions espoused by you and Ludwig Von Mises Institute have never achieved any meaningful level of popular support anytime in history and anywhere in the western world....because they represent a fringe ideology and the vast majority of the economic and public policy scholars, and more importantly, the citizenry, recognize that such policies are not in the "peoples" best interest.

Your opinion. Plenty of people are beginning to explore alternative to the dominance of tax and spend Demoncrats and do nothing Republickins.

TheMercenary;607210 wrote:

... if you look at my comments I never called her a Nazi Cunt. Those things were in separate sentences. :D

Right...that makes it more acceptable and less ignorant.

The fact that you still see nothing wrong with those kinds of slurs and that you alone feel the need to spew in order to make your point says it all.

Redux;607219 wrote:

Right...that makes it more acceptable and less ignorant.

The fact that you still see nothing wrong with those kinds of slurs that you only feel necessary to spew in order to make your point says it all.

I only made a point of your championing of her. I think it is a very commonly held opinion. She views anyone who is against her views as Nazi's. I guess you don't like it when someone turns the tables on her.

TheMercenary;607220 wrote:

I only made a point of your championing of her. I think it is a very commonly held opinion. She views anyone who is against her views as Nazi's. I guess you don't like it when someone turns the tables on her.

I condemned her in a post at the time for her comment because it was too sweeping...even though it was directed at those screaming hecklers carrying Nazi signs (like the one you condemned) at town hall meetings. As I posted at the time, she should have been much more direct in focusing her remarks directly at the relatively few ignorant attendees. Her remarks were, or course, taken by the right to apply to anyone who spoke out against the health care reform bills.

[INDENT]she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”[/INDENT]

IMO, those signs should have been condemned by any reasonable speaker of either political party at any of those town hall meetings or tea parties.

But I get it....its my fault that you felt compelled to repeatedly call her a Nazi and a cunt.

:lol2:

Redux;607325 wrote:

I condemned her in a post at the time for her comment because it was too sweeping...even though it was directed at those screaming hecklers carrying Nazi signs (like the one you condemned) at town hall meetings. As I posted at the time, she should have been much more direct in focusing her remarks directly at the relatively few ignorant attendees. Her remarks were, or course, taken by the right to apply to anyone who spoke out against the health care reform bills.

[INDENT]she referred to hecklers at a town hall meeting: “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”[/INDENT]

IMO, those signs should have been condemned by any reasonable speaker of either political party at any of those town hall meetings or tea parties.

But I get it....its my fault that you felt compelled to repeatedly call her a Nazi and a cunt.

My heart bleeds for her. Not.

Redux;607155 wrote:

Despite the "findings" of a handful of libertarian economists, nearly every westernized country in the world has some form of progressive taxation.

The libertarian economists figure this to be exactly what's wrong with the westernized countries too.

But I wish you well in creating the Republic of Mercenaries and Urbane Guerrillas and other such "freedom" loving MUGs even further on the fringe waving their signs of ignorance and bigotry and calling for the spilling of blood to rid the nation of those nazis, socialists, and other anti-democratic demons that only exist in the deep recesses of your minds.

And you want to think of ME as extremist? Kid, whether I want to be or not, I'm Middle America these days.

UG...what you see as a movement is more like a cacophony of noise.

There are the true libertarians, the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives and fringe elements like the birthers and yes, the angry white racists.

It is a rudderless ship with such disparate interests, it is already floundering.

And more importantly, it has no leader which means it has no staying power because there is no one who can bring such diverse and hard core ideologues with limited commonality of interests together.

What it is most likely to accomplish is to split the right and center right....and the winner is the bigger tent Democratic party.

So you'll go on record as pooh-poohing it right up until the moment of your electoral comeuppance, then? Just one more reason why I'm clever enough not to be a Democrat...

Now I don't see the TEA party as lasting much beyond Obama's leaving office, true enough, but in the interval it may get California's government back on the rails as well as putting the inmates once again not in charge of the asylum inside the Beltway. The present Administration and its partisans on the Hill are doing quite a job of inoculating future generations of Americans against the blandishments of socialism. Some of us already understand the out-of-date thinking the Administration is so prone to, and the rest of us soon enough will. Seriously, can you expect anything healthy from a bunch of 1960s leftover radicals? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, we have you to demonstrate just what damage white liberal guilt and class-war mentalities can do to a man. Tatterdemalion.

My mentality is absent both of these. Therefore I have much virtue.

Urbane Guerrilla;607421 wrote:

So you'll go on record as pooh-poohing it right up until the moment of your electoral comeuppance, then? Just one more reason why I'm clever enough not to be a Democrat...

I guess we'll see next year. I expect the Democrats will lose 15-20 seats in the House, mostly from red districts they won in recent years, and perhaps 1-2 in the Senate. That is to be expected. Beyond that, I think you're dreaming.

It was interesting to read today that the newly formed Florida Tea Party is planning to run a candidate for the open Senate seat next year because the Republican candidate, former Governor Crist, is not conservative enough.

So now, a race that he was sure to win, puts the Democratic candidate back in play because the right, with its death wish, will split itself apart.

In races across the country, like the recent House race in New York, there will be similar litmus tests for Republican candidates. Those not conservative enough will be threatened with opposition from the extreme right.

Who do you think wins in those scenarios?

In the longer term, the demographics are against you. Your "angry old white guy" rhetoric just won't play, dude.

Urbane Guerrilla;607421 wrote:

My mentality is absent both of these. Therefore I have much virtue.

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

Redux;607423 wrote:

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

Thats another incorrect liberal talking point. Most R's that I know do not affiliate nor agree with the perspectives of Beck, Hannity, Rush and their ilk. Its the same as thinking every liberal is a bleeding heart tree hugger. Again, Most D's that I know are far from that.

I really expect that you are just messing with UG, I thought you were above this type of incorrect, malicious negative stereotyping.

classicman;607461 wrote:

Thats another incorrect liberal talking point. Most R's that I know do not affiliate nor agree with the perspectives of Beck, Hannity, Rush and their ilk. Its the same as thinking every liberal is a bleeding heart tree hugger. Again, Most D's that I know are far from that.

I really expect that you are just messing with UG, I thought you were above this type of incorrect, malicious negative stereotyping.

I would agree that many mainstream conservative Republicans are not guided by Limbaugh and Beck.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age. You may believe they simply listen to the dominant voices like Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/Savage for the entertainment value, but are not influenced by what they hear. I disagree.

And it is not a liberal talking point that when the Republican party leader (Steele) or Republican members of Congress criticized Limbaugh for some of his harsh and ignorant rhetoric, they were inundated with hate mail from their constituents and went crawling to apologize to Rush.
[INDENT]RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
[INDENT]"Rush is not the head of the Republican Party. He's an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."[/INDENT]
Steele - the next day - I'm sorry, Rush
[INDENT]"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh..."

"I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

"I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."
[/INDENT][/INDENT]

But, I was referring to the Tea Baggers, many of whom, if you judge by their signs and rhetoric, are simply regurgitating the Limbaugh/Beck talking points almost word-for-word.

Not all, or maybe not even most, but enough to significantly influence the selection of Republican party candidates...whether those candidates are conservative enough.

You may believe that is coincidental.....I don't.

Redux;607419 wrote:

There are the true libertarians, the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives and fringe elements like the birthers and yes, the angry white racists.

It is a rudderless ship with such disparate interests, it is already floundering.

And you believe that these separate diverse groups are some how unified under one group?

Redux;607423 wrote:

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

What bullshit. That is your definition. No one needs et al to win a seat in the Senate or House.

TheMercenary;607504 wrote:

What bullshit. That is your definition. No one needs et al to win a seat in the Senate or House.

Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who was leading the polls in the recent special election in NY-23 and would likely have won.....but she was not conservative enough and was effectively pushed out by Palin, Limbaugh..and yes, et al.

Who benefited? The Democratic candidate won the seat that had been Republican for over 100 years.

Redux;607519 wrote:

Tell that to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who was leading the polls in the recent special election in NY -23.....until she was pushed out by Palin, Limbaugh..and yes, et al.

Who benefited? The Democratic candidate won the seat that had been Republican for over 100 years.

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama threw down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

TheMercenary;607521 wrote:

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama through down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

Not at all like Virginia, where the governorship swings back and forth every six-eight years....the Democrats certainly haven't controlled it for 100 years.

And NJ, they both were crooks.

Redux;607524 wrote:

Not at all like Virginia, where the governorship swings back and forth every six-eight years....the Democrats certainly haven't controlled it for 100 years.

And NJ, they both were crooks.

That is your excuse for the utter failure of Obama to swing the vote and help out the Dem incumbent?

Hey...I hope the Republicans and Tea Baggers keep their litmus test in place.

The Florida Senate race that I mentioned, where the Tea Baggers now intend to be on the ballot because the leading Republican is not conservative enough, is the latest example.

It works for me!

Great answer.

TheMercenary;607521 wrote:

Sort of like the races in VA and NJ? Obama threw down everything but the underware he wore to stump in NJ and the voters turned up their noses at him. He has no coat tails with the electorate.

I'm in Virginia. Obama did virtually nothing in the governor race here. The candidate didn't make use of him. Towards the election, Obama gave one speech at the campaign's request. And that was it. It was too little too late in a horribly run campaign. The Obama folks were complaining about it a month or so out and leaked several comments trying to distance the administration from the debacle that was coming in Virginia.

I heard that about Obama and the White House, they pretty much ignored the whole race there.

I don't think it's so much that they ignored it as they didn't jump in and start bossing the guy around, and he didn't ask for help.

It was frustrating to watch. It was obvious that the candidate (Deeds) was running it poorly, but he kept doing it the same way, which was to pound one negative issue in his opponent over and over and over again. He never once said why anyone should vote for him.

TheMercenary;607532 wrote:

I heard that about Obama and the White House, they pretty much ignored the whole race there.

You criticize if he ignores the whole race, and you criticize for playing the race card. Make up your mind, would ya. :rolleyes:

Spexxvet;607537 wrote:

You criticize if he ignores the whole race, and you criticize for playing the race card. Make up your mind, would ya. :rolleyes:

Why? He should be criticized for both.

The D's lost the majority of the most recent elections because an overwhelming majority of those who voted in the presidential election do/did not vote in the off elections. This election had virtually nothing to do with Obama. IMO. (See sig line 3)

classicman;607590 wrote:

The D's lost the majority of the most recent elections because an overwhelming majority of those who voted in the presidential election do/did not vote in the off elections. This election had virtually nothing to do with Obama. IMO. (See sig line 3)

The Ds actually split the most recent elections...winning two open House seats (a swing district in CA and a red district in NY) and losing two governorships.

But I agree.

Corzine lost in NJ, because he did a piss poor job as an administrator at a time when the economy imploded. He might have skated with his lousy performance if that hadn't happened, but I doubt it

Two other things against him;
1- He's the former fatcat of Goldman Sachs, and that type isn't to popular with voters right now.

2- His campaign's TV adds making fun of Christie being fat, pissed off a LOT of people.

Redux;607602 wrote:

The Ds actually split the most recent elections...

Thats one way to look at it. I thought there were a lot more R's who won than D's.

classicman;607669 wrote:

Thats one way to look at it. I thought there were a lot more R's who won than D's.

There were only four races of any "national" interest.

There are no House or Senate elections in odd years unless there are open seats - in this case two open House seats. The Democrats won both, one in a district that had elected Republicans for 100+ consecutive years.

And NJ and VA were the only states with state-wide, gubernatorial elections. The Republicans won both.

Virginia, btw, is the only state where the governor is limited to one term, so there is never an incumbent running. The Republican was the next best thing to an incumbent. He was the sitting AG, who was elected state-wide in the previous election.

There were many other races besides those 4. Lieutenants, mayoral and so on. I cannot find the site I looked at where it showed who won what, but IIRC there were a lot more R's who won than D's - oh and I's made a good showing as well.

classicman;607817 wrote:

There were many other races besides those 4. Lieutenants, mayoral and so on.

Mayoral and other municipal elections are overwhelmingly non-partisan, including most big cities...and elections are overwhelming decided on local, not national, issues.

But, yes, you can count one for Rs - Bloomberg won again in NYC.

And we know how much conservative Rs wanna "be like Mike" ;)

weak .

classicman;607902 wrote:

weak .

I agree.

It is definitely weak to suggest that partisan politics is a factor in most local elections. :thumb:

:eyebrow:

So it turns out that the Dem who won in upstate NY is actually a blue dog.

.

arf. yea that's her. :)

And in an amusing note, the NY-23 election is not certified by the Board of Elections because Hoffman is biting into the lead and there are still about 10,000 absentee ballots to process. Absentee ballots take a while to check signatures against voter registration lists. Everyone reckons that an upset at this point would be a surprise, but cannot yet be ruled out. Quite a long list of articles to look at.

And Cato

Redux;607423 wrote:

UG....I'm curious who you see as a leader of this so-called grass roots movement....one who shares your mentality and virtue?

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

Redux;607423 wrote:

Keep in mind that it must be someone who panders to Limbaugh, Beck et al , because w/o their stamp of approval, you lose their minions and he/she would be DOA.

"Must?" I don't see any such "must." These commentators will be more satisfied or less satisfied entirely for reasons of their own, and the reasons run to the sensible. They are not kingmakers for their side of the aisle, as much as some liberals want to believe so, rather than actually observing anything and ordering belief according to experience.

However, it is a fact, not malicious negative stereotyping, that the demographics of political talk radio listeners are overwhelmingly conservative, white, male and middle age.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

Urbane Guerrilla;608162 wrote:

It's a grass-roots movement -- one you are keeping yourself carefully ignorant about, which is not the action of a man who believes in himself or his values -- there is no one leader. It's an umbrella group too, so again there is no one center to it, personality or otherwise. About the most dominant overall shared trend is the good-government one: that a good government lives inside its means and that there is practically nothing outside of fighting a war that a government does that is important enough to run a deficit to accomplish. Debt should be viewed with suspicion, many of us think, and chronic indebtedness with more yet. Trillion-dollar deficit spending by that same entity that prints the currency -- stop it at once.

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:
[INDENT].....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/67544/the-tea-party-patriots-vs-tea-party-express[/INDENT]

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.

As you will become, with age and experience. It puts one more nearly in touch with virtue and values. You find the former much more fun than you'd thought and real life, worth the living, much more possible with the latter.

I am old and white. :D

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

.....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.

Oh Redux, you made my day!

So, these people really take this SERIOUSLY? Bwahhhahaaaa...I thought it was a parody of something. Oh, I guess it is!

:lol:

Tea Party (insert affiliation here.) Gawd even the name makes me guffaw. Tea Party Pansies. Tea Party Puds. Tea Party. Snort!

Redux;608217 wrote:

In fact, it is more than one movement, with more than one agenda and more disparate interests than commonality.
Including the fact that they are funded by competing interests....the Tea Party Express, funded by "fighting a war" neo-cons...and the Tea Party Patriots funded by former congressman Dick Army's K Street corporate lobbyists.

And now they are fighting each other:
[INDENT].....the tussle between Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, which got ugly when Tea Party Patriots organizer Amy Kremer hopped on the Express and was forced out of TPP. On Monday, Tea Party Patriots filed suit against Kremer; they’re also seeking a temporary restraining order in the wake of Kremer locking down Tea Party Patriots resources on her way out.
http://washingtonindependent.com/67544/the-tea-party-patriots-vs-tea-party-express[/INDENT]

Peel away the facade expressed at the grass roots level (and I agree it is sincere at that level) and you will find Washington insiders...but with ties to different extremes (neo-cons v social conservatives) of the Republican party.

Independent fiscal conservatives have and will continue to reject both extremes. But you are carefully ignorant about that because it detracts from what you may sincerely believe are grass roots movements.

It is simply a new face on the old battle on the right between conservative Republicans and true Libertarians.



I am old and white.

And experienced enough in politics, certainly far more than you, to know that movements w/o leaders and with such disparate underlying interests will ultimately turn on each other as these groups have.

None of your points are truely valid. It is no different than when the Dems were out of power, they appeared leaderless and disjointed. Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system. The party in power with a leader is the one who has the White House or the majority in Congress. I recall that during all the protests when the Repubs were in power under Bush the Dems looked like a bunch of interfighting kids in a family that did not get along. Who did you have then Screaming Dean? Yea, a real unitier there. Not. How about Al "I invented the internet" Gore, what bore. The whole notion of Leaderless is a strawman argument. The Dems have repeatedly loss until Bush et. al. screwed it up enough to get the Repubs kicked out and until they found their Savior Obama. Get over yourself.

:corn:

Got any with butter on it? Yum, pass it over will ya! :)

No way, dude! You drink your damn tea and go away. ;)

Merc....the difference is that in the end, the Democrats come together under a big tent.

The "Blue Dogs" are welcomed into the Democratic party (fyi, the latest Blue Dog in NY voted FOR the health reform bill last week) with the understanding that, while they wont always agree, they have more in common than what may separate them on relatively few issues.

The Republicans eat their own and spit out the bones of those not conservative enough and if that doesnt work, will rally behind a third party candidate....cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Redux;608237 wrote:

Merc....the difference is that in the end, the Democrats come together under a big tent.

Not different from when Reagan or Bush2 came to power.

The Republicans eat their own and spit out the bones of those not conservative enough and if that doesnt work, will rally behind a third party candidate....cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Dems are hardly united. They barely passed the House Healthcare bill. The Senate is going to be even harder. There is no magic Kumbya among Dems, that is just a silly notion. Anyone who has followed politics for the last 40 years knows that.

TheMercenary;608242 wrote:

Not different from when Reagan or Bush2 came to power.

Dems are hardly united. They barely passed the House Healthcare bill. The Senate is going to be even harder. There is no magic Kumbya among Dems, that is just a silly notion. Anyone who has followed politics for the last 40 years knows that.

In pragmatic politics, “united” does not imply total agreement on every policy issue, but rather a shared broad political ideology and agreement on MOST issues with a willingness to accept dissent from within and yet still accomplish your goals w/o alimenting those dissenters on other issues.

As you noted, Reagan was good at it and was accepting and reached out to Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats but who might not share his or Republican views on abortion, gun control, or massive defense/war spending....Today's Republican party is not so accepting (in fact, not accepting at all).

Lately (since 06 at least), the Democrats have demonstrated that same pragmatism and are accepting of greater diversity of opinions in order to be in the position to govern (218 is all it takes in the House) and the Republicans have become increasingly more ideologically rigid.

And as to the “grass roots” movement, the Tea Parties are demonstrating the same rigidity and unwillingness to accept any dissent from within...which ultimately will exclude most Independents who might be fiscally conservative, but moderate on social issues or not fully accepting of free market principles or spreading democracy around the world.

To believe that “united” means total agreement on every issue is an example of the rigidity that is working against the Republicans and the Tea Parties.

Obviously, you don't share that view, and UG even less so since he is even more rigid than you.

Not to get into your little spat, but are you trying to say that Obama was somehow leading the D's at some point?

I must have missed that. Seems like he came out of virtually nowhere to beat Hillary and the rest of the established candidates.

Shawnee123;608224 wrote:

Oh Redux, you made my day!

So, these people really take this SERIOUSLY? Bwahhhahaaaa...I thought it was a parody of something. Oh, I guess it is!

:lol:

Tea Party (insert affiliation here.) Gawd even the name makes me guffaw. Tea Party Pansies. Tea Party Puds. Tea Party. Snort!

Reminds me of Life of Brian

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: Fuck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.

Redux;608264 wrote:

In pragmatic politics, “united” does not imply total agreement on every policy issue, but rather a shared broad political ideology and agreement on MOST issues with a willingness to accept dissent from within and yet still accomplish your goals w/o alimenting those dissenters on other issues.

As you noted, Reagan was good at it and was accepting and reached out to Blue Dog fiscally conservative Democrats but who might not share his or Republican views on abortion, gun control, or massive defense/war spending....Today's Republican party is not so accepting (in fact, not accepting at all).

Lately (since 06 at least), the Democrats have demonstrated that same pragmatism and are accepting of greater diversity of opinions in order to be in the position to govern (218 is all it takes in the House) and the Republicans have become increasingly more ideologically rigid.

And as to the “grass roots” movement, the Tea Parties are demonstrating the same rigidity and unwillingness to accept any dissent from within...which ultimately will exclude most Independents who might be fiscally conservative, but moderate on social issues or not fully accepting of free market principles or spreading democracy around the world.

To believe that “united” means total agreement on every issue is an example of the rigidity that is working against the Republicans and the Tea Parties.

Obviously, you don't share that view, and UG even less so since he is even more rigid than you.

What a dodge, duck and cover. That is your excuse? Fail.

TheMercenary;608229 wrote:

Unlike other countries with multipul factions where they elect minority power heads, we do not have to form those coalitions in a two party system.

I'm not sure if you meant multiple or multi-pull, but both work in the following example.

While it is true that we do not have to form coalitions of multiple parties, we do tend to form coalitions within the two dominant parties.

Depending on the strength of the party's whip and the tenor of the individual members, parties can be cohesive or fractured on individual issues, types of issues, etc.

While in the minority, one criticism made of the Democrats was their lack of cohesion. The current Republican minority, while cohesive in opposition to issues like health care, in other areas is almost schizophrenic.

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.

TheMercenary;608382 wrote:

What a dodge, duck and cover. That is your excuse? Fail.

I know your game, dude.

When you cant refute the facts and simple logic (opinion) of my post, you just strike back with a "failed".

And it is not a "failure" when you and UG play the "Obama is a socialist" card? Go figure.

:lol2:

When 82% of the Democrats voted for the House health reform bill, it is hardly a failure.

When an even higher percentage voted for the stimulus bill, the SCHIP expansion, the credit card bill of rights, the pay equity for women bill, the tobacco control bill, the public lands management bill, etc......it is hardly a fractured caucus.

To be the majority party in the US today, one needs a big tent. You mistake minor disagreement by a small percentage of Democrats in Congress on one (or even a few) issues as fracturing the party.

Some among the Republican leadership understand that (Romney, Pawlenty)...others (Huckabee, Palin) are far too rigid and have the most vocal and obstinate supporters...and that is why the Republican party is the one fracturing from within.

richlevy;608389 wrote:

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.

The Republican candidate in the recent House election in NY did not defect...she was, in effect, driven out by the extremists...and not just extremists, but extremists from outside the state.

richlevy;608389 wrote:

While in the minority, one criticism made of the Democrats was their lack of cohesion. The current Republican minority, while cohesive in opposition to issues like health care, in other areas is almost schizophrenic.

The divisions among Democratic moderates and the extreme left wing are almost insignificant compared to the division between Republican moderates and the extreme right wing. This has been aggravated by the defection of a very large group of moderates, giving the impression that the only reliable voting bloc left in the Republican party is it's right wing.

And when the dems were out of the White House that was the point. They were in the same level of turmoil and appeared to have no one in charge, no one to drive their ship. They looked like the protesters at the G-8. Everyone was there to protest, none of them for the same thing. When the party in power runs things, historically the party out of power looks disjointed and schizoprenic.

Redux;608404 wrote:

I know your game, dude.

When you cant refute the facts and simple logic (opinion) of my post, you just strike back with a "failed".

That is because you do and you just did, again.
:D

TheMercenary;608446 wrote:

And when the dems were out of the White House that was the point. They were in the same level of turmoil and appeared to have no one in charge, no one to drive their ship.

On the Merc truth scale....you failed!

The Democrats won 14 Senate seats and 56 House seats in 06 and 08 by seeking out and running moderate candidates not the most liberal candidates, for the most part. It was the national strategy guided by the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.

As chairman of the party, Dean created and employed the "50 State Strategy" that attempted to make Democrats competitive in normally conservative states often dismissed in the past as "solid red." The success of the strategy became apparent after the 2006 midterm elections, where Democrats took back the House and picked up seats in the Senate from normally Republican states such as Missouri and Montana. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama used "The 50 state strategy" as the backbone of his candidacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

The Republican approach is to stick with a conservative ideological litmus test for candidates. Some of the leaders within the party know that this is a failed strategy, but are unable to convince the hard core social conservative base that now controls the party.

I would ask again...who is running the Republican party (or the Tea Parties)? Leaders who understand how to win elections or the extreme ideologues with a litmus test?

One party has become the big tent party. Objective political observers know which party that would be.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

A Republican party with open arms that wants to be more inclusive and more appealing to moderates?....it ain't happening, dude. :headshake

Redux;608465 wrote:

bla, bla, bla...

Well another report disagrees with your partisan assessment again.

Republicans, riven but resurgent

Nov 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Why conservative in-fighting may matter less than you might think

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14794768

TheMercenary;608924 wrote:

Well another report disagrees with your partisan assessment again.

Republicans, riven but resurgent


http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14794768

Reasonable people can have different opinions on this issue.

What I took dispute with was your assessment of my opinion as "FAILED" when it is shared by many non-partisans (as well as some Republican leaders) and is simply one perspective.

In fact, on numerous opinion posts, you grade those posts with which you disagree as "FAILED"...a narrow-minded unwillngess to accept that other opinions, as opposed to facts, are valid as well.

You want to play that game....I'll get in the gutter with you and play as well.

What is most laughable is someone who describes the Speaker of the House as a Nazi and who does not know the difference between liberalism and socialism...grading others at all. :eyebrow:

Redux;608938 wrote:

Reasonable people can have different opinions on this issue.

What I took dispute with was your assessment of my opinion as "FAILED" when it is shared by many non-partisans (as well as some Republican leaders) and is simply one perspective.

In fact, on numerous opinion posts, you grade those posts with which you disagree as "FAILED"...a narrow-minded unwillngess to accept that other opinions, as opposed to facts, are valid as well.

Only because you grade your self as correct do you fail. And you fail here too.

What is most laughable is someone who describes the Speaker of the House as a Nazi

She is a Nazi. Does it offend you for me to call her that?

and who does not know the difference between liberalism and socialism...grading others at all.

I know the difference and I know that the Demoncrats in Congress try to blur the lines and have done a pretty good job of it in the past 10 months.

No, you don't like Pelosi. She is not a nazi.

Your continued insistence that she is has the opposite of the effect of the one you're apparently looking for: it does NOT make us think you have any clue at all what you're constantly beeping about.

I can call the bitch a Nazi if it suits me. :D

Yes you can. You lost credibility so long ago, no one is looking for any truth or enlightenment from your posts anyway.

Cool.

Heh.

RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog

By Jay Cost

So, congratulations to all of you pundits spinning the NY-23 race as a sign of the crippling divisions within the GOP. I cannot offer you an actual Gold Medal in Pretzel Logic, but perhaps I'll offer you a complimentary copy of this 1974 classic from Becker and Fagan:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/my_favorite_postelection_meme.html


And this was real interesting. Man I bet they are glad that lady lost.

Five Reasons NY-23 Doesn't Tell Us Anything

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/11/five_reasons_ny23_doesnt_tell.html

The 50+ Blue Dog (fiscally conservative and moderate on other issues) Democrats won in 06-08 (and 3 races since then) in open seats that were historically red districts.

Many could have been anti-Bush votes ...or there could have been more localized reasons.

But they had one common thread and that was the Republican candidate was an extremist on non-fiscal issues.

Opinions are like assholes.....everyone has one.

You just claim that your asshole emits a sweeter scent...and on that, you "fail"

Redux;609102 wrote:

You just claim that your asshole emits a sweeter scent...and on that, you "fail"

Correct.


I believe more people voted against the Rebulickins than they voted for the Demoncrats.

This is one issue where I agree with Newt Gingrich....

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party’s nominee.

“If we get into a cycle where there are tea parties and there are conservative third-party candidates, we will make [Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life,” Gingrich told POLITICO in an interview Thursday, calling the practice “totally destructive.”

.... Gingrich recounted that he became speaker after the 1994 GOP sweep, thanks to a bloc of support from a moderate wing of the party that is now nearly extinct.

Yet even as he urged his party to take a pragmatic tack to regain the congressional majority, the former speaker showed off his pugnacious side, asserting that top Democrats were contemptuous of religion....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29496.html

....at least until his "Democrats are anti-religiion" nonsense.

We can disagree on why or how...but it is a fact that the Democratic party includes many moderates among members of Congress and that moderate Republicans are an endangered species.

Look back at the Gingrich's "Contract with America" that propelled the Republicans to the majority in 1994.....he purposefully ignored the most divisive issues of abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration reform, etc. Conservative, but also moderate. The most potentially divisive issue in the document was welfare reform.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

IMO, based on Congressional election results from 06 through the most recent, the Republican social conservative base which now dominates the party has become much more insistent (than the party was in 1994) that candidates tow the line on these issues and not just fiscal or regulatory issues, in order to receive a stamp of approval.

There is a serious culture clash at work within the Republican party. Gingrich recognizes this trend as do other Republican leaders, but the issue they face is how to deal with it in in a manner that will mollify the extremists (like the Palinistas) and, at the same time, attract moderate Republicans and Independents and expand the tent.

Government ownership -- regardless of reluctance or pretended reluctance -- of the means of production is a feature of what political system?

A political party that determinedly avoids either ownership of the means of production or determining by fiat the salary of anyone in production is a party that is far from socialist. Obama's embrace of this, by contrast, says "socialist" in sufficiently large letters to attract not only the attention of the Libertarians but of Middle America in general. Middle America is going to TEA parties to raise hell about it.

The presence of avowed Communists in the Obama Administration also declares a push for socialism, and the even greater presence of people who inveigh elaborately against capitalism and all its works declares the push even more strongly. Those people don't believe in capitalism, but clearly prefer something... other. Funnily enough, it's also all the same "other." When it's non-capitalist, you gotta compare them against the properties of fascism-socialism-communism, and you find sufficient match points to draw the correct conclusion. The Administration is Socialist-Democrat, and Redux supports the heck out of this pack of economic illiterates, denying until his last breath their socialism. They are shown as socialists in their own words, Redux; words you apparently don't read. We decline to run off the cliff with you, Redux -- a sign we're bright.

Urbane Guerrilla;612437 wrote:

Government ownership -- regardless of reluctance or pretended reluctance -- of the means of production is a feature of what political system?

A political party that determinedly avoids either ownership of the means of production or determining by fiat the salary of anyone in production is a party that is far from socialist. Obama's embrace of this, by contrast, says "socialist" in sufficiently large letters to attract not only the attention of the Libertarians but of Middle America in general. Middle America is going to TEA parties to raise hell about it.

The presence of avowed Communists in the Obama Administration also declares a push for socialism, and the even greater presence of people who inveigh elaborately against capitalism and all its works declares the push even more strongly. Those people don't believe in capitalism, but clearly prefer something... other. Funnily enough, it's also all the same "other." When it's non-capitalist, you gotta compare them against the properties of fascism-socialism-communism, and you find sufficient match points to draw the correct conclusion. The Administration is Socialist-Democrat, and Redux supports the heck out of this pack of economic illiterates, denying until his last breath their socialism. They are shown as socialists in their own words, Redux; words you apparently don't read. We decline to run off the cliff with you, Redux -- a sign we're bright.

Socialism is government take over and ownership of the means of production (as well as the natural resources) for the benefit of the workers....permanently.

Short term government initiatives to bail out banks/financial services or even the auto industry is for the purpose of protecting a teetering economy, with the goal of strengtheing the capitalistic private sector for the longer term.

Socialists in the administration? If anything, most of the economic/financial advisors in the administration are right out of Wall Street.

You are stretching the concept of socialism as far as you possibly can, and beyond any reasonable standard, in an attempt to support the baseless comparison to Obama policies.

That dog don t hunt except in extreme tea bag country.

During the Bush administration we were on the "road to fascism". It's a ridiculous form of slippery slope argument.