Tea Party just racist?

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

For the sake of "old fashioned northern GOP conservatism," one comes to bury far left wingery, not to praise it. Just as did Shakespeare's Marc Antony, beholden to the Romans "for Brutus sake," speak of Caesar.

[packsaddle]

And..by the way, Happy Labor Day!

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle, that's quite an intellectual muddle yeh got goin' there.

 

Markets are where people come together to exchange goods, eh? Markets can't exist without some social norms of behavior. One of da principle reasons why the West and America in particular has been so successful is that there have been strong social norms of behavior in da market, enforced at times by regulation or by just takin' a fellow out back and breakin' his kneecaps. When yeh travel throughout da middle east, yeh see a different social ethic of "get what yeh can get" in every market and bizarre. So despite considerable resources, they remain economically backward.

 

Standardization in markets is a good thing. When yeh standardize on a currency instead of barter (or multi-currency), yeh reduce friction and make pricing more transparent. That reduces da ability of savvy players from makin' money off of the transaction by takin' advantage of ordinary folks' inability to follow currency fluctuations and such. So it speeds da flow of capital from consumer to producer.

 

Standardize a stock instrument for fractional ownership stakes of a corporation, and voila! Yeh have the ability to create a relatively transparent market which reduces da friction of directing capital from investors to producers. Standardize a commodities futures contract and presto! Yeh create a market that can improve da security of producers while assisting distributors and reducin' overall commodity prices for consumers.

 

To create a truly free market, yeh need a standardized and regulated market. Da freedom is in the individual counterparties on setting a price and takin' transparent risks. That is most economically efficient. You'll still have fads and swings, booms and crashes because of human nature, and that's OK. Any fool who buys Facebook at $30 a share deserves to lose his shirt. Yeh just want to protect da market from individuals who by fraud or other means undermine da integrity of the market. You're free to enter into a bad deal, but yeh should not be forced into one.

 

Da problem with unionized manufacturin' labor in recent decades, and government unions in some areas as well, is that they became an extra-market force. Auto was a good example, eh? The auto workers would negotiate contracts simultaneously with all domestic manufacturers in a coordinated effort. They behaved like a monopoly, drivin' up wage and benefit costs artificially. Rather than a worker engaged in a market transaction for labor, yeh had a sole-source supplier dictatin' terms. That created a market distortion, which used labor law to extort high prices from da consumer for poor products. That was eventually broken by imports, where there was no labor monopoly.

 

Da flip side of course is that da holders of capital can form the same sort of cartel that labor can, eh? In fact they can do it more easily, bein' a smaller and more socially cohesive group. Da temptation to do that is deeply rooted in human nature, eh? To try to control da means of production so as to create a monopoly. In small villages this is relatively easily controlled by social sanction, but when da nation became more interconnected a Rockefeller could live far away and not be as susceptible to social sanction. So we developed trust-bustin' laws and labor laws as a national form of social sanction to help protect da freedom of the market. That, and restrictions on banks after da depression so that da risks remained transparent.

 

We let the latter lapse or repealed 'em, so da result was a less free market. People engaged in transactions where da risks were no longer clear, eh? They were obfuscated through derivatives on tranched derivative securities on bonds. So bad that it almost destroyed the integrity of da market entirely. Da perpetrators were protected by law, and they had the additional advantage that the old Robber Barons did, eh? Da holders of capital are now increasingly international, so national social sanction ain't as effective, eh? Folks like Mitt Romney can off-shore a large fraction of their operations or their wealth. Or themselves - I think a record number of capital-owners renounced their U.S. citizenship this past year. So what we're seein' is da free markets now bein' distorted by those folks again. Yeh can pillage a successful domestic village without consequence by livin' elsewhere. Da social sanction which maintains a free market has broken down.

 

And I gotta blame that at least partly on da nuttiness of your academic colleagues in business schools across the nation. Livin' off in da Ivory Tower and not really understandin' da social commitments of markets, they were free to dream up idiotic theories of business ethics like "maximizing shareholder value." All of 'em should be forced back into da real world and have their kneecaps broken.

 

The question is how to proceed from here, eh? I've got no faith in da neo-con Republicans; when they're not bein' stupid they are lying. Mitt Romney isn't stupid, but he is a prevaricator. So that makes him a moderate. Obama has been a moderate, but his party still longs for da days of the labor monopoly.

 

I haven't seen anybody yet who appreciates that free markets and creative destruction are good things, and that maintainin' free markets requires that yeh have sufficient regulation and enforcement to prevent bad actors from ruinin' the marketplace for everyone.

 

So in the mean time, its up to us old furry conservatives who for decades have warned against da ills of the labor monopoly in manufacturin' to now try to speak truth to our neo-con youngsters who have forgotten that a real business actually makes things and provides service. Somebody has to try to undo da damage you academics have done.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

"All of 'em should be forced back into da real world and have their kneecaps broken."

OK, but when you and your goons arrive with the baseball bats, just try to remember that I wasn't part of the academy when all that was happening. I can't disagree with what you say about what has happened, I'm not sure anyone can disagree. I just maintain that your protests are too little, too late.

 

OTOH, I just love the mental imagery of this, the real world part at least. The kneecap part...I can't imagine the whining as a result. It's bad enough as it is, lol.

But you're right about the business college.

This is true for some other fields as well. They get an advanced degree and go right into faculty positions someplace. The number of people around me who have actually had to solve real problems in the real world I can count on one hand.

 

So what about Romney? Think about the twists and turns he's taken. He really IS capable of changing his mind. I think what bothers you about him is his coldness and THAT's what I think we need in a manager. He's willing to make the smart, hard decision and when people are about to get hurt, when Obama would hesitate, Romney won't feel a thing. He'll do his best to look like he cares but that emotion will not taint a single decision while he's in office. We'll just have to disagree I guess, as to whether this is a good thing or not.

 

So back to the original question for the topic. I'm not certain about the Tea Party...it is such a fragmented and mercurial thing. At one time the TP seemed to be little more than the result of a post-mortem ejaculation by the old Confederacy that somehow found its way into the Republican party and caused an unwanted bastard child. I'm thinking maybe it should be called the 'Mordred' movement. Then I glance at Palin or Bachman and I realize that may be giving them way too much credit. They're not all of them racist. A single characterization just can't quite describe them.

 

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[tgrimstead]

Republicans went from Emancipation Proclamation to Racism? Wow. That Liberal media propaganda machine is good.

 

Yours in Cheerful Service,

 

Tim

 

 

( Romney = Cookie cutter old rich white guy = 4 more years for Obama.)

[Kahuna]

>>Obama has been a moderate

[Gunny2862]

Beavah - I believe this is the work you mentioned in your post on 9/2 http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/ this one starts with the three fellows and their individual work output the reasons behind the basic economic choices and over time with savings and investment talked about, and scales that up to the building of the dam and waterworks.

[Beavah]

We talking about Obama the president here or somebody else?

 

President Obama.

 

Yah, yah, I know da neocon/tea party folks want to portray him as some Archduke of Socialism, but that's honestly not how the man has governed as close as I can tell.

 

Obamacare is about as liberal as he's gone, and that plan was put together by the conservative Heritage Foundation 18 years ago, eh? It adheres to sound conservative (but not libertarian) principles like folks should pay their own way, and engage in a private market for health care. Da implementation was a frightful mess of legislation, but then that's Congress. Why use 100 pages when yeh can use 2000?

 

He hasn't cut defense spending, he's increased it. He hasn't closed Gitmo, in fact he's expanded da realm of executive privilege and detention. He hasn't been soft on terror. He surged in Afghanistan to positive effect and has not shirked from engaging in a very aggressive (and largely successful) undeclared drone war against da semi-autonomous areas of Pakistan. He led a successful coalition to topple Quadaffi, who I reckon most of us had wished Reagan had been successful at landing a bomb on after Lockerbie.

 

He hasn't raised taxes, he's cut them significantly. He's expanded gun rights, not curtailed them, opening up carry laws in the national parks and earning an "F" from anti-gun groups like da Brady Center. He's greatly expanded domestic and offshore oil drilling (drill, baby! drill!).

 

About da only issue he's been liberal on is abortion and contraception, and for da former he hasn't really done anything of substance, he just hasn't paid lip-service to restrictions. Aside from our Catholic friends, I'm not sure that opposition to contraception for adults is really that strong a conservative issue.

 

So I really am curious about this, eh? Why do folks believe the man is such an extreme lefty? I still can't help but think that it's just because of who he is (black, northern, urban, Harvard-educated, whatever)?

 

All this is not to say I'm a supporter, eh? I think there are real questions of competence, and I disagree with many of his positions. I just don't get da notion that his positions are very extreme, and I'm always a bit skeptical of emotional arguments.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Kahuna]

>>Why do folks believe the man is such an extreme lefty?

[scoutingagain]

Kahuna has a point there Beav. I suspect your using some old fashioned notion of what a moderate or conservative is. Keep in mind Reagan would be kicked out of the current Republican Party for being too liberal. If what once was considered moderate was the 50 yard line, it's now probably on the Democratic 20 yard line on the old scale and the current Republican philosophy of no new revenues, etc. the conservatives have moved to the right past the end zone.

 

 

 

SA

[Beavah]

He's from Hawaii by way of Indonesia, raised by people who didn't think much of the American way of life.

 

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Kahuna, I'm not sure where yeh get this stuff, eh? The man was raised in Hawaii by his maternal grandparents. The man who raised him was a World War II veteran. Da fact that you or anybody could declare that a World War II veteran of da U.S. Army "didn't think much of the American way of life" illustrates to me just how far modern conservatives have gone off da rails. The man was a volunteer for da wartime defense of this great nation! I'm not sure how a fellow who put his life on the line can be accused of not thinkin' much of the American way of life.

 

That's what I don't get about this stuff, eh? There's all of this odd energy and lack of honesty or honor or somethin'. I can't figure out why.

 

President Obama spent more time in da private sector than either Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon, and more time than Paul Ryan or John McConnell. But I'm not sure we really want to say that a fellow who has been a soldier or a policeman or a firefighter or a county prosecutor or whatnot isn't qualified for public office because they never worked in da private sector. Lemonade stand or otherwise.

 

Obama had the most control of Congress a president has had in a good long while for his first two years and durin' that time he cut taxes dramatically. As a result, right now federal revenues are at the lowest point as a percentage of GDP than they've been since da aftermath of the war his grandpa served in.

 

Yep, I've read the entire ACA law, which is why I can say that it's quite a mess. Of course it contains tax provisions. That's a conservative notion, eh? People should pay for services, unlike when President Bush instituted da Medicare prescription drug benefit plan by puttin' it all on a credit card. Yeh don't get health care for free. For a traditional conservative, that's a fair step better than da current system where yeh get welfare medical care for free at the ER at three times da cost to everyone else.

 

So I still don't get it. I reckon scoutingagain must be right, eh? Folks just don't know what conservative means anymore. Or I don't.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Papadaddy]

The movie "Obama 2016" is a must-see. I haven't seen any of those "facts" debunked yet.

[moosetracker]

Just comming back from vacation.. Sorry I pretty much missed this topic. I admidt I havent' read through the whole thing, it may take me a while to, so I am responding to Beavah's initial post, though at this time the thread may have moved into a topic about Kangaroos in Australia.. So sorry if I am out of sync with the discussion at time, over time I will get caught up.

 

But, the intial topic, I felt compelled to respond too.. Although my relatives are for Obama, my in-laws are for Romney, and they were the ones we were vacationing with.

 

I do believe some is racist. You go to some of the comments after a news article, and the pure anger and hatred and yes, some unmasked pure racial slurs..

 

But, looking at my in-laws.. I don't think it is ALL racists..

 

My in-laws it is just they fear and believe the lies put out by Republicans on Medicare.. They heard it 2 years back when Republicans used it to take over the House.. It is so believed that they were not even open to discussion.. They are so old, it wasn't worth upsetting them to try to open up discussion and true debate, and pure logic such as which party supports entitlement programs, and which party is all about tearing them down. So if you have to figure out which party may be lying why would on this one policy would they do a total body swap on it?) Nope, they didn't want to listen.. They were scared and brain-washed.

 

Brother-in-law & I talked a long time.. He really is not prejudice at all. I really believe that. He is a business man who felt hard hit by the economy.. He use to employ illegal immigrants, he said Americans didn't want the jobs. Now he only employs Americans, and want them to kick the illegal immigrants out.. He says part of it was he thought they really wanted to be immigrants but over time found they did not. Yet without paying taxes they were a drag on our hospitals and school systems.. (I feel Democrats are being too lenient, but Republicans too harsh. Yet I can't vocalize the right mix.)

 

He is very upset paying for welfare, and other programs of help.. Strangely, his views were some I felt when unemployment was low.. When work was out there, I felt people could find work, and so should find work.. Now, I see a lot of good people who would love to find work, and try real hard to get another job, but they cannot find that position.. I guess I was against welfare when I felt anyone who half-heartedly tried could find work, but I am for it when I see a sincere need from people who tried to work hard and play by the rules and is hard hit and really need that safety net that when employed some of their taxes paid for, but now that it is needed, the safety net is pulled out from under them. 

 

This is my husbands side of the family.. Both mother/father-in-laws and brother/sister-in-laws though Catholic, disagree with the Republicans stance on Pro-life.. Both groups are pro-choice.. This was before I hit them with the question of what the Republicans planned to do to feed/house/educate and raise all the unwanted babies, that women were forced to birth and then gave up because they are either disabled (think of all the babies born from drug or alcohole addicted mothers, besides families who just would not have the finances or time and patience to raise).. Think about the fact these families will not get any government aid to raise these children.. The only option they will have is to disown them. Then there will just be the women not ready for a family who will be angry over not having a choice. They will refuse to raise these unwanted children, simply because they will be angry that their freedom to decide for themselves was taken a way.. "I didn't want this baby, you (government) did.. Here you go.."

 

Sure some of the healthy babies will be adopted. People wanting to adopt will not have to go out of country.. But, there will be more babies born then couples wanting to adopt.. Think about making the ability to spay or neuter cats and dogs..

 

So how will America warehouse these unwanted babies? How will they pay for raising them? And once they reach adulthood, how much of a burden on society will these unwanted babies continue to be?

 

Anyway, some is definitely racist.. I have no doubt Beavah's friend drew this conclusion talking to his in-laws who were deciding due to their prejudice..

 

I also think, that all the voter suppression going on in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Michigan etc.. This I have come to believe is two-fold 1) Republican doing it solely to get an unfair advantage.. 2) People who are prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, poor and young.. A feeling they are too stupid to vote the right way.

 

But, I also see that some people just believe the Republican rhetoric and it has frightened them.. And some truly believe Ive got mine, youre on your own. Yet dont understand that they are not wealthy enough to be in the group this will be earmarked for.

 

[AZMike]

"This is my husbands side of the family.. Both mother/father-in-laws and brother/sister-in-laws though Catholic, disagree with the Republicans stance on Pro-life.. Both groups are pro-choice.. "

 

So, they are in disagreement with a fundamental teaching of Catholicism, and which has been a fundamental teaching of Christianity since the time of the Didache, but still claim to identify as Catholics.

 

"This was before I hit them with the question of what the Republicans planned to do to feed/house/educate and raise all the unwanted babies, that women were forced to birth and then gave up because they are either disabled (think of all the babies born from drug or alcohole addicted mothers, besides families who just would not have the finances or time and patience to raise).. Think about the fact these families will not get any government aid to raise these children.. The only option they will have is to disown them. Then there will just be the women not ready for a family who will be angry over not having a choice. They will refuse to raise these unwanted children, simply because they will be angry that their freedom to decide for themselves was taken a way.. "I didn't want this baby, you (government) did.. Here you go.." "

 

That's very compassionate of you. I know many adults whose mothers were poor, or alcoholics, or didn't receive government aid. I can't tell you how many times all those people have told me they only wished that their mothers had aborted them.

 

Everyone who had a poor parent or an abusive mom? They all wish they had been aborted. Better not to have any option to live rather than face the daily pain of growing up with a bad mom.

 

The people with Down's Syndrome? Yep, they wish their parents had aborted them. They say it all the time, in fact. You should see their suicide rate. Well, actually it's almost non-existent, but don't let facts get in the way of a good prejudice.

 

The people with inheritable diseases? Yeah, they also wish that they had been aborted. Better never to have lived than have to deal with the crummy hand they were dealt.

 

Those who grew up poor? EVERY poor person wishes they were dead, or better yet, had never been born. I grew up dirt poor, and I used to ask my Mom every day why she never aborted me instead of making me have to work all through high school to help bring in family income. Really, My life would have been a lot better if I hadn't had one.

 

Because after all, life never improves and you can never improve your lot in life, once you're born unwanted. We live in America, after all, where people's station in life is fixed and unchanging.

 

And yes, all those mothers who decide that they just aren't cut out to be moms will drop them off at the nearest government office, and say, "Here, YOU raise him!" They will then walk out, without feat of being tackled and arrested for child abandonment.

 

Their infants will be turned over to faceless government bureaucrats (as the Catholic orphanages are all going out of business because of outmoded ideas that children should be raised by a mom and a dad), then grow up in the massive gray stone orphanages that cover the American countryside, growing old and working away at some big kind of dangerous millstone apparatus, or something, because everyone knows that no one wants to adopt a baby. Babies are kind of icky, after all, and get in the way of one's life-plans

 

"Sure some of the healthy babies will be adopted. People wanting to adopt will not have to go out of country.. But, there will be more babies born then couples wanting to adopt.. Think about making the ability to spay or neuter cats and dogs.. "

 

I AM thinking about making the ability to spay or neuter cats and dogs. And I still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

"So how will America warehouse these unwanted babies? How will they pay for raising them? And once they reach adulthood, how much of a burden on society will these unwanted babies continue to be?"

 

Well, once they're adults, I guess they would be expected to get a job and earn a living, like the rest of us, and help pay down the national debt, which by then will be so large we won't even have a mathematical term for it. Or we could just allow their moms to kill them and term it a very late-term abortion. Because the odds are so stacked against them.

(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[moosetracker]

Yes, even my Catholic side of my family, can think logically.

 

You are pulling out the parts you want to look at.. You are ignoring the fact that these children born of mothers who did not want them, who did nothing to be concerned with the health of the unborn, who continued with their drug use, or alcohol use.

 

Those who will be born in a republican world will be born into a world which seems to care about a fertilize egg, and considers it life to be protected. If they are born with defects will be born in a world of Republicans that will no longer care about their life. They will not have health insurance, they will be born in families that can not afford the health insurance, or have a lifetime caps. Will be born of people who can not care for them even if they would have with the help. They will be expected to die..

 

Look up the condition of warehouse children in other countries.

 

They live in cribs with very little human touch. Possibly the only touch may be in getting an occasional diaper change, but not as often as needed.. Even the healthy children will wither in these conditions, mentally and physically.. Some never learn to walk. Also under a Republican world will have no health care. I doubt they will get little of anything else. Not healthy food, poor education if they ever develope or live long enough to be educated.. They will just be warehoused until they die. If they do live (very rare, most will die before then), don't expect them to be a very productive member of society.. They will not have been given any skills to live in society.

 

Personally I care about the living, more so then an unwanted fertilized egg that some religions would call human. But science will not at least within the first trimester.

 

I also care about the mental health of a women who was raped, and would never ask her to go through the mental trama to be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy that would keep her from healing.. These are the women who will comit suicide..

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)