"You ivory tower egghead libs with your math and your objectivity will never understand. You can have all the education in the world and your vote still counts the same as everyone else's, and that's why you'll lose in the end. What's more American than that, stupid nerds? SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!"
-- Peter Berkowitz, Wall Street Journal
Bonus Verbatim Stupid:
"Those who doubt that the failings of higher education in America have political consequences need only reflect on the quality of progressive commentary on the tea party movement. Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses."
You know, spirited defenders like Michele Bachmann. Facts? Logic? Debate? Discourse? Critical Thinking? These are meaningless when you can just ring Pavlov's bell and take the power you want through fear, anger, resentment, and scapegoating.
On the contrary, progressives understand the Tea Party only too well, as America's history has seen those forces employed time and time again in the name of political expediency. Of course, that would require looking back at America's darker past and studying it in order not to repeat it.
Why bother when repeating it works so well...and is so much easier to do?
Posts
8 comments:
Facts? Logic? Debate? Discourse? Critical Thinking?
You don't do that here.
Pot, meet kettle.
Sure, why not, Eric?
You know, spirited defenders like Michele Bachmann. Facts? Logic? Debate? Discourse? Critical Thinking? These are meaningless when you can just ring Pavlov's bell and take the power you want through fear, anger, resentment, and scapegoating.
I think Zandar has the wrong person in mind since Bachmann provides facts, logic, and critical thinking to debate and discourse. I'm thinking that the person Zandar was referring to was Barbara Boxer.
On the contrary, progressives understand the Tea Party only too well, as America's history has seen those forces employed time and time again in the name of political expediency.
Would that include the members of the original Tea Party, the one in Boston? Is that where you're going with this? No, you don't understand today's Tea Party at all.
Of course, that would require looking back at America's darker past and studying it in order not to repeat it.
Really? The "history" as presented by America-haters like the now rotting Howard Zinn? Because that seems to be the only "history" you've ever studied.
Seems I've touched a nerve. That usually indicates I'm on the right track.
I'm not denying that there's genuine anger out there at the economy. What I'm saying is the huge corporate "Tea Party" brand machine is using that anger to put in candidates so far to the right that it's a matter of literally voting against your own economic self-interests.
Nobody likes to find out they're being used.
I can't think of a better illustration of "stupid" than going to oppositional websites to shit on the readers and the host while pimping one's own lonely, commentless blog. I bet SteveAR is constantly refreshing his site meter and masturbating when he gets a clickthrough.
yuck. steveAR is the most boring conservative troll ever. the guy will make you long for wafflez to start posting again.
What I'm saying is the huge corporate "Tea Party" brand machine is using that anger to put in candidates so far to the right that it's a matter of literally voting against your own economic self-interests.
Are you kidding? My economic self-interests hit the skids when Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and the White House in 2009. As it is now, my taxes are going to go up thanks to Democrats. My health insurance premiums will probably go up (I'll know in a few days) thanks to Democrats. I have a small business; thanks to Democrats, my costs will increase. Democrats are talking about stealing my 401(k) money. It seems to me that it is in my economic self-interest to vote for Tea Party Republicans, don't you think?
Federal taxes? Including the tax cut president Obama including in the Recovery Act, they're lower then ever:
Myth #1: Federal taxes are higher than they have ever been.
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/10/5_myths_about_federal_taxes.html
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the opposite is true. Budget analysts typically measure the federal tax burden as a proportion of GDP because this accounts for the amount of our economic output that is devoted to paying federal taxes as the economy grows or contracts. Federal taxes from all sources were 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and are projected to be 14.6% of GDP in 2010. See the CBO report, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," August 2010, Table 1-2 (pdf).
By comparison, the lowest tax burden during Ronald Reagan's Presidency was 17.3% of GDP. Under President Bush federal taxes reached their low point at 16.3% of GDP. See the CBO historic budget tables: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Small business share of health care costs will go down or stay the same:
Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220809,00.html
This new credit helps small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations afford the cost of covering their employees and is specifically targeted for those with low- and moderate-income workers. The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health insurance coverage for the first time or maintain coverage they already have. In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half the cost of single coverage for their employees. Learn more by browsing our page on the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit for Small Employers.
Report by the American Medical Association: The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Workers’ Health Insurance Coverage
http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=12339&query=home
In fact, the probability of being offered coverage increases proportionately more for workers at small firms than for workers at large firms, even though small firms are not subject to penalties. Currently, only 60.4% of workers at businesses with 50 or fewer employees have an offer of coverage; the proportion is projected to increase to 85.9% after the reform. The large increase in offers provided by small businesses is driven primarily by two factors: greater demand for coverage by workers due to individual penalties for being uninsured and the availability of new, often lower-cost insurance options (because of administrative savings, for example) for small businesses that offer coverage on the exchanges. After the reform, we predict that nearly three of four workers offered coverage by small businesses will receive that offer through the exchanges. The ACA will have a lesser effect on large employers, since most already offer insurance coverage to their workers. Of the 13.6 million workers newly offered coverage, only 3.2 million will be employed by firms large enough to be subject to employer penalties.
Steal your 401K? There are plenty of rumors and myths about Democrats and your 401k on right-wing web sites, but they're just that, myths. Automatic enrollment in 401Ks started under Bush. The Obama administration has discussed a way for employees to voluntarily roll those over into annuities which would be saver and thus provide a steady income stream.Right-wing tea party conservative sites run on fear and myths.More on the subject here,
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
The fact is that the American middle-class and small business ( heck even the wealthy for that matter) do better under Democratic administration than Republican. There is some helpful economic history here along with some charts and graphs: Democrats are the Party of Paychecks
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001995.htm
Post a Comment