Calling guard dog and others

[Gorgon]

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash.

 

As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

[Purkake]

So you wanted to make subtle insults and get info on the "tea party"?

 

There's always Wikipedia...

[Walsingham]

You could always go way back to the South China Seas incident.

[Calax]

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash.

 

As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

Generally, (and unfortunatly for the movement) it's tied mostly to Fox News.

 

Here's a good run from Daily show on Fox News about Tea Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TXsql7KVrg

 

But, Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity seem to be two of the largest supporters and vocal focus. But once you get beyond the idea of "don't spend much money" they all of a sudden split up idealistically.

 

Basically dig into Fox news and tea party, and you'll find most of the idealogs and commentators that support the party.

[Guard Dog]

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash.

 

As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

I'd say indirectly to blame, but they bear a LOT of indirect blame. Following the 1929 stock market crash a lot of safe guards were put into place to help prevent that from happening again. There were several laws but the main one was the Glass-Stengal Act. Over the next sixty or so years Glass-Stengal was chipped away under several administrations but the biggest changes came under Nixon, Carter, and Clinton. Once again none of those admins were entirely to blame because each did small things that seemed inconsequential but in the aggregate were very destructive.

 

Under Carter we got the Community Reinvestment Act (forced banks to make a certain number of loans to low income with lowered credit requirements), and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (In short brought all banks under control of the Fed and changed how interest rates were set). Under Clinton the CRA was revised so that more borrowers could obtain loans even if they could not afford them. Under Clinton we got the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Repealed the part of Glass-Stengal that prevented deopsitory banks from also being investment, mortgage and insurance banks). Also under Clinton the CRA was modified so the government began guaranteeing loans by buying them through Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Under GWB the CRA was modified again lowering credit requirments even further. When the bubble burst real estate vaues tanked and billions of dollars in assets became worthless. There were a lot of bad acts by private mortgage brokers "predatory lending" and all, and LOTS of stupid business decisions by John Q Citizen but it was Uncle Sam who laid the foundation that allowed it to happen. Or more accurately removed the safeguards that prevented it from happening and then all but created the crisis by forcing banks to take risks they would not otherwise have.

 

Thats is a vvery brief summary but you can look those laws up in Wiki and get a pretty good idea how they all combined to make a pretty foul stew. Just don't cite Wikipedia in your paper. Your instructors would laugh you out of the room. Lexis-Nexus is an excellent news search tool even if you do have to pay for it.

 

Now on the idea of limited government and the Tea Party I could go on for pages and pages. But just to get you started here is a great article that came out just yesterday in the UK Telegraph that touched on your topic a bit, even though that was not the topic of the article. Here is an excerpt:

 

But we are where we are. The failure to make any serious attempt to understand the United States and its political culture is now more than smug, stupid and cynical (although it is certainly all those things). The perverse ignorance which allows the British liberal establishment to caricature America

[Guard Dog]

I saw a great sign at a Tea Party rally. I wrote it down:

 

Five Undeniable Truths:

 

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, the nation is finished.

 

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

[Guard Dog]

One other thought, to Calax and others. Do not dismiss the Tea Party movement. It is very large and has teeth. A number of very prominent politicians havew already been dispatched by Tea Party candidates and a few more will be tonight. On November 2 they will make their presence felt nation wide.

[Calax]

If by effect you mean effect within the political party.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_mov..._election_cycle

 

Looking at that list, most of it is primaries or victories over Republican candidates (except for the horribly run Mass. race in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death) rather than victories over their "standard" opponent of "Liberals".

[Aram]

I saw a great sign at a Tea Party rally.

Everyone on the internet has.

[Oblarg]

I saw a great sign at a Tea Party rally. I wrote it down:

 

Five Undeniable Truths:

 

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

 

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

 

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

 

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, the nation is finished.

 

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

 

Unfortunately, those "undeniable" truths aren't so undeniable.

 

Oh, and I think we've all seen plenty of "great signs" at Tea Party rallies.

 

I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

[Guard Dog]

I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America.

[Oblarg]

I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America.

 

Freedom is a term that is thrown around a lot and never really defined, especially in context.

[Guard Dog]

I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America.

 

Freedom is a term that is thrown around a lot and never really defined, especially in context.

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Trenitay]

I don't believe the government has ever told me what to drive, eat or drink. Where has it been said that returning veterans are "domestic terrorists".

[Aram]

It tells companies not to put lead in your baby food. WHO ARE THEY TO DENY OUR BABIES LEAD.

[Aram]

If you deny my baby his lead I'll give YOU some of mine!

 

that should be on a sign

[Oblarg]

I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America.

 

Freedom is a term that is thrown around a lot and never really defined, especially in context.

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

 

Oh wow, u mad bro.

 

In all seriousness, you seem to completely miss the point of government. There is no group of big bad evil men conspiring to take everything you produce for themselves.

 

But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy. If so, is freedom truly an unconditionally good thing? No. You absolutely shun the idea of placing the well-being of the collect above the well-being of the individual. You define freedom as just that - the ability to place yourself above the collective. I would argue that not only is that a terribly skewed definition of "freedom," but an undesirable one. You mention smoking - assuming there is ample evidence that smoking in public places is harmful to others, should you be able to smoke in public places? Certainly not if the public decides against it. That is why we have democracy, is it not? Your idea of "freedom" is directly contrary to the essence of a stable society.

[Guard Dog]

I don't believe the government has ever told me what to drive, eat or drink. Where has it been said that returning veterans are "domestic terrorists".

The first step is "sin taxes" to try to discourage you from buying things. Then come outright banning. You might remember a little ting from the past called Prohibition? Even you should be able to see the obvious prallells to the way they treat tobacco, fast food, and alchocol now. Yes these things are all bad for you but so what? Try this article: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail...-responsibility

 

As for Napalitano, sho should have been fired, then strung up for this:

 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...wing-extremism/

 

Shows loud and clear what the administration thinks of veterans. I mean after all they voted for McCain by a margin of 16:1

[Oblarg]

I don't believe the government has ever told me what to drive, eat or drink. Where has it been said that returning veterans are "domestic terrorists".

The first step is "sin taxes" to try to discourage you from buying things. Then come outright banning. You might remember a little ting from the past called Prohibition? Even you should be able to see the obvious prallells to the way they treat tobacco, fast food, and alchocol now. Yes these things are all bad for you but so what? Try this article: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail...-responsibility

 

The line should be drawn when the behavior (smoking, for instance) is harmful to those around you. I don't think a reasonable person would argue that purely self-harming activities should be illegal. Big government does not necessarily mean bad government, which is a distinction you seem to ignore - a small government can have stupid policies, too.

 

Government will never be perfect. That is no reason to make it smaller.

[Guard Dog]

But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy.

 

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991.

 

If so, is freedom truly an unconditionally good thing? No. You absolutely shun the idea of placing the well-being of the collect above the well-being of the individual.

 

Yes I do. And so did our foudning fathers. We are not ANTS! And we are sure as hell not communists.

 

You define freedom as just that - the ability to place yourself above the collective. I would argue that not only is that a terribly skewed definition of "freedom," but an undesirable one. You mention smoking - assuming there is ample evidence that smoking in public places is harmful to others, should you be able to smoke in public places? Certainly not if the public decides against it. That is why we have democracy, is it not? Your idea of "freedom" is directly contrary to the essence of a stable society.

I did not say smoking in public places is good. If people decide they don't want it indoors fine. I don't smoke and don't want to be around it either, but I'm not about to tell someone they can't do it at all and you had better believe that is what is coming.

 

After reading your commentsI really think for the good of it's citizens the time is coming to divide the US into two seperate countries. One can go back to being an economically free capitalist country, they other can continue the plunge into socialisim. We'll see ten years or so after which one is more prosperous.

[Oblarg]

But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy.

 

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991.

 

All I did was take your definition of freedom to its logical conclusion. After all, anarchy would indeed be the minimum amount of government interference.

 

Your view of freedom, as you stated it, is by definition incompatible with the concept of government. If you want to reword it, go right ahead.

[Guard Dog]

Government will never be perfect. That is no reason to make it smaller.

If it is smaller then it imperfections are less harmful. Ford said it the best: "The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."

 

And one of my favorites, Thomas Paine wrote: "That government is best which governs least."

[Aram]

I think we're closer to a legalized marijuana than an illegalized tobacco.

[Oblarg]

Government will never be perfect. That is no reason to make it smaller.

If it is smaller then it imperfections are less harmful. Ford said it the best: "The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."

 

And one of my favorites, Thomas Paine wrote: "That government is best which governs least."

 

I absolutely hate it when people present quotes from authority figures as if they're immutable truths.

 

The least possible governing government is anarchy. Is anarchy the best government?

 

I am not arguing for unrestricted government. I do not think that minimizing government will solve our society's problems. Not at all.

[Guard Dog]

But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy.

 

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991.

 

All I did was take your definition of freedom to its logical conclusion. After all, anarchy would indeed be the minimum amount of government interference.

 

Your view of freedom, as you stated it, is by definition incompatible with the concept of government. If you want to reword it, go right ahead.

That is the same BS you pulled earlier. If I am opposed to one extreme then I must be in favor of the other extreme