AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-07-29, 12:56   Link #15241
solomon
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
Reading CNN and gathering info.....

Tea party representatives generally come from two distinct regions....

One is relatively well off, well populated exurban districts.

Two is rural, small town america.

Some have argued for an end to farm subsidies, what's that going to do to "Two". Then you cut education and health care benefits what's that going to do to "One". There are constants around the country but each region is distinct.

I remember watching an old PBS documentary called Country Boys which talked about the hardships of (WELFARE RECIEVING) impovershied in the mountains and small town america. Cuts to aid programs would invariably hurt these people right, places like in Midlands SC where all the old mill jobs are dried up and are struggling with drug problems and school dropouts. Yet those are places that are likely to have Tea Party supporters.

It's real baffling to me. The Tea Party is not some unified group far from it, it's wierd grassroots/big money bankrolled frankenstein of a populist movement. You apparently have a smaller younger more libertarian group (that includes social values) but many largely are still social conservatives as well.
solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 13:20   Link #15242
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon View Post
Reading CNN and gathering info.....

Tea party representatives generally come from two distinct regions....

One is relatively well off, well populated exurban districts.

Two is rural, small town america.

Some have argued for an end to farm subsidies, what's that going to do to "Two". Then you cut education and health care benefits what's that going to do to "One". There are constants around the country but each region is distinct.

I remember watching an old PBS documentary called Country Boys which talked about the hardships of (WELFARE RECIEVING) impovershied in the mountains and small town america. Cuts to aid programs would invariably hurt these people right, places like in Midlands SC where all the old mill jobs are dried up and are struggling with drug problems and school dropouts. Yet those are places that are likely to have Tea Party supporters.

It's real baffling to me. The Tea Party is not some unified group far from it, it's wierd grassroots/big money bankrolled frankenstein of a populist movement. You apparently have a smaller younger more libertarian group (that includes social values) but many largely are still social conservatives as well.
One sent their kids to private school.

Two will howl like no tomorrow. I still remember the Freeman standoff in Montana that happen during the end of the 90s. One of the freeman complains about federal government overreach and welfare but never fails to collect government subsidy for his farm.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 13:25   Link #15243
solomon
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
Exurban people can do the private school thing

But what about suburban, urban and rural peeps.....not to mention the cost of even keeping kids in state for school.
solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 13:40   Link #15244
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon View Post
Exurban people can do the private school thing

But what about suburban, urban and rural peeps.....not to mention the cost of even keeping kids in state for school.

the well off ones can afford it.

the not so well off tea partier will demand welfare school vouchers.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 14:20   Link #15245
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yamabuki Art High School
Age: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon View Post
Can someone point out what districts they come from? Because I fail to see how severe budget balancing will do well for their constituents in the short run (during their candidacies) if certain programs are cut.
This doesn't answer your question directly, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.../?ref=politics

Here's a list of the Tea Party Caucus in the House from CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-in-the-house/
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 16:28   Link #15246
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
I imagine a lot are looking at things as if it was the 1950s and wondering why we can't get by without all the programs that have been added since then. Some might be looking even farther back and wondering why we have any social programs at all since people survived before they were invented (New Deal era stuff....the programs that were suppose to be temporary...yet are still in place nearly 70 years later).

Probably because the type of work Americans do has changed. The increase of enviromental laws has driven a lot of manufacturing out entirely (it is cheaper to polute someone elses country than to make the work clean, since sometimes you really can't make it clean). Labor costs make it more profitable to make thinks in other countries even with the cost of shipping the items several times over. America is suppose to be a "service economy". My question is...what is that suppose to mean, and how can everyone be employed in such a model?

Supporters of Republican Party tend to be conservative, and want things to be like they were when they remember America being powerful and people being at work and their not seemingly like there was a need for any "liberal" programs. Sometimes because they are unaware of what these older liberal programs did back in the 1950s, or because they don't see that program as being "liberal".

Others see the "liberal" programs as failures because they either don't do enough, or are too easily abused. They aren't opposed to the program's goals, just that they seem the program as not being fuctional. Or they are opposed to paying for something they either aren't going to use, or (more often the case) paying for someone to abuse the program. That is what usually gets to them the most. People working the system. Conservatives hate the idea of someone using their money for something they either didn't earn, or worse, legally stole by working the system.

Similar arguements come out when the politicans call for "new laws" or, "let's regulate something differently than it is already regulated"....when they are already laws for those thing on the books...just they aren't enforced effectively. The idea is that there are too many laws (and lawyers some would say) in government, and not being effective because most are not enforced, ignored, or sometimes forgotten. It is their job to make law...but how much law do we need? Do we have enough laws yet?
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 17:30   Link #15247
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I imagine a lot are looking at things as if it was the 1950s and wondering why we can't get by without all the programs that have been added since then. Some might be looking even farther back and wondering why we have any social programs at all since people survived before they were invented (New Deal era stuff....the programs that were suppose to be temporary...yet are still in place nearly 70 years later).
Most of those people have memories of a white privileged-class fantasy of the 1950s. The ones that look farther back are looking at the 1890s... when it sucked to be almost anyone but the upper class.

Yeah, they're looking back... the weirdness is the utter failure of the rank-and-file to grasp that THEY aren't going to be "princes" and "princesses" in that fantasy tale when it is revived.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 17:44   Link #15248
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Yeah... It's funny how when many people think of the past, they always figure they'd be nobles instead of peons like 99% of the population. You'd think the odds (and the fact that they're not in the top percentile of the rich and powerful now) would clue them in.

I guess it'd make more sense for impoverished nobles, but from what I've heard (I don't know any personally), they're not like that at all.


Though... Now that I think of it, a lot of those people I've heard aren't guided by a greedy desire to be a noble so much as a petty desire to lord it over others. I get the feeling they'd be fine being dirt grubbing peasants as long as they were surrounded by serfs they could spit on.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 17:52   Link #15249
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yeah... It's funny how when many people think of the past, they always figure they'd be nobles instead of peons like 99% of the population. You'd think the odds (and the fact that they're not in the top percentile of the rich and powerful now) would clue them in.

I guess it'd make more sense for impoverished nobles, but from what I've heard (I don't know any personally), they're not like that at all.


Though... Now that I think of it, a lot of those people I've heard aren't guided by a greedy desire to be a noble so much as a petty desire to lord it over others. I get the feeling they'd be fine being dirt grubbing peasants as long as they were surrounded by serfs they could spit on.
Aye.. that's what tends to drive a lot of the racism at the "lowest end of the white economic class" in the US (though the same playbook can be run anywhere) .... having *someone* they can think is less worthy than them. Classic "divide and manipulate" technique.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 18:21   Link #15250
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Most of those people have memories of a white privileged-class fantasy of the 1950s. The ones that look farther back are looking at the 1890s... when it sucked to be almost anyone but the upper class.

Yeah, they're looking back... the weirdness is the utter failure of the rank-and-file to grasp that THEY aren't going to be "princes" and "princesses" in that fantasy tale when it is revived.
It's not just the Teaparty that is nostalgic for the 50s though. Iirc Micheal Moore, not really a teaparty fan, represents it in Capitalism: a love story as a time where union and corporate powers were in balance and people employed in industry and agriculture could still make a decent living. He compared it to the post-1980s service economy, with the decline of manufacturing and where unskilled labor is heading for McJob type working poverty. Whether this is a fair representation can be debated but still it can't have been that bad if both right and left are nostaligic for it.

I'm not very familiar with US history of that time period, but I can imagine that the (former) middle class that lost out is an easy target for populistic movements that promise a return to the good old times.
Bri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 18:32   Link #15251
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Aye.. that's what tends to drive a lot of the racism at the "lowest end of the white economic class" in the US (though the same playbook can be run anywhere) .... having *someone* they can think is less worthy than them. Classic "divide and manipulate" technique.
Thus the BS that is the noblesse oblige.
MeoTwister5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 21:42   Link #15252
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 View Post
Thus the BS that is the noblesse oblige.
Personally, I think it's better to have this than the alternate we're seeing now: the rich who do not see the need to plough their money back to society, but instead spend their money maintaining their inner circles.
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-29, 23:08   Link #15253
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
As there's other news than the debt crisis...
Turkey's military in turmoil as top brass quit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76S70M20110730
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 02:50   Link #15254
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 View Post
Thus the BS that is the noblesse oblige.
What do you mean by that?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 10:50   Link #15255
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Lawyer: 2 Americans held in Iran could be released
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-30-10-26-29
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 11:10   Link #15256
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
What do you mean by that?
He's referring to the social contract of feudalism between the lord and the commoners. The lord (in return for a skim of the products) was expected to provide a stable environment for the peasants to work in (relatively free of stress and worry from gangs, warlords, thugs, etc). It was to the lord's benefit to make sure the community thrived.

Corporatism is a psychotic perversion of this with completely irresponsible entities that not only fail to support communities but often make wild demands for infrastructure they themselves won't pay for (e.g. Intel pushing around the towns they have facilities in) ... which is why I often say I'd prefer feudalism over corporatism. When I was growing up, the local businesses were very active in the community (supporting sports leagues, park development, sidewalks for safety and easy shopping, etc). The national and international corporates that eliminated them basically do no such thing (at most a shoddy shadow for face value). Often they'll demand substantial upgrades to infrastructure for free by promising "jobs" (there's almost never a good return for the community versus investment).
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 11:38   Link #15257
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I kinda know what noblesse oblige is, but I don't see how he went from your comment to his.

Is he saying the principle itself is BS? That it's claimed to be applied, but isn't?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 11:47   Link #15258
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I kinda know what noblesse oblige is, but I don't see how he went from your comment to his.

Is he saying the principle itself is BS? That it's claimed to be applied, but isn't?
The way I interpret it is that he believes noblesse oblige divides the masses, creating an artificial grateful/ungrateful division, so the masses would hate each other instead of the "benevolent ones" above.

...I think.

_____________

I usually would say fuck this at the manufactured crisis and roll out some red flags and sing along with the Internationale, but the only flags that are going to fly if America explodes is brown and black, though they fake it with stripes and stars.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 16:18   Link #15259
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Most of those people have memories of a white privileged-class fantasy of the 1950s. The ones that look farther back are looking at the 1890s... when it sucked to be almost anyone but the upper class.

Yeah, they're looking back... the weirdness is the utter failure of the rank-and-file to grasp that THEY aren't going to be "princes" and "princesses" in that fantasy tale when it is revived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yeah... It's funny how when many people think of the past, they always figure they'd be nobles instead of peons like 99% of the population. You'd think the odds (and the fact that they're not in the top percentile of the rich and powerful now) would clue them in.

I guess it'd make more sense for impoverished nobles, but from what I've heard (I don't know any personally), they're not like that at all.


Though... Now that I think of it, a lot of those people I've heard aren't guided by a greedy desire to be a noble so much as a petty desire to lord it over others. I get the feeling they'd be fine being dirt grubbing peasants as long as they were surrounded by serfs they could spit on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Aye.. that's what tends to drive a lot of the racism at the "lowest end of the white economic class" in the US (though the same playbook can be run anywhere) .... having *someone* they can think is less worthy than them. Classic "divide and manipulate" technique.
Really?

Really?

People don't agree with you, despite your plan obviously being better for them, so it must be racism and a desire to order people around?

Let me explain why there are so many in poor rural areas that support the Tea Party (and why the Tea Party imagery resonates so strongly). But this first requires a history lesson.

Long ago, there was something called feudalism and mercantilism. That was the organization in England. If you wanted to get ahead in life you need to either be born into the right family (that owned land), or you needed to have connections to the government so that you could secure government preference, which would allow you to crush your competitors. If you didn't fall into those categories, then you just needed to accept your lot in life.

A bunch of people didn't like this. Mainly either younger sons or religious minorities (that lacked the favor of the government). They emigrated to America. Why? Because in America there was free land for anyone who was willing to work it. (We'll ignore the American Indians for now, yes I realize the land was theirs, but it's not relevant to the current topic of interest- the Tea Party).

They didn't want the feudal deal of serving their betters in England who would then look out for them. They wanted independence. Financial independence.

Now these colonists began to become fairly successful. Unfortunately those who had closer connections to the King and Parliament in England began using those connections to pass laws that diverted wealth from the America colonials that produced it to those that had the better connections. (The tax was just the straw that broke the camel's back, there were several other issues such as requiring colonials ship their goods to England first before shipping elsewhere.) This lack of ability to influence the government that felt free to take the fruit of their labor led to a deep and widespread resentment. While the issue went far beyond "taxation without representation" that simplified focus became the rallying cry that represented the far broader concerns of people.

And so we had the Boston Tea Party.

The colonials didn't want all the riches and benefits of being English anymore. They wanted independence. Political (and financial) independence.

Now fast forward to today's Tea Party.

You say: "Social Security is a good program that helps you, we need to protect it unchanged"

The Tea Party says: "Yes, it's mine because I paid for it. But you want to put all these conditions on it. I have to stop working to collect them, and the returns are terrible. You then hold it hostage and threaten to take it away from me if I don't vote for more tax increases. I have to vote for someone to protect what ought to be already mine. If I bought private retirement insurance I wouldn't have to stop working, the money is mine. And they couldn't threaten to take my money away from me if I didn't vote a certain way. Nor can they offer to give me extra bonuses I didn't pay for in order to win my support. - It may give me more money- but at the cost of independence. Now I have to worry about whether I can get the government to listen to me."

You say: "Obama's Health Care plan will make sure all of you have insurance and are cared for. It's good for you."

The Tea Party says: "It forces me to buy insurance whether I want to or not. What do I do when the insurance company refuses to pay for something? They already got my money, and are going to keep on getting it no matter how unhappy I am. And the Government is establishing all the rules and regulators to determine what is and is not covered. What if I can't get the government to listen to me. It's making me lose control over my healthcare."

You say: "We need these regulations to protect us from greedy corporations who will do bad things to make money."

The Tea Party says: "Punish the guy who did the bad stuff, these regulations hurt the innocent just as much as the guilty. And those evil greedy corporations always have connections with the government, so they get special breaks that I can't get because I can't get the government to listen to me. So the regulations are all on me, and not on the corporations. All the time I see the government do really stupid stuff to me and my friends, and when I try to point out that this won't even accomplish what the government wants I'm just ignored by the government cause I'm a nobody. Hey wait a minute, this is starting to sound like that mercantilism stuff again. Maybe we ought to have another Tea Party."

You say: "These are all valuable programs that take care of people. They are worth their cost. You don't want to stop helping people do you? You're likely to be helped too."

The Tea Party says: "All this debt is a weight on the economy. Same with the taxes. We wouldn't need so much help if you'd just go away and leave us alone."

You say: "It's the rich who shall pay. You don't need to pay."

The Tea Party says: "Why should the rich pay? I'm not willing to spend more money for these programs because I don't think they're worth it. Why should I force somebody else to pay for something that I wouldn't pay money for? I don't remember Jesus saying 'Do unto others as you'd have done unto you- unless he's a rich man, then feel free to screw him over'"

You say: "The poor will suffer. Didn't Jesus say to help the poor?"

The Tea Party says: "You don't know jack sh-t about being poor. I've been poor, and life was hard. Why should life be easy? Man up and work hard. Yeah I know people have bad luck. I've had some myself, which is why I always try to help out when I meet someone who's down on his luck. But that doesn't mean I should take somebody else's money and give it to the poor. That's stealing. I share what I have with the poor. And besides, the government sucks at helping the poor. It wastes massive amounts of money, forces people to jump through all these stupid hoops that don't even make sense all the time. Sometimes it even forces them to do bad things to get the money. I'd hate to live like that myself, the government has taken all their freedom and independence away. The government has had 50+ years of fighting the war on poverty and just f--ked it all to h-ll. It don't even seem to get that marriage is the most important thing to helping the poor, and that making marriage all about love and feelings (ie gay marriage) is just terrible. Marriage needs to be about duty and commitments (ie man provides for wife and kids). Stop f--king with stuff you don't understand. Stay away from me. Stop helping me, you're just making things worse."

It's the same motivations as the Boston Tea Party. You say: "These government policies will benefit you, you ought to support them."

The Tea Party says: "I don't care how much money it puts in my pocket, I have to do what the government says to get it, so it's not free at all. Chains made of gold are still chains, and I won't sell my birthright of liberty for a mess of pottage."

That's the heart of it right there. The Tea Party is made up of people who value their economic independence more than they do their economic bottom line.

Now maybe you think that's all foolish shortsightedness. Or that the Tea Party has fundamentally misunderstood your intentions. Or maybe that the government is corrupt and incompetent like the Tea Party says, but that the alternative is worse. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disagree.

But don't get lazy and accuse people of racism and fantasy about ordering people around when that just isn't the case.

You want to know what the main feeling there is among the Tea Party for blacks?

Pity.

I know cause I hear the Tea Party use black America as a warning about what could happen to them if they don't stop the Democrats. From the Tea Party perspective, the Democrats have enslaved Blacks. Democrats provided them with government programs that gave them money, but destroyed their families, and now Blacks are dependent on the money from the Government programs so they have to vote for the Democrats. Even though the Democrats support social policies that conflict with the social values of most Black Americans.

That's the rhetoric that shows up when race is raised in the Tea Party meetings. "The Democrats offer us government programs because they want to enslave us the way they enslaved black people".

Again, maybe you think that's a crazy way to look at the world, but it certainly doesn't hold any hatred for black people in it.
__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-30, 17:16   Link #15260
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Yeah, that was the Tea Party.

Now they've been hijacked by Faux News, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, they're nothing more than even-further-right-wing religious nutjobs. They aren't libertarians anymore. A real libertarian--and I know several of them!--would be aghast at the policies the Tea Party are putting forth.

The current Tea Party believes "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" means shooting homeless people with rocksalt. Throwing a handful of metal coins at a man in a wheelchair afflicted with Parkinson's. If they could get away with it, I'm sure many Tea Party supporters would gleefully doom my fiancee to a life of agonizing pain--without Medicare, she'd be there. Her treatments are too expensive to pay for any other way, and without treatment there's not even a hope that she'd ever be able to work.

But because there are safety nets, she isn't in agonizing pain every minute of every day. She can get her medication, and she can go to school, get a degree, and eventually have a career that will not only allow her to pay for her medications herself, but pay back into the system, buy things and contribute to the economy.

If the Teabaggers had their way, both she and I would very likely be dead. If they want freedom and independence and to "shrink the size of government until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub" so bad, well, they can always move to Somalia.

As a poster already said above, you can do one of two things with poor people. You can help them stop being poor (which is what we do) or you can kill them. You can't just leave them alone. You can't just tell them, "tough luck, you have to help yourselves."

Because to survive, they will help themselves. To your property.
__________________

Last edited by synaesthetic; 2011-07-30 at 17:29.
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.