Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?

[mheslep]

That was interesting - thanks for the link. Any idea where to find the remaining 4 parts?

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

The interviews are always 5 parts there - 4/5 out tomorrow, 5/5 on Friday.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks - I know how I'll be spending my Turkey Day morning.

 

[Al68]

I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:

I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law; and that no one without should be able to dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise his authority. For, be the constitution of a government what it may, if there be within its jurisdiction a single man who is not subject to the law, all the rest are necessarily at his discretion.[/color]​

I'm having a hard time interpreting that passage myself.

What does "at his discretion" mean? And I don't follow the logic. Are we "at the discretion" of hummingbirds, for example, because a state's laws don't apply to them?

Does the fact that laws don't apply to hummingbirds constitute their ability to "dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise their authority"? How so?

Is that just some convoluted and logically incoherent way to advocate equal treatment of humans under the law, or am I missing something?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll try an explanation, but will not get into hummingbirds (humans can't form a social contract with hummingbirds, etc.). My understanding is that Rousseau (beyond just advocating for equal treatment under the law) makes the claim that is roughly along these lines: were there to be any people made exempt from the rule of law, such people would automatically usurp authority over the rest. This somewhat ambiguous corollary, however, is not central to my objection to the claim that Rousseau denounces a state governed by rule of law.

 

[CAC1001]

It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.

Wanting those things is not the same as wanting a huge government. There is a difference between being for sound social safety nets and an excessive social-welfare state. If programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are reformed properly, then they will take up much less of the budget I think.

During the 2008 election, Ron Paul was up on stage talking about how his ultimate goal was to slash pretty much every government program and deregulate as much as possible. He wanted to end foreign entanglements, stop nation building, eliminate the welfare state, and start with the biggest wastes of money first. He sounded sensible when he said programs like homeless shelters should only be slashed after the bigger and more wasteful projects are slashed. Did he win the nomination? Not even close. He was beaten by republican candidates who flat out said they supported nation building and foreign entanglements like Iraq.

Wanting some sound social safety nets is not wanting a massive government, but wanting a limited government doesn't mean wanting to slash every government program and agency in existence either.

 

[CAC1001]

Ron Paul may not have looked attractive to the Republican electorate in 2008, but now, he's got to be pretty close to their ideal representative.

I hope not. Ron Paul strikes me as a nut and his followers seem very cult-like. I don't think he appeals to the Republican electorate though due to his foreign policy, which is very isolationist.

I think Sarah Palin is about as close to the ideal the Republicans want, but most are afraid she would not be able to win the General election. There are some other, lesser-known Republicans I think that also very much are the Republican ideal, such as Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think he appeals to the Republican electorate though due to his foreign policy, which is very isolationist.

My statement was specifically based on the observation that right now, Republicans don't seem care very much about foreign policy, at least relative to issues like the economy and health care. But like I implied above, this could very well be a short term fluctuation brought on by the unemployment rate, the tea party influence, and the stimulus and health-care bills. Give it a little time, and the average Republican will probably go back to worrying more about fighting the bad guys. In any case, I think the relevant electorate would much prefer to have Paul be their lifelong representative in the House, where foreign policy is probably not quite as important as local economic and social issues.

I think Sarah Palin is about as close to the ideal the Republicans want, but most are afraid she would not be able to win the General election.

Maybe, but it's close. Romney and Huckabee are neck-and-neck with Palin in recent polls, but like you said, there may be some influence of the "will not win a general election" feeling that might be lowering Palin's numbers.

There are some other, lesser-known Republicans I think that also very much are the Republican ideal, such as Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.

It's possible. But to clarify my point, I wasn't singling out Ron Paul as being closest to the ideal Republican so much as pointing out that he is probably seen a lot more favorably in today's political climate (where deficit cutting is a huge deal) than in the climate of 2008 (when it was a lot less important).

 

[turbo]

Wanting those things is not the same as wanting a huge government. There is a difference between being for sound social safety nets and an excessive social-welfare state. If programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are reformed properly, then they will take up much less of the budget I think.

Social Security is self-funded and doesn't take up any of the budget. It could be reformed very easily without forcing people to work longer or accept lower payments. Just raise or eliminate the cap on contributions. I can't tell you how many times I have hit that cap over the years. Every time the GOP wants to "reduce government" they come after Social Security, intending to make "reforms" on the backs of the workers who need it for their retirement. It's a false argument, yet Simpson and his co-chair are trotting it out again.

It's very easy for those wealthy deficit-hawks to talk about raising the retirement age, but they fail to properly address the physical limitations of aging workers who have strenuous jobs. I'd hate to have to continue to run paper machines at my age, much less at age 65-70.

 

[Al68]

I'll try an explanation, but will not get into hummingbirds (humans can't form a social contract with hummingbirds, etc.).

Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.

My understanding is that Rousseau (beyond just advocating for equal treatment under the law) makes the claim that is roughly along these lines: were there to be any people made exempt from the rule of law, such people would automatically usurp authority over the rest.

That's why I used hummingbirds as a counter-example, because they are exempt from the law, yet they do not "automatically usurp authority" over us. Maybe mentally retarded people would have been a better counter-example, since they are also exempt from the law.

But regardless, someone being exempt from the law means the "rest" don't have authority over him. It doesn't logically follow that he would have authority over the "rest".

 

[Gokul43201]

Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.

But while a human being can understand it, and protest it, a hummingbird can do neither.

But regardless, someone being exempt from the law means the "rest" don't have authority over him. It doesn't logically follow that he would have authority over the "rest".

I come to interpret Rousseau, not to praise him.

 

[Al68]

Social Security is self-funded and doesn't take up any of the budget. It could be reformed very easily without forcing people to work longer or accept lower payments. Just raise or eliminate the cap on contributions.

You are advocating just forcing "the rich" to pay to fill in the gap left by the system not being self-sustainable, instead of actually fixing the system to make it self-sustainable.

Every time the GOP wants to "reduce government" they come after Social Security, intending to make "reforms" on the backs of the workers who need it for their retirement.

Complete nonsense. "On the back of the workers"? Who do you think is supposed to pay for a "self-funded" program that "doesn't take up any of the budget"? You can't say it is "off budget" while advocating an outside source of revenue for it.

This is the biggest problem with social security, it, like the welfare state in general, has become a cult of individual and government irresponsibility. A cult that far too many people have fallen into. And it's an insidious cancer that will ultimately lead to our destruction if it persists.

 

[turbo]

Complete nonsense. "On the back of the workers"? Who do you think is supposed to pay for a "self-funded" program that "doesn't take up any of the budget"? You can't say it is "off budget" while advocating an outside source of revenue for it.

Yes, on the backs of workers. That's not nonsense and if you would read up on Simpson's draft proposal attacking SS, you would realize it. While you're at it, you can bone up on his recent interviews in which he claims that retirees are "milking" SS. That is absolute crap, and he should know it. Retirees get a modest monthly payment based on what they paid into SS and it's not enough to keep many out of poverty. There is no way they can game the system to get more money than they are entitled to except by living longer than the actuaries counted on when structuring benefits.

Simpson wants to reduce benefits and force older people to keep working longer before they can qualify for benefits. SS isn't welfare - it is a social contract. SS payments are paid out in benefits to current retirees. It has worked pretty well for a long time, though Congress has had a penchant for raiding the SS trust fund whenever they wanted quick cash.

 

[Al68]

Yes, on the backs of workers. That's not nonsense and if you would read up on Simpson's draft proposal attacking SS, you would realize it. While you're at it, you can bone up on his recent interviews in which he claims that retirees are "milking" SS. That is absolute crap, and he should know it. Retirees get a modest monthly payment based on what they paid into SS and it's not enough to keep many out of poverty. There is no way they can game the system to get more money than they are entitled to except by living longer than the actuaries counted on when structuring benefits.

Simpson wants to reduce benefits and force older people to keep working longer before they can qualify for benefits. SS isn't welfare - it is a social contract. SS payments are paid out in benefits to current retirees. It has worked pretty well for a long time, though Congress has had a penchant for raiding the SS trust fund whenever they wanted quick cash.

I noticed you completely dodged my point. That says it all.

 

[WhoWee]

Social Security is self-funded and doesn't take up any of the budget. It could be reformed very easily without forcing people to work longer or accept lower payments. Just raise or eliminate the cap on contributions. I can't tell you how many times I have hit that cap over the years. Every time the GOP wants to "reduce government" they come after Social Security, intending to make "reforms" on the backs of the workers who need it for their retirement. It's a false argument, yet Simpson and his co-chair are trotting it out again.

It's very easy for those wealthy deficit-hawks to talk about raising the retirement age, but they fail to properly address the physical limitations of aging workers who have strenuous jobs. I'd hate to have to continue to run paper machines at my age, much less at age 65-70.

You are thinking about Social Security in a very narrow way, specifically the factory worker who pays their share and does what they are expected - then told the age has been moved. In this narrow conversation I agree - it is very frustrating.

The problem lies in other areas.

First the Earned Income Tax Credit is designed to give back SS contributions to people earning less than $50,000 per year - it is the only reason some people file their taxes (if they make less than the amount required for filing). These are the people who will MOST need SS for retirement.

Next, the number of people qualifying for SS Disability is increasing- I just posted extensively in response to your comments in another thread. This coupled with Medicaid expansion is a real problem.

 

[Al68]

Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.

But while a human being can understand it, and protest it, a hummingbird can do neither.

Part of my point was that that's not true. A supposed "social contract", not being an actual contract at all, is understood vastly differently by different people, and not at all by others. By its nature, it's impossible to understand in the way a real contract is capable of being understood. It's fabricated and amended at the whims of the parties to it, and enforced against those who are not parties to it.

 

[mugaliens]

[At Shawn] If the average Tea Partier believes in a completely different set of ideas than the youtube person...

By and large, that's not the case.

(I don't know his name)

Bill Whittle didn't just come up with his own agenda and slap a tea party sticker on it. He sifted through the myriad of tea party ideas and picked those which consistantly floated to the top.