The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
1,056 replies · 124K views


mheslep said:
False.

False.

Care to qualify those assertions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Char. Limit said:
Care to qualify those assertions?
No. Start with the thousand words or so of assertions in #447 and #449.
 
Last edited:


mheslep said:
False.


False.

Cite or source? I've read a lot of your posts, and this is one of your most common requests. Rules are the rules after all... you can report Ivan for the same issue if you feel like it, but that doesn't give you the right to do the same thing does it?

mheslep said:
That's anarchy and no Reagan never suggested such. I think you mean:

That government is best which governs not at all - http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html" , Civil Disobedience.

AFAIK Reagan never said either Ivan's quote, nor Thoreau's. In fact, much as I personally think he was a clown, he specifically adressed the issue of the balance between government and anarchy.

Ronald Reagan said:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


nismaratwork said:
In fact, much as I personally think he was a clown, he specifically adressed the issue of the balance between government and anarchy.
Ronald Reagan said:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.
Even if you thought him a "clown", you have to admit he was (almost) right on target with that one. :smile:

Such misnomers are still standing in the way of legitimate debate in many cases, including in this forum. Not to mention the incessant practice of deliberately sabotaging legitimate debate with misleading figurative speech, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, fallacious premises, etc.

I would only disagree with his using the word libertarian to include anarchists, since libertarians, unlike anarchists, certainly believe protecting liberty is the legitimate function of government.

As far as being a clown, I'd say Reagan was about the tenth clowniest President we've had in the last 50 years. :eek:
 


Al68 said:
Even if you thought him a "clown", you have to admit he was (almost) right on target with that one. :smile:

Al68 said:
Much as it pains me I do agree with much of that particular quote; specifically the distinction between what it is to be Libertarian, and an Anarchist.

Such misnomers are still standing in the way of legitimate debate in many cases, including in this forum. Not to mention the incessant practice of deliberately sabotaging legitimate debate with misleading figurative speech, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, fallacious premises, etc.

I would only disagree with his using the word libertarian to include anarchists, since libertarians, unlike anarchists, certainly believe protecting liberty is the legitimate function of government.

As far as being a clown, I'd say Reagan was about the tenth clowniest President we've had in the last 50 years. :eek:

Mmmmm... I'd say he was a pretty big clown, with getting busted for Iran Contra being a real "pants around the ankles" moment. Granted, he now has to contend with Clinton "my pants really ARE around my ankles", and Bush W. "Me no speak real good", but it's amazing the man lasted 2 terms.
 


Char. Limit said:
Care to qualify those assertions?

It is ludicrous to suggest that the government had no role in the housing market collapse.

Just for starters, I'll point to the easy money that fueled the bubble (Greenspan and the Federal Reserve,) and the price inflation backed by Fannie and Freddie's unspoken guarantee.
 


Ivan Seeking said:
Three of the primary reasons for the collapse were, black market derivatives trading, which led to the banking collapse, exotic home loans, which created a housing bubble, and loan bundling, which undermined accountability. These problems were the result of unregulated markets, or unregulated activities in regulated marktets.

The only fault one can lay on the government was a failure to regulate these markets. Much of that blame, in regards to the banking collapse, lands squarely in the lap of Greenspan, and he is the first one to admit that. He publically admits that his polices were flawed. His philosophy failed - the collapse should not have been possible. Greenspan was highly influential in the evolution of Reaganomics, and a key player in determining our economic policies since Reagan. In turn, he adhered to a modern libertarinism based on the works of his mentor, Ayn Rand, which are the bases for the political positions of the tea party - as Reagan would say, the best government is no government. I would add that thirty years of supply-side econonics have led to a debt-to-gdp ratio out of control. Beginning with Reagan, our debt-to-gdp ratio has grown from about 40%, to about 90%, with only a small percentage of that added by Obama, and that during an historic economic crisis brought upon us by the principles underlying the Republican economic platform. Therefore, the tea party is DOA, and the Republicans have a lot of soul-searching to do. The Republicans no longer have a viable economic philosophy.

Surely you jest?

Have we forgotten about Jimmy Carter and the Community Re-Investment Act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Or how about Bill Clinton and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act?
http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/history-altering-decisions/clinton-signs-securities-legislation.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Galteeth said:
It is ludicrous to suggest that the government had no role in the housing market collapse.

Just for starters, I'll point to the easy money that fueled the bubble (Greenspan and the Federal Reserve,) and the price inflation backed by Fannie and Freddie's unspoken guarantee.

It's even more ludicrous to suggest that members of this forum don't need to back up their assertions because they seem so obvious.

Wikipedia said:
Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be true) therefore P must be false.
2. It's obvious that P (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or obvious and yet still be false.

You're using that.
 


Char. Limit said:
It's even more ludicrous to suggest that members of this forum don't need to back up their assertions because they seem so obvious.



You're using that.

It's not just ludicrous, it violates basic PF guidelines and it's intellectual cowardice.
 


nismaratwork said:
Cite or source? I've read a lot of your posts, and this is one of your most common requests. Rules are the rules after all... you can report Ivan for the same issue if you feel like it, but that doesn't give you the right to do the same thing does it?...
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the PF https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181" call for "2) Citations of sources ..." only when requested. They do not, even if that's a common used courtesy to requests made in good faith.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


mheslep said:
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the PF https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181" call for "2) Citations of sources ..." only when requested. They do not, even if that's a common used courtesy to requests made in good faith.

I suppose I am, but if it's a matter of courtesy then surely you're being a bit discourteous? Given how many of your posts consist of nothing more than a request for a source for a statement, I'd imagine you'd be the first to step up to the plate on this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Char. Limit said:
It's even more ludicrous to suggest that members of this forum don't need to back up their assertions because they seem so obvious.
Indeed.

mheslep said:
Ivan Seeking said:
Keep in mind that a normal recession turned disasterous because of the hidden CDS losses, and reckless lending practices..
Evidence?

Phrak said:
mheslep said:
Evidence?
Good question. Googling names of institutions along with Credit Default Swaps might do it...

Ivan Seeking said:
Phrak said:
Good question. Googling names of institutions along with Credit Default Swaps might do it.
It couldn't have been a serious question. We have had tons of information about this. [...]
 
 
THE HOUSE OF CARDS

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1145392808&play=1

How are these videos related to the Tea Party?? My own relatives who are Tea Party members refuse to watch them.
 
edward said:
THE HOUSE OF CARDS

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1145392808&play=1

How are these videos related to the Tea Party?? My own relatives who are Tea Party members refuse to watch them.

I have an aunt who's gone "Glenn Beck" and Tea Party. I just toss her red meat and let go her go berserk for my amusement... it's better than some televised sports.
 


nismaratwork said:
Mmmmm... I'd say he was a pretty big clown, with getting busted for Iran Contra being a real "pants around the ankles" moment. Granted, he now has to contend with Clinton "my pants really ARE around my ankles", and Bush W. "Me no speak real good", but it's amazing the man lasted 2 terms.
That's why I didn't bother denying he was a clown, but I think Iran Contra was an obvious exception to the rest of his 8 years, instead of a representative sample. Of course our definition of "clown" is probably quite different, too.

BTW, you misquoted me, by accident it appears. It looks like you missed a quote tag and included part of your response in my quote.
 


Reagan wasn't a clown. He was a man who had been fighting communism since the late 1940s. However he wasn't brilliant either and has been too much sainted by the Republican party.

Ivan Seeking said:
The only fault one can lay on the government was a failure to regulate these markets.

What makes you think government regulators would have been able to understand how to reduce risks when the big financial firms themselves didn't understand this? Wall Street itself didn't realize what it was doing.

I would add that thirty years of supply-side econonics have led to a debt-to-gdp ratio out of control. Beginning with Reagan, our debt-to-gdp ratio has grown from about 40%, to about 90%, with only a small percentage of that added by Obama, and that during an historic economic crisis brought upon us by the principles underlying the Republican economic platform.

Following "supply-side economics" led to us having a surplus in the late 1990s. We did not adhere to supply-side during the 2000s much. We engaged in big government. One could argue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the deficit and debt, but those are not supply-side economics.

The housing market crashing, followed by the near-collapse of Wall Street, and TARP to save it, blew up the deficit.

Barack Obama's stimulus package ($800+ billion) added a huge chunk to it as well, followed by his healthcare bill which may balloon out of control.

As for the Tea Party, their concerns are just more about what they see as excessive government growth.

The Republicans no longer have a viable economic philosophy.

Actually, their economic philosophy I'd say is more relevant now then ever before. It was getting away from that economic philosophy that was bad IMO.
 


nismaratwork said:
Mmmmm... I'd say he was a pretty big clown, with getting busted for Iran Contra being a real "pants around the ankles" moment.

Iran Contra is not indicative of being a clown, it was a risk Reagan decided to take, and it backfired. Reagan was known for not always adhering to what his advisors said, sometimes with success, other times with failure, Iran-Contra being a prime fail.

Granted, he now has to contend with Clinton "my pants really ARE around my ankles",

Clinton intellectually is a pretty brilliant guy, and I do not think his getting caught having a Monica made him a clown per se.

and Bush W. "Me no speak real good", but it's amazing the man lasted 2 terms.

I also do not agree that Bush's being a bad speaker makes him clownish. Ability to give a good speech is not indicative of whether one will be a good President or not.
 


Ivan Seeking said:
...one of the few times that Rove and I agreed on something. But he clearly sees the threat to the party here. The R party is having the human equivalent of a mental breakdown.

This has been coming for a long time. I think the fringe right will separate from the moderates and fade into oblivion. Right now there is a clear insurgency in which all but the purists are purged from the party. This is not sustainable so it has to fail. I just hope we don't see too many tea party types elected before this happens. Unfortunately, right now, the irrational fringe is bolstered by the anger caused by the lagging employment recovery. We have created a tremendous amount of wealth since the collapse [over 50% growth in the Dow, with pressure to break the 11,000 mark again], and that wealth eventually has to manifest generally, but until the job situation improves, the fringe has a hook.

I agree some of these Tea Party candidates are a bit too far to the Right, BUT, the Democrats in charge right now are too far to the Left! They need to moderate themselves some as well.

And, sooner or later, the fact that the R economic platform has fundamentally failed, must come home to roost. The tea partiers are arguing for policies proven not to work. For example, they are angry about the collapse but want less government. That is irrational. One of the main reasons for the collapse was too little oversight by the government. It was proof that a free market left to run amok, is capable of destroying the global economy.

Keep in mind that the financial system is already highly regulated, and it was the already extremely regulated commercial financial institutions that all came to the brink of collapse.
 
Jumping in CAC:
CAC1001 said:
Reagan wasn't a clown. He was a man who had been fighting communism since the late 1940s. However he wasn't brilliant either and has been too much sainted by the Republican party.
Maybe not brilliant, but read some of his voluminous supply of letters and he comes off as really quite sharp, at least a man of the pen (several thousand letters).
https://www.amazon.com/dp/074321966X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0743219384/?tag=pfamazon01-20

What makes you think government regulators would have been able to understand how to reduce risks when the big financial firms themselves didn't understand this? Wall Street itself didn't realize what it was doing
Worse than being inevitably behind the curve in expertise is influence by those they are supposed to regulate. AKA going native, in economics it earns the name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture"

Following "supply-side economics" led to us having a surplus in the late 1990s. We did not adhere to supply-side during the 2000s much.
To my understanding Bush tax cuts qualify (esp. capital gains), slightly in comparison to Reagan's.

We engaged in big government.
Agreed, but nothing like the present, 2010, definition of 'big'.

One could argue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the deficit and debt, but those are not supply-side economics.
Yes, just the opposite, war spending is demand side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Yes, Bush's capital-gains and upper-income tax cuts were supply-side, but he also engaged in demand-side tax cuts and increased regulations on the financial system.
 


Obama seems to be feeling the pressure - in spite of keeping 70% of his campaign promises (and counting)?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_interview

""It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election," Obama said.

The president has been telling Democrats to "wake up" and recognize that he and the Democratic-run Congress have delivered on promises, from a new health care law to tougher rules for Wall Street to more aid for college students. Obama wants disenchanted supporters to see that Republican wins in November would undermine the ability of Democrats to get the unfinished business done, from climate change legislation to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

What emerges in the magazine story is a stern, lecturing tone from Obama.

"
 
Last edited by a moderator:


mheslep said:
Jumping in CAC:
Maybe not brilliant, but read some of his voluminous supply of letters and he comes off as really quite sharp, at least a man of the pen (several thousand letters).

Yes, I'd say Reagan was smart. He also was able to grasp the idea that his message had to get across to the average person. While his NH debate trick may not have been a great intellectual moment, it really did turn the momentum of the Republican primaries in his favor.

reagan said:
When the Nashua Telegraph offered to sponsor a debate between the two of us on the Saturday evening preceding the election, we both accepted. Understandably, this brought howls from the other candidates. In protest, one of them, Senator Bob Dole, complained to the Federal Elections Commission that by financing a debate between only two of the seven candidates, the newspaper was making an illegal campaign contribution to the Bush and Reagan campaigns. The commission agreed with him, so my campaign offered to pay the full cost of the debate - a few thousand dollars - and they accepted.

I thought it had been unfair to exclude the other candidates from the debate. Most of them were also campaigning in New Hampshire that weekend, and since we were now sponsoring and paying for it, I decided to invite them to join the debate. Four of the other candidates - Bob Dole, Howard Baker, John Anderson, and Phil Crane (John Connally was campaigning elsewhere) - accepted. When we walked on to a platform set up for the debate at the Nashua High School gymnasium Saturday night, there was one table, two chairs, and six candidates. When he spotted the four other candidates, Jim Baker, George Bush's campaign manager, protested and said George would not participate in the debate as long as they were part of it. Since I had invited them, I couldn't go along with him and exclude the other candidates, so we were at an awkward impasse. George just sat frozen in his chair, not saying anything; I sat in the other chair with the four other candidates standing behind me, looking embarrassed in front of two or three thousand people while being literally told they had to leave.

Unable to understand what was going on, the audience hooted and hollered an urged us to proceed. I decided I should explain to the crowd what the delay was all about and started to speak. As I did, an editor of the Nashua newspaper shouted to the sound man, "Turn Mr. Reagan's microphone off." Well, I didn't like that - we were paying the freight for the debate and he was acting as if his newspaper was still sponsoring it. I turned to him, with the microphone still on, and said the first thing that came to my mind: "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen." Well, for some reason my words hit the audience, whose emotions were already worked up, like a sledgehammer. The crowd roared and just went wild. I may have won the debate, the primary - and the nomination - right there.

Contrast that moment to the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Both candidates gave answers so full of detail that the substance of both candidates' answers went over the average voter's head. Not being able to understand either candidate, they relied on the overall image each candidate presented - with Kennedy being the undisputed winner in that category.

The Kennedy-Nixon debate was a lesson that George W. Bush seemed to learn well. His staff specifically insisted on that light system for his debate with Kerry, thinking Kerry would fall prey to the same mistakes Kennedy-Nixon made and that the lights would add emphasis to Kerry's long-windedness. Unfortunately, Kerry adjusted very well - in fact the light system may have helped him focus his answers and give them more impact than if he were allowed to ramble. On the other hand, Bush consistently gave very powerful answers only to see he still had time left to fill, which he filled by rambling aimlessly and diluting the power he opened with.

Today's Tea Party seems to have taken all of this to the extreme. Strip out all semblance of anything even resembling intelligence and just focus on emotion - especially the emotion of "The establishment sucks!". It's practically the Republican equivalent of the hippie movement.
 


BobG said:
Today's Tea Party seems to have taken all of this to the extreme. Strip out all semblance of anything even resembling intelligence and just focus on emotion - especially the emotion of "The establishment sucks!". It's practically the Republican equivalent of the hippie movement.

If the Tea Party was a highly-organized movement with a central leadership, I'd agree, but they are not. They are very disorganized. Being this way, they do not have any highly in-depth, detailed policy ideals that they stand for and have outlined. Instead the movements forming the "Tea Party" are united around some simple principles and views:

1) That government is too large

2) That Washington is broken, filled with entitlement-minded elitists who have no connection to real America and no one there is listening to the American people

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism
 


Ivan Seeking said:
I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP. While the Tea Party wants to claim the Independents, and while they help to fuel the anti-incumbent fervor, in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger. The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.

I had to laugh when I saw that, just after winning the the Republican nomination, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, caused the Republicans to run for cover. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

I think that question is a bit loaded. It's perfectly okay to allow private businesses to refuse service to whomever they want. The basis for the refusal, however, is the important element.

In other words; should private businesses be allowed to refuse service to a black person? Absolutely. Should service be refused because that person is black? Absolutely not. Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.
 


Dembadon said:
I think that question is a bit loaded. It's perfectly okay to allow private businesses to refuse service to whomever they want. The basis for the refusal, however, is the important element.

In other words; should private businesses be allowed to refuse service to a black person? Absolutely. Should service be refused because that person is black? Absolutely not. Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.
That still misses the Paul's point, which is, does the federal government have the authority to make
such a (loathsome) act illegal under the 14th amendment, and even it does, should it?
 

Similar threads

News 9/12 Grassroots movement or Fox News movement?
  • Wax
  • · Replies 6 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
News What Defines the Ideological Divisions Within the Tea Party Movement?
  • jduster
  • · Replies 51 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
News Views of Congress, tea party reach new low in poll
  • Evo
  • · Replies 43 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
News Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?
  • Winzer
  • · Replies 75 ·
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
75
News Boston Tea Party Activists Were Terrorists
  • klimatos
  • · Replies 41 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41