Shakin_Haitian: I thought they called themselves teabaggers because they covered themselves in teabags, were throwing teabags into puddles, and mailing wet teabags to representatives.

They were initially calling themselves Tea Partiers.
I like the term "teatard," because it preserves the link with paultards.

slothMD: Shakin_Haitian: I thought they called themselves teabaggers because they covered themselves in teabags, were throwing teabags into puddles, and mailing wet teabags to representatives.

They were initially calling themselves Tea Partiers.
I like the term "teatard," because it preserves the link with paultards.

I heard teabaggers waaay before I heard tea party. I could be wrong but I saw "teabagging for jesus" long before I heard them call themselves the tea party. Either way, I'm going to call them teabaggers no matter what.

Whole bunch more people got blowed up today in Iraq.

Soup4Bonnie: Whole bunch more people got blowed up today in Iraq.

Iraq? What is that?

Shakin_Haitian: Iraq? What is that?

Something the media has mostly forgotten.

There's was also this bit of depressing news that has happened 8 or 9 years too late:

Kennedy agreed that many of the "incriminating statements" provided by the government lacked "corroborating evidence," that "there is serious question" about the accuracy of some of the evidence against Latif and that Latif "has presented a plausible alternative story to explain his travel."

At this rate, we will have successfully determined which of the detainees is innocent and which are guilty in just a few more decades.

TBA

"Exactly what goal are you looking to accomplish with this topic?"

My only goal in here is to try to debate politics with other people.

Right now I am trying to debate what a "fiscally responsible" policy for this government would look like.

Is it better for our government to spend money it does not have or is it better for our government to only spend money that it does have?

Is it better for our government (or the people) to have high taxes or is it better to have low taxes?

I'm willing to get as detailed as anyone wants but I'm just here to debate politics.

What is your "goal" with this topic?

dottedmint, I'll review what I've observed in the forty years or so that I've been watching politics:

1. Democrats tax and spend.

2. The GOP loves spending but doesn't want to pay the taxes to support it.

3. Third parties have no chance.

4. No one really cares about the Deficit; it is only brought up as a talking point when someone disagrees with the way monies are spent.

5. None of the above are likely to change any time soon.

Am I disillusioned? You bet. I am freed from the illusions that my vote can somehow shrink the bloated US Government and that debating the same in an internet forum is a worthwhile activity. I have more meaningful and productive things to think about and do.

May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, have the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

^ This helps keep my blood pressure relatively low for a person my age.

I do have opinions about matters that are changeable.

To Be Announced: I do have opinions about matters that are changeable.

Your socks and your underwear?

Soup4Bonnie: To Be Announced: I do have opinions about matters that are changeable.

Your socks and your underwear?

You are assuming I change those.

To Be Announced: You are assuming I change those.

No, just that they are changeable.

slothMD: To Be Announced: You are assuming I change those.

No, just that they are changeable.

You two haven't seen my underwear.

To Be Announced: You two haven't seen my underwear.

Has it not at least changed color?

TBA "I do have opinions about matters that are changeable."

So, if you do not think something is changable you don't have an opinion on it?

Wow.

Must be nice.

Iran launches a nuclear missile against this country.

You don't have an opinion about it because you don't think it is changable.

dottedmint: Iran launches a nuclear missile against this country.

You don't have an opinion about it because you don't think it is changable.

That doesn't work with me. Try another one.

TBA you said,

"I do have opinions about matters that are changeable."

so that would suggest that if you did not feel a matter was changeable you would also not have an opinion about that matter.

So what issue do you have opinions on?

What issues do you think are changeable?

dottedmint: so that would suggest that if you did not feel a matter was changeable you would also not have an opinion about that matter.


I believe you knew I meant that I do not discuss things that cannot be changed because it is pointless.

So what issue do you have opinions on?

So that would suggest that I only have opinions on one issue.

See? That's not argument nor debate. Just noise.

When I have something to say, you'll see it.

So if you do not think something can be changed you do not bother discussing it?

Seems like a poor attitude to have.

'It can't be changed so I'm not even going to discuss it'

Of course if enough people feel like something cannot be changed it will never be changed.

dottedmint: So if you do not think something can be changed you do not bother discussing it?

Seems like a poor attitude to have.

'It can't be changed so I'm not even going to discuss it'

You call it a poor attitude. I call it a pragmatic one.


Of course if enough people feel like something cannot be changed it will never be changed

The subject was bloated government. If you think you are going to help solve that in the Fark Politics Forum, go right ahead. I'll watch.

You sound young.

Maybe someone here can answer this. There's a term that describes communal neglect, where all parties know they should do something to prevent a negative outcome yet nobody does anything to stop that bad thing from happening. Like when there's a few parties who are using a resource that is being depleted and they all know they should slow down their usage but it's in no one interest to do so which leads to the collapse of that resource.

Can it really be called a movement? At best it appears to be a fractured platform loosely nailed to two planks; smaller government, lower taxes, without an idea on how to practically achieve either.

And open letter to Drew about trolls:

The trolls are getting out of hand. It's becoming damn near impossible to have a substantive discussion which, believe it or not, is a big reason that people click on the comments for a serious story.

I, personally, have just about had it. Yes, I make (typically bad) jokes, frequently post off-topic, I "threadjack" (whatever the definition of that is today), and I hammer on people that make poor arguments or inaccurate statements. Most farkers do these things and not only do they not diminish the fark experience, they usually enhance it.

But trolling is another matter entirely. And while there may have once been the occasionally entertaining troll, the shear volume of troll posts in every.single.politics thread is overwhelming anything meaningful being posted. What was once a relative novelty, has become de rigueur, and is now hardly ever entertaining and is thoroughly tiresome and boring, which makes Fark less interesting and boring too. When it appears that the mods are not only looking the other way when it comes to trolls, but actively intervening on behalf of trolls, it would appear that fark not only condones trolling, but is trying to make it even more prevelant.

I'll be abstaining from fark for the rest of the day as a small token of my disdain for these fark sanctioned trolls. Seriously, the trolling has gotten to the point that that following a fark politics thread is becoming completely pointless and unenjoyable. And if it keeps up this way, I'm not going to have use for my F5 key on my visits to fark which are already becoming less frequent. I know you need traffic to keep this site going, but given that I know that many other people feel this way too, I think we've the reached point of diminishing returns when it comes to trolls, and they're going to start driving traffic away, if they haven't already. So if you're not going to stop punishing trolls, at the least the mods should not be intervening in the public flogging that the trolls so richly deserve.

Befuddled: Maybe someone here can answer this. There's a term that describes communal neglect, where all parties know they should do something to prevent a negative outcome yet nobody does anything to stop that bad thing from happening. Like when there's a few parties who are using a resource that is being depleted and they all know they should slow down their usage but it's in no one interest to do so which leads to the collapse of that resource.

Tragedy of the Commons.

slothMD: Tragedy of the Commons.

Thank you, not being able to find that term had been driving me buggy for a while.

Karma Curmudgeon: And open letter to Drew about trolls:

The trolls are getting out of hand. It's becoming damn near impossible to have a substantive discussion which, believe it or not, is a big reason that people click on the comments for a serious story.

I, personally, have just about had it. Yes, I make (typically bad) jokes, frequently post off-topic, I "threadjack" (whatever the definition of that is today), and I hammer on people that make poor arguments or inaccurate statements. Most farkers do these things and not only do they not diminish the fark experience, they usually enhance it.

But trolling is another matter entirely. And while there may have once been the occasionally entertaining troll, the shear volume of troll posts in every.single.politics thread is overwhelming anything meaningful being posted. What was once a relative novelty, has become de rigueur, and is now hardly ever entertaining and is thoroughly tiresome and boring, which makes Fark less interesting and boring too. When it appears that the mods are not only looking the other way when it comes to trolls, but actively intervening on behalf of trolls, it would appear that fark not only condones trolling, but is trying to make it even more prevelant.

I'll be abstaining from fark for the rest of the day as a small token of my disdain for these fark sanctioned trolls. Seriously, the trolling has gotten to the point that that following a fark politics thread is becoming completely pointless and unenjoyable. And if it keeps up this way, I'm not going to have use for my F5 key on my visits to fark which are already becoming less frequent. I know you need traffic to keep this site going, but given that I know that many other people feel this way too, I think we've the reached point of diminishing returns when it comes to trolls, and they're going to start driving traffic away, if they haven't already. So if you're not going to stop punishing trolls, at the least the mods should not be intervening in the public flogging that the trolls so richly deserve.

See, this is the thing that is interesting. Fark wasn't invented in 2008 which was right around the time the trolling started to get really bad. In other words, Fark was able to survive to get to that point, so why increase the trolling, especially since I believe Fark lost traffic right after that?

I agree with what you say. no, this doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with someone should be punished. However, the modding here is very VERY inconsistent and selective, leaning on protecting the trolls. In the end, the problem is really the admins and mods that populate the Politics tab (note, i said the ones in the politics tab, not ALL admins/mods), either by pushing stupid flamebait lying headlines or deleting posts pointing out trolls but excusing the trolls and even encouraging them. Having a farker laugh at another farker's mother for dying took hours to deal with, but pointing out that the headlines were getting too flamebait and lying was deleted in minutes.

And just answer this then: if the 24hr wait time for new users to post was made specifically to stop spammers and trolls as said in the FARq, why did you change it to 6hrs? If that original policy was made only to stop them, then the only logical reasoning to decrease it significantly has to be that you now WANT more trolls and spammers.

And this isn't making Fark such a happy place where everyone is a friend of everyone else and no one disagrees with you. This is about stopping selective modding on users and excusing trolls, breaking your own TOS and then demanding others to follow it. You claim trolling is against the rules, so why do you continue to allow it from selective known trolling users? What, just because their attention whoring posts cause the thread post count to skyrocket and bring more traffic they are allowed to bypass the rules or be excused? If that's the case, then be honest about it. Just say 'If your trolling and TOS-breaking benefits Fark traffic, we will be lenient on you.' And if that's not the case, that's definitely the imagine you keep showing.

The people that I've met that are associated with this site are usually drunk, god bless them.

Soup4Bonnie: Can it really be called a movement?


If there is a great political problem-solving genius on the horizon, let's hope he/she doesn't come from this family.

NeverDrunk23:

Fark wasn't invented in 2008 which was right around the time the trolling started to get really bad.

n00b.

Sweet ooglymoogly, posts in the politics forum that are not a rehash of gay marrage talking points? Did I accidentally click on the Showbiz forum?

Trolling is like fishing...

They get their fishing license (Fark handle), and head directly to the lake (Fark.com), as soon as the Game Warden (modmin) lets them (6 hours, from what I hear). They choose what kind of tackle/bait to use (see guide below), and immediately cast into any school of fish (thread) where they think they will get a bite. Once they hook a couple of fish (normal Farkers), they then proceed to (usually) reel in their catch, while tugging the line to keep the fish on the line. Usually, multiple fish can latch onto a given bait at once. If the fish start wriggling off the hook (realizing what is happening to them), they give a large tug on the line, usually snapping it (going to extreme statements/measures to keep them hooked).

Handy guide to typical bait used:

1. spinner bait (images that draw your attention/reaction)
2. stink bait (blatant statement that is designed to draw hate)
3. bread crumbs (small, inconsistent statements that easily fall apart)
4. dynamite (read: thread-shiatting)
5. worms (unclear, slippery statements that are vastly ambiguous)
6. minnows (seemingly normal, but so small they won't catch that many at once)
7. spear gun (targeting one specific fish)

/my $.02
//YMMV
>///>slashie trout

So Obama is calling for spending $50Billion on infrastructure to try to stimulate the economy when almost a $trillion in spending hasn't done much (if anything) to stimulate the economy?

Many economists agree the $787 billion stimulus -- formally known as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act -- did soften the blow of the recession. The independent Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3 million jobs were saved.

........
On Monday, officials declined to put a dollar figure on the total amount of new spending in the transportation proposal, saying only that the $50 billion would be a significant percentage of the overall increase. The White House hopes to cover the costs by closing a series of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, they said.

Employing people to improve aging infrastructure nationwide while making sure the costs remain deficit neutral by closing loopholes exploited by monolithic corporations.

Quelle horreur !

I always love the term "created or saved" when it comes to jobs.

When Obama made that promise the total US employment was around 134 million. As of August total US employment was around 130 million. (a drop of 4 million?) So if we did not spend $787 billion, employment would have only been around 127 million?

Of course the whole claim that any specific number of jobs have been "saved" is more than a bit questionable. There has been some evidence that the "math" has been more than just a bit creative.

Link (new window)


"The White House hopes to cover the costs by closing a series of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, they said."

Right...

Raise taxes on companies. That would be a good thing for the economy.

Also if we would stop spending money on things that are not needed and made sure that our "aging infrastructure" was properly maintained we wouldn't need to increase spending.

Just in the state of WI the Feds are spending $800 million on a highspeed train that is NOT NEEDED. Link (new window) And that is just one project in one state.

And there isn't even majority support for it. (new window)

dottedmint: When Obama made that promise the total US employment was around 134 million. As of August total US employment was around 130 million. (a drop of 4 million?) So if we did not spend $787 billion, employment would have only been around 127 million?

Well it makes sense to give Obama props for saving those 3 million jobs while watching our employment contract by 4 million jobs, in as much as giving CEOs bonuses for only loosing 1b in a year that they expected 1.5b in loses. So by saying Obama has done a good job on jobs is giving a thumbs up to the bank bonuses from last year.

Saiga410 "Well it makes sense to give Obama props for saving those 3 million jobs while watching our employment contract by 4 million jobs"

1. That is assuming that 3 million jobs were actually "saved". I kinda sorta question if those figures are accurate.

2. Assuming the 3 million jobs number is accurate that would mean that each job that was saved cost the US taxpayer, $262,333.33 per job saved. (if I did my math correct) I'm not sure I would say that is money well spent.

I'm also not sure if you are trying to defend Obama by comparing him to CEOs or not...

dottedmint: I'm also not sure if you are trying to defend Obama by comparing him to CEOs or not...

Defend him... no not really. I am just trying to state the thinking needed to justify the props and to form a faux hypocrisy argument that is the mainstay of Obama backers attacks at his detractors.

This is probably off topic, I haven't viewed the thread, I just wanted to articulate this somewhere...

I saw a clip of John Boehner saying the other day that if his only option is to vote for a bill which lowers taxes for everybody but the top bracket, that "of course" he would do it. The count I just did on http://democrats.senate.gov/members/ shows 59 members caucusing with them. The Dems hold a strong majority in the house as I recall. Why have they not already produced a bill that does exactly what Boehner doesn't want and FORCE him to vote on it in the house. If the bill survives and hits the Senate they can then say (both on the floor and in campaign commercials) YOUR HOUSE MINORITY LEADER EVEN VOTED FOR THIS NYAH NYAH or if he didn't call him out on farking lying like you should have been all along. It will hopefully at that point be easier to scare at least one more person into voting with the Dems for the bill and hooray! The middle and lower classes get to keep our tax cuts and the rich can pay a bit more to the country they profess to patriotically love. How are the Republicans so damned unified in their opposition and why couldn't the Dems do that during the Bush era? This is all so very frustrating. I know it's supposedly harder for them to stay together due to their wide variety of views but c'mon, they could have done something about Iraq. Half the pussies who were afraid of getting voted out if they went against it got voted out anyways. It seems that Republicans own Democrats at politics whereas Democrats tend to have a superior platform but have the damndest time trying to articulate it...

I liked this article, too.

Pick your metric-median income, employment, stock market returns, economic growth- the low-tax '00s sucked. (new window)Yet proponents of keeping the tax cuts persist in making the argument: To avoid a repeat of the past decade, we must have the exact same tax policies as we did for the past decade.

and then there's this...

Republicans are threatening to raise hell if Democrats don't hold a straight vote, and that could serve as a distraction from the substantive issue at hand: whether Republicans would kill tax cuts for everyone, in order to secure tax cuts for the rich.


Personally I am for letting them all expire and starting to pay down this debt, but I do understand that we've been squeezing the middle-class for too long and a getting a breather before we get started would be nice.

Soup4Bonnie: The senators' comments come as rumors persist on Capitol Hill that Democratic leaders might try to extend the middle-class tax cuts before the election and wait to address the upper brackets in the lame duck. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said bill could be introduced as early as next week, according to reports.

Thank you for the relevant info. That is good news right there. It's a shame that it looks like these generic forums don't get much use, but... meh. :P

You're welcome. Here's another article you may find interesting:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=663500&f=23&p=0

I like how we're supposed to feel sorry for the guy because his taxes might go up a little meanwhile he owns a company that has 29 Wendy's with an average annual revenue of $42M who does everything he can to avoid paying more taxes.

There's also this fun bit:

But much of the research over the last two decades has found that increases in top tax rates can lead to an increase in the formation of small businesses, as wealthy individuals apparently begin start-ups to avail themselves of the more generous tax breaks offered to businesses.

"Higher taxes may lead individuals to seek self-employment because the opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance are greater," according to a report released this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which surveyed more than 20 studies on the effects of taxes on hiring.

So it would seem that instead of hurting small businesses (the engines of growth in this economy) as the Republicans claim, it may actually increase their number.

Or could it be that the small businesses Republicans really want to protect have amazingly deep pockets and aren't so small after all?

Among the firms Republicans want to protect from new taxes, according to research by House Democrats: The management team at Wall Street buyout firm Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts (KKR), which recently reported more than $54 billion in assets managed by 14 offices around the world. Auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, a household name with operations in more than 150 countries. And the Tribune Corp., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun.


On the other hand it takes two Republican senators to finally cross the aisle and vote for some real small business tax relief and better access to capital. Who are the two Republican Senators?

LeMieux, who is leaving the Senate this year but hopes to come back in a future campaign, and Voinovich, who is retiring, were the only Republicans joining Democrats on passage.

Senator Voinovich:

"I felt we could no longer wait to pass this legislation. We needed to do something now to help the economy get going."

It shouldn't be hard to see that the Republicans are doing everything to they can to block progress in this country. They are happy with the country in a recession because it makes the President and Congress look bad. The higher unemployment remains, the better their position come November. They have shut down the Senate by requiring a 60 vote majority on everything. They claim it is to prevent further deficit spending by Democrats, but almost all of the proposed legislation has a way to pay for itself and how nice of them to suddenly be concerned about deficit spending when a Democrat President is in the White House anyway.

Hate Democrats all you want, I certainly do many of them, but anyone supporting the Republicans these days is just hurting the country.

Think about it: They don't want the country to get better, at least until they can somehow claim credit for it. Disgusting.

I always love the whole "sock it to the rich" or "they need to pay their fair share" argument.

Could someone please tell me how much they should have to pay?

How much should someone who makes $40,000 a year have to pay in taxes and how much should someone who makes $400,000 a year have to pay in taxes?

I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay but I always find it interesting that people talk about tax cuts for the "middle class" while raising taxes on the rich.

At some point you are going to run out of "rich people" to tax...

Oh and also if people do not have any tax burden to worry about why on earth would they care if spending is ever under control? Just tax the rich more...

I know that it is not popular but I've been a long supporter of completely redoing the tax code and making it simple.

Everyone pays 10% (just to pick a number) of their income in taxes.

No loopholes.

Then everyone would be paying the same share in taxes.

Instead, the way it is, I'm not sure you can say everyone pays their fair share in taxes, when the top 5% of earners ($160,000 and above) pay 60% of federal income taxes.

Who pays what (new window)

Soup4Bonnie: You're welcome. Here's another article you may find interesting:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=663500&f=23&p=0

I like how we're supposed to feel sorry for the guy because his taxes might go up a little meanwhile he owns a company that has 29 Wendy's with an average annual revenue of $42M who does everything he can to avoid paying more taxes.

There's also this fun bit:

But much of the research over the last two decades has found that increases in top tax rates can lead to an increase in the formation of small businesses, as wealthy individuals apparently begin start-ups to avail themselves of the more generous tax breaks offered to businesses.

"Higher taxes may lead individuals to seek self-employment because the opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance are greater," according to a report released this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which surveyed more than 20 studies on the effects of taxes on hiring.

So it would seem that instead of hurting small businesses (the engines of growth in this economy) as the Republicans claim, it may actually increase their number.

Or could it be that the small businesses Republicans really want to protect have amazingly deep pockets and aren't so small after all?

Among the firms Republicans want to protect from new taxes, according to research by House Democrats: The management team at Wall Street buyout firm Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts (KKR), which recently reported more than $54 billion in assets managed by 14 offices around the world. Auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, a household name with operations in more than 150 countries. And the Tribune Corp., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun.


On the other hand it takes two Republican senators to finally cross the aisle and vote for some real small business tax relief and better access to capital. Who are the two Republican Senators?

LeMieux, who is leaving the Senate this year but hopes to come back in a future campaign, and Voinovich, who is retiring, were the only Republicans joining Democrats on passage.

Senator Voinovich:

"I felt we could no longer wait to pass this legislation. We needed to do something now to help the economy get going."

It shouldn't be hard to see that the Republicans are doing everything to they can to block progress in this country. They are happy with the country in a recession because it makes the President and Congress look bad. The higher unemployment remains, the better their position come November. They have shut down the Senate by requiring a 60 vote majority on everything. They claim it is to prevent further deficit spending by Democrats, but almost all of the proposed legislation has a way to pay for itself and how nice of them to suddenly be concerned about deficit spending when a Democrat President is in the White House anyway.

Hate Democrats all you want, I certainly do many of them, but anyone supporting the Republicans these days is just hurting the country.
Soup4Bonnie:
So it would seem that instead of hurting small businesses (the engines of growth in this economy) as the Republicans claim, it may actually increase their number.

Or could it be that the small businesses Republicans really want to protect have amazingly deep pockets and aren't so small after all?

On the other hand it takes two Republican senators to finally cross the aisle and vote for some real small business tax relief and better access to capital. Who are the two Republican Senators?

Interesting stuff. Things like this "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. " need to presented to the public more. The Democrats suck at getting a coherent, unified message in the media. Part of it is the fact that bits of info like that are boring to most people who don't follow politics closely, and on the flip side Fox can have more of a WWE style "News Entertainment" if you will that attracts lots of viewers because of its people TALKING LOUDLY, flashy colors, and emotional rhetoric. Glenn Beck is like a conspiracy theorist soap opera. On the subject of small businesses, my dad just went into business because he was out of work and had wanted to for a long time anyway. It would benefit him much more to, say, have his employees' health-care provided for by the government by taxing the upper bracket a bit more, than it would for him to see that brackets' taxes go down. He isn't making that kind of money, and if he ever is, he won't mind paying a little more so other people have the same opportunity.

My last post had some sort of spectacular html fail, lol. the big paragraph at the bottom is all I wrote. Now that I am making a second post I will mention something I forgot to in the other. I hope that we see a trend of the establishment Republicans trying to exact revenge on the Tea Party if they steal their thunder. A great example being Murkowski from Alaska who got beat in the primaries by a teabagger. If she were to go rogue and start voting with the Democrats for the lulz that would be beautiful. I also hope for continued sanity from the Senators from Maine. They're making me nervous with stuff like this http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId /13594/Default.aspx.

I feel like I need to make right with you, bubbaprog. You came into thread 1 way back when and I took exception to your internet manners. Foolish of me, really.

I've seen you since in many threads and I like most of what you have to say. NuttyBunny always took a shine to you too, so that counts for something.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I can be headstrong. Please accept my olive branch.

Interesting how protesters back down when confronted with the truth (new window)