FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #73: “Politics is about overspending and vote-buying while getting some poor dumb bastard to pay for it.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 5th, 2011

Washington is Show Business for the Ugly

The founding of America heralded the end of aristocratic rule.  And this is a problem.  For aristocrats.  Those who feel they’re better than everyone else.  Especially those who aspire greatness, and wealth, through political office.  Such as Liberal Democrats.  And RINO Republicans.  Those who like to mingle in the world of the beautiful people.  Rubbing shoulders with the fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Attending the best parties.  Meeting the best people.  Eating the best food.  Drinking the best booze.  It’s a beautiful life.  The only problem is the price of admission.  You have to be rich and/or talented to get in.  And rich and talented aspiring politicians aren’t.

At least, not at first.  But politics offers them that opportunity.  Rush Limbaugh said Washington is show business for the ugly.  There may be a lot of truth in that.  You see, the beautiful people are, well, beautiful.  That’s their ticket to celebrity and fame.  And access to that beautiful life.  From movie stars being discovered sitting at a drug store counter to talentless reality stars.  Being attractive can be a shortcut to fame.  Beautiful people go the front of the line at the best clubs.  And often get a free pass in.  Because people want to be around beautiful people.  Even if they’re unknown.  That’s the power of being beautiful.  Which can be a problem for the beautifully challenged.

Of course, having talent is a way around not being beautiful.  Those nerds in high school went on to be millionaires.  Even billionaires.  Those geeky guys that never had a date in high school now have the most beautiful women chasing them.  For their money, of course.  But they are still chasing them.  And they learned something.  It’s not important to be beautiful.  As long as you’re rich.  Because it turns out that money can buy a lot of happiness.  Sure it’s the shallow and superficial kind.  But you’ll be at the best parties.  Rubbing shoulders with the other fabulously rich.  And A-list celebrities.  That’s a pretty sweet life.  And one that many covet.  But what do you do if you’re neither beautiful nor talented?  You, of course, go into politics.

You have to be a Real Good Liar

Those with no talent or ability can try to trade in on their appearance.  If they’re considered too ‘ugly’ to get by on their looks alone then they can enter a career of lying.  Politics.  Where you say you care about the little people and promise to give them things if only they will vote for them.  You do anything to get into office.  Because once you do you’re set for life.  Salary and benefits for Congress people are better than anything you’ll get working in the private sector.  And the retirement package is insane.  You live the rest of your life with a large percentage of your Congressional salary.  And you keep a lot of the perks from your Congressional days.  In other words, being elected to office is a ticket into a new aristocracy.  Just like in days of old.  And once you’re in people will treat you as if you are better than everyone else.

It’s a fairytale life.  And a lot of people want it.  People that you have to beat in some election.  Often without the help of any voter election fraud if you’re just starting your political career.  So you have to be a real good liar.  You have to suspend all reason and logic.  And promise, promise, promise.  Even with astronomically high deficits you promise to give people more if they vote for you.  Because you have a plan.  You’re going to shift the tax burden to those who can afford it.  Go after the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And cut corporate welfare.  With these savings you will be able to spend more on the poor and disadvantaged.  It’s a powerful sales pitch.  And it works well if they are not well educated (thank you public education) and don’t understand taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy.  Also, the more poor and disadvantaged they are the better.  Because the rich and middle class aren’t going to vote higher taxes on themselves.  Only the poor and disadvantaged (who are not well educated on taxes and their impact on the job-creating economy) will continuously vote to raise taxes on those who have more than they do.  Classic class warfare.  So it’s important that your programs fail.  Because you don’t want to help these people.  Not if you’re relying on them to help you sustain your better life.

Of course having a large percentage of the population dependent on your government policies and programs isn’t enough.  It will make the elections easier but it isn’t going to pay the bills.  These people are, after all, a burden.  They consume a lot of the tax base.  But most don’t pay any taxes.  Sure, you can live a comfortable life on a Congressional salary.  But there’s so much more to be had out there with the power to write laws and regulations.  When you can decide winners and losers in the economy you wield considerable influence.  And that influence is worth something.  Especially to crony capitalists.  Who look to profit not by competing in the free market.  But by having friends in high places.  Friends who will reward them well in exchange for a little cash and perks thrown their way.  And by a little I mean a lot.  Of course the good politician makes sure these crony capitalists are only profitable with their help.  Because the less they need their special favors the less of their cash and perks find their way to Washington.

Higher Tax Rates ultimately Reduce the Amount of tax Dollars Collected

Politics is nothing more than a ballet of leverage.  Who has pull.  Who can use it best.  And who is willing to screw the little guy.  You use the poor and disadvantaged to win elections.  But you do everything within your power to keep them poor and disadvantaged so they can keep helping you win elections (we’ve been fighting a war to end poverty since LBJ‘s Great Society of the 1960s and we haven’t won it yet which should tell you something).  You use crony capitalism to enhance your wealth and wellbeing.  But you make sure this corporate welfare only serves one person.  You.  So you don’t necessarily want to see your crony capitalists doing well in the free market.  Far from it.  For if they can do well without your help they’re not going to stay your bitch.

So, to succeed in politics you need to do a couple of things.  You need to redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who don’t.  And form mutually exclusive relationships with crony capitalists.  We call it tax and spend.  And legislation.  They use the progressive income tax system to spread the wealth.  And write legislation that rewards their friends while punishing the enemies of their friends.  Taxes for revenue.  And legislation for power and wealth. 

But the revenue is never enough (as the deficits show).  Despite the progressive income tax system.  Where, in the name of fairness, the richer you are the more taxes you pay.  And the poorer you are the fewer taxes you pay.  But keeping as many people as poor as possible has its drawbacks.  The more poor there are the fewer there are paying taxes.  Which requires raising taxes on the non-poor.  The rich.  And the middle class.  Which has a real big side affect.  After a point, higher taxes reduce economic activity.  It’s the law of diminishing returns.  The higher tax rates ultimately reduce the amount of tax dollars collected.  So they consider other sources of revenue besides the income tax.  Money that is ‘outside’ of the economy.  Money that’s ‘parked’.  Untouched by income and excise taxes.  Such as estates of the dead.  And the wealth of the living.  There is an estate tax.  But no wealth tax.  Yet.  And, oh, do they want one.  Like in some European countries.  Because the rich don’t work.  They invest.  They don’t live on income.  They live on ‘investment’ income.  Capital gains.  Which is taxed at a lower capital gains rate.  Not the confiscatory rate of the progressive tax system.  Worse, as the government sees it, they only pay taxes on their capital gains.  Not their capital.  Their wealth.  And that’s a lot of money parked outside the economy that they want a piece of.

Something ‘outside’ the Economy to Tax

But a wealth tax has its problems, too.  You can move wealth.  If you tax wealth the wealthy will just invest their wealth elsewhere.  Like rich Europeans have done.  No.  They need something better.  Something the rich can’t escape.  And, ideally, finding something ‘outside’ the economy to tax.  Something like the Las Vegas model.  The casinos in Vegas bring a lot of money into the city.  The casinos are very profitable.  And Las Vegas and Nevada profit well, too (before the subprime mortgage crisis, at least).  Many other cities have tried to cash in on these fat profits but have failed to match the success of Vegas.  Caesars Windsor is doing well because it is in a smaller city across the border from a larger metropolitan area.  A metropolitan area with a lot of people.  And if just a fraction of them crossed the border it would swell the Windsor economy.  And like Vegas, Windsor does have a little vice to offer.  A bit of the naughty that you can’t get in that metro area.  For the good people of Metro Detroit have a higher legal drinking age.  They don’t have gentlemen’s clubs with nude dancers that serve alcohol.  And prostitution is illegal.  But all of these things (to a certain extent) are available in Windsor.  Just across the border.  Where, like Vegas, what happens in Windsor stays in Windsor.  Plus Windsor has an active nightlife.  Safe streets.  And a touch of an international flair.  The money poured into Windsor.  When Detroit finally added three casinos to get a little piece of that action that’s what they got.  A little piece.  The casinos were money makers.  But Detroit did not enjoy the boom that Windsor did.  Why?

Windsor did well for the same reason Vegas did well.  They’re both destination cities.  People travel to them.  They’ll fly there for a vacation.  Or cross an international border for a night out.  These are the people spending and losing their money in these casinos.  Not the good people of Windsor.  Or the good people of Las Vegas.  It’s outside money coming into the local economy.  Which is a net add.  The problem Detroit has is that it’s not a destination city.  It’s cold in the winter.  It’s suffered blight and decline.  And still has a reputation as being unsafe.  People aren’t going there.  It’s just the people already there that are gambling away their money.  These people are just going out to dinner less.  Going out to fewer movies.  Going out to fewer clubs.  Etc.  The problem in Detroit is that there is no new money coming into the economy.  All that casino money was just local money people were spending someplace else in the local economy.

Despite what they say, politicians know high taxes don’t stimulate economic growth.  It just transfers money from one person to another to spend.  There’s no net gain.  Like in Detroit with their casinos.  They would love a wealth tax.  But the rich could easily avoid it by moving their wealth.  But there is something that even they can’t avoid.  Taxing energy.  Rather, the emissions created by energy.  In the name of combating global warming.  Cap and trade.  Emissions trading.  Making people buy ‘permits’ for their emissions.  That can be traded.  Creating a permit exchange similar to a stock exchange.  Governments forcing private entities to buy ‘shares’ of pollution.  Brilliant.  Because you can’t escape the use of energy.  It is a part of our very existence.  So you can’t escape it.  And the Europeans have taken it to the Las Vegas model.  The European Union (EU) will force international airlines flying into EU airspace to pay in essence an extralegal tax.  Which is the greatest kind of tax a government can use.  A tax whose full benefits will go to their constituents.  But a not a dime of which their constituents will pay.  If you put this to a referendum, the people will pass it.  Because people will have everything to gain.  And nothing to lose.  Other than the trade war such an extralegal tax would most likely provoke.  And the accompanying economic crash and withering recession.

In the mean time, though, the ruling elite, the new aristocracy, will be able to maintain their privileged lives.  Mingling with the beautiful people.  The fabulously rich.  And A-List celebrities.  Which is really all they care about anyway.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Save the Economy or Save the Planet, it’s One or the Other

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2011

Pushing back against the EPA’s Assault against Business

With the economy in the toilet where it will probably remain for a long time to come, a lot of people have given up on environmentalism.  They take a look around them and see that things look pretty good.  Environmental-wise.  In fact, it’s a regular paradise compared to all the environmentalists’ alarmist predictions from a decade or two ago.  Which look rather silly today.  Children in the UK will no longer know what snow is.  The overwhelming stench of dead fish decaying on America’s beaches (killed by warming ocean temperatures).  Flooded coastal areas due to melting of Arctic ice.  None of it happened as predicted.  We got all worked up over nothing.  That’s why environmentalism is more of a young person’s game.  Because after you lived through 20-30 years of failed predictions, you tend to grow a little skeptical.  Especially during times of high unemployment.

That’s why a lot of people don’t give a rat’s rear end about global warming now.  They want a job.  And the way they see it, all this environmentalist nonsense is killing the job market.  And the Republican-controlled House they’re starting to push back on the job killer itself.  The EPA (see Soaring emissions posted 6/2/2011 on The Economist).

The Republicans’ chief concern is the EPA’s authority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. But more broadly they worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health. They point to a slew of new rules about industrial boilers, cooling water at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, and emissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicals from smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, will have a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. “Even God,” says Joe Barton, a Republican congressman, “couldn’t meet some of the ozone standards.”

…The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting to raise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwise uncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on the economy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

The Obama administration has.  And is.  Trying to raise the price of ‘cheap’ energy to promote their green energy initiatives.  It’s on record they want gasoline to cost as much in the U.S. as it does in Europe (as in $8/gallon).  To make more costly and shorter-range electric cars easier to sell.  And they want to do the same with cheap fossil fuel-produced electricity.  To make more costly and less reliable wind and solar generated electricity easier to sell.

EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage of hostility… The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefit analyses of all important regulations, in addition to submitting them for expert review and public comment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, including the ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to public health, the EPA reckons.

Expert review and comment?  By who?  It certainly isn’t the businesses affected by their regulations.  Who know exactly the costs their regulations will add.  No, they can’t be the experts.  Not when they are protesting the onerous costs these regulations are adding.

And the $30 in benefits for every dollar spent on pollution controls is a specious argument.  No one can know this.  It’s made up math based on fallacious assumptions and unrealistic projections.  Much like the math they used some 2-3 decades ago when they made all those alarmist global warming predictions that never came true.

Saving the Trees but Killing the Planet

We were saving the trees going to a paperless world thanks to the Internet.  Little did we know that we were killing the planet by saving those trees (see Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time? by Alex Roslin, for Post Media News, posted 6/3/2011 on The Vancouver Sun).

Ironically, despite the web’s green promise, this explosion of data has turned the Internet into one of the planet’s fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. The Internet now consumes two to three per cent of the world’s electricity…

The bulk of all this energy is gobbled up by a fast-growing network of huge “server farms” or data centres that form the backbone of the Internet. They are hush-hush facilities, some the size of five Wal-Marts, packed from floor to ceiling with tens of thousands of computers…

All those computers have a voracious appetite for energy, especially for cooling equipment to prevent overheating.

This means that every time you do an Internet search you’re releasing polluting carbon into the atmosphere.  Because the majority of our cheap and reliable electricity is produced with cheap and reliable fossil fuels.  And some of these server farms are fossil fuel beasts with voracious appetites.

Apple’s mega-facility is part of a cluster of gigantic new data centres coming on line in North Carolina that are powered largely by cheap and highly polluting coal power. Google has a 44,000-square-metre data centre in the state that eventually will consume an estimated 60 to 100 MW. Facebook has a 28,000-square-metre facility under construction there that will eat up 40 MW.

Greenpeace calls the three facilities “North Carolina’s dirty data triangle.” Coal, it says, is the most polluting of all fossil fuels and the world’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by the dirty coal power of the past,” the environmental group said in a report card on the IT sector in April, titled How Dirty is Your Power?

There is a reason why we use so much coal.  And it’s not because we hate the planet.

North Carolina offers industrial customers one of the lowest electricity rates in the U.S. — 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus the U.S. average of 6.7 cents.

It just so happens that the state’s electricity is also some of the dirtiest in the country. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s electricity comes from coal.

And here is the tradeoff between global warming and jobs.  Coal is dirty but cheap.  Which keeps electricity costs down.  Which attracts business.  Like in North Carolina.  Other locations lost these new jobs because their environmental policies made energy more expensive in those locations.

The real solution, [Bill St. Arnaud, an engineer and green IT consultant in Ottawa] said, is for governments to impose measures like carbon taxes and emissions caps that make dirty energy less attractive financially.

“The planet is warming up, and it’s going to get very bad. We need a price on carbon. It’s the only way to get people to move off coal because coal is currently so cheap,” he said.

The environmentalist want to raise the cost of electricity.  So cheap coal-generated electricity isn’t so cheap.  So business have no less costly solution.  Thus guaranteeing their costs will rise.  Making them look elsewhere to cut costs.  As in not hiring people.  Or laying them off.  All the while passing these higher costs onto the consumer.  Increasing their utility costs.  As well as the goods they purchase.  Leaving them with less disposable income.  Thus reducing economic activity.  With them buying less business will sell less.  Which means they won’t expand.  Instead, they’ll probably cut their production.  And lay off people.

However you look at it, increasing the cost of energy ends badly for the consumer.  And that’s exactly what the EPA wants to do.  And the Obama administration.  So they can implement their green initiatives.  And, of course, adding a tax on carbon, the most abundant byproduct of energy production, provides a lot of revenue for an overextended federal government.  Which is, I’m sure, just a coincidence.  And by coincidence I mean it’s the driving force behind all green initiatives.  Increasing tax revenue.

The EU wants to Emission Tax the World’s Airlines

But this is not an American phenomenon.  It’s even bigger in the European Union.  And they’re looking to export their regulations to other nations (see Airlines, EU in escalating trade row over emissions by David Fogarty and Pete Harrison posted 6/5/2011 on Reuters).

Global airlines attacked the European Union on Sunday over its plan to force them into the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, as the EU vowed to stand firm against threats of retaliation…

The EU will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 1 next year. The system forces polluters to buy permits for each tone of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.

You want to fly to the EU?  Well, that’s fine, but there’ll be an additional tax.  You see, we’re trying to save the planet.  And our treasury.  As these EU bailouts are getting expensive.  And don’t appear to be ending any time soon.

Airlines say the scheme will increase costs and comes at a time when fears are growing about a faltering global economy, which could slash industry profit expectations…

“The last thing that we want to see is a trade war,” said Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association. The EU had to heed a “growing chorus of countries strongly opposing an illegal extraterritorial scheme.”

“We have to absolutely avoid this because the risk of retaliation for Europe that is in survival mode would be the kiss of death,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of IATA’s annual meeting in Singapore.

The younger people today may not know what a trade war is.  It’s when one country raises the price of doing business in your country to every other country trying to do business in your country.  This is to protect the higher-priced domestic industries.  By removing lower-priced consumer alternatives.  When countries retaliate by doing the same you get a trade war.  And it is the consumer who suffers.  Because everything they buy becomes more expensive.  Oh, and it was a trade war that caused the Great Depression.

Under the scheme, the aviation sector will receive 213 million carbon permits, called EU Allowances (EUAs) in 2012 and then 209 million from 2013 to 2020, representing the cap. As many as 82 percent of them will be given free to airlines, meaning most of the rest will have to be bought from the market.

With six months before the sector joins the ETS, opposition is growing.

A China Southern executive has said the China Air Transport Association is preparing to sue the EU over the issue, a Chinese media report said.

“The opposition is broad,” said Andrew Herdman, Director-General of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, which represents 15 airlines such as Cathay, Japan Airlines and Singapore Airlines…

China says Europe should adjust the ETS to reflect the differences between rich and poor countries, while Vijay Mallya, chairman of India’s Kingfisher Airlines, said he could not accept it.

The EU may know what’s best for the planet.  And their bank.  But the world doesn’t appear that it will sit back and transfer sovereignty and money to them without a protest.  Or a fight.  Perhaps even a trade war.  Which would be a bad thing as much of the world tries to pull itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it would be a terrible shame for history to repeat itself on that score.  For one Great Depression was quite enough.

Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading kills Jobs and crashes Economies

Green energy initiatives are just a cover for massive tax increases.  For desperate nations who can’t control their spending.  That’s why nations everywhere are fighting against carbon taxes and trading.  They see the cost to business.  And the jobs they will kill.  It’s not that they want to kill the planet.  They just don’t want to subsidize another nation’s financial problems.  Or see their own economies crash.  Which it will under a carbon taxing/trading scheme.

Environmental policies and economic activity are a trade off. You advance one by reducing the other.   Which makes advancing environmental policies during recessionary times difficult.  Because it’s one thing to save the planet when you have a job.  But another when you don’t.  At such a time, yes, you care about the planet.  But you care more about your family.  You think to yourself that the planet can take care of itself.  It survived ice ages.  Cataclysmic meteorite collisions.  Huge volcanic explosions.  Droughts.  Fires.  Hurricanes.  Tornadoes.  Earthquakes.  Plagues.  And if it can survive all that, you think it’ll be able to survive your having a job so you can support your family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2010

WARNING.  The following contains some explicit language and sexual content and may be inappropriate to some.

“F*ck you.”  “Ass h*le.”  “You’re mother is a whore.”

We all probably heard these before.  Directed at us.  At the end of an argument.  Which means we’ve argued well.  For when the invectives fly, you’ve won the argument.

 A good sales man would never call your mother a whore.  Instead, if you say ‘no’, they come up with other reasons for you to say ‘yes’.  They believe they can get you to see things their way.  And often do.  Not so when it comes to politics.  Especially if you’re arguing with a liberal.

A lot of liberals are liberals for no good reason.  Calling yourself a liberal is just a way to feel good about yourself, to make you feel more enlightened and smarter than non-liberals.  But most are not as smart or enlightened as they would like to think they are. 

I met an old friend for lunch.  She was once a liberal but has since moved to where the bulk of the country is.  Center-right.  She brought an old friend of hers with her.  From her liberal past.  A single mom.  Who successfully juggled career and motherhood.  Did it well, too.  And, of course, my dear old friend introduced me as a conservative.  And she said it with a smirk.

I have long since stopped discussing politics outside my inner circle.  Political and philosophical debate is the raison d’être there.  It’s what we do for intellectual fun.  While drinking some fine single malt.  A time and a place for everything.  And casual conversation is neither the time nor place for politics. 

So I was polite and behaved.  But they kept poking the bear.  Laughing and enjoying themselves.  So, I thought, fine.  Let’s discuss politics.  The current subject was George W. Bush.  Not my favorite president.  Not all that conservative when it comes to the spending.  But I respect him.  I understand his philosophical basis, much of which I agree with.  But there are things I don’t like about him.  So I asked for some specifics.  To make it a fair debate.  Why was he a bad president?  Because he’s an idiot, she said.  Yeah, I asked, but what specifically has he done that you think was idiotic?  Have you heard him speak, she asked.  I mean, she said, he sounds like an idiot.  And so went the conversation.

I pressed for specifics.  Didn’t get any.  Then the name calling started.  I wasn’t being very tolerant of her views.  I replied, but you haven’t told me your views.  All I know is that you think Bush is an idiot.  Apparently, that should have sufficed.  Luckily, we had already consumed a bottle of wine by then so it was easy to change the subject and forget our little dustup.

And that’s a common experience I have with liberals.  They know everything.  But can’t explain anything.  I’m then called intolerant for not seeing things their way while they refuse to consider my arguments for seeing things my way.  In politics, people believe they base their opinions on a sound philosophical basis.  Most times they don’t.  They just heard something funny on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.  And they repeat it.  That’s why, when pressed for specifics, they can’t give any.  And then the name calling ensues.

DO YOU KNOW what ‘tea bagging’ is?  If you’re a gay man, you probably do.  At least, one of the meanings.  It’s a sex act in the gay community.  It’s when a dominate man lowers his genitals into a submissive man’s mouth.  It gets its name from the similarity of lowering a tea bag into a cup of hot water.  It’s a popular sex act, for it has migrated into the heterosexual community.  Without the BDSM aspects, though.  But when people call someone a ‘tea bagger’, it generally refers to the homosexual act.  Because of the degrading/humiliation aspects of the BDSM role playing.

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN.  They were discussing the new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party movement.  It’s called this in honor of those who stood up against the mercantilist policies of the British Empire who said you can drink whatever tea you’d like as long as it is British East India Company tea.  Good tea, yes, but it was British tea.  The Americans were taking a stand on principle.  And tossed the tea overboard. 

Carrying on with the ‘tea’ theme from the colonial period, Tea Party people used tea bags on signs and sent them in to Congress as a symbol of protest.  Some people used the symbol with a sexual undertone.  But most people didn’t.  Most didn’t know of the sexual act.  Well, these people, using tea bags as a symbol of their protest, were dubbed ‘tea baggers’.  And those familiar with the sexual act used it to attack and ridicule those people in the Tea Party movement.  When David Gergen said the Republicans were trying to find their voice, Anderson Cooper made the crude statement, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

So much for your objective journalist.

Sure, the Tea Party people were worthy of such contempt for the things they stand for.  By the way, do you know what they stand for?  It’s easy to find out.  I did.  They adopted a 10 item agenda called Contract from America.  Here’s a bulleted list:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law.
2. Reject emissions trading.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget.
4. Simplify the tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy.
9. Reduce Earmarks.
10. Reduce Taxes.

Yeah, I know.  This is crazy talk.  Do you realize what would happen if these ‘tea baggers’ got their way?  Everyone would probably live happily ever after.

FOR TOLERANT PEOPLE, liberals can be pretty intolerant of anyone who doesn’t think like them.  And they can get pretty nasty, attacking people instead of the issues.  The Conservatives are yearning to debate the issues.  But they get invective instead.  Why?  Because it’s the last refuge for someone who has already lost the argument.  Name calling.  Because it’s all they have.  They can’t beat you with the facts.  So they pummel you with personal attacks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,